cyclops wrote:I would love to see some more serious opposition against your theories.
Good theories do not generate opposition:) Anyway, it is easy to create test opposition by myself:
- Assume that either aspect "connection", "life", "territory", "view from both players' perspective" were unnecessary. See below for some counter-arguments.
- Assume that some earlier characterisation of "influence" would have been better. All you get is great shame for everybody else having overlooked the simplest possible and complete characterisation by the mentioned aspects from both players' views. In particular, I do not recall any clear, distinguished mentioning by others of connection and life as being essential components of influence. Various, varying and ambiguous aspects were mentioned. E.g., aji was one of them. Aji is a concept more difficult than the concepts connection or life. Not only is my theory better, but it is also simpler and clearer. Simpler because it relies on simpler basic concepts and clearer because it states the necessary concepts explicitly and even in terms of numbers.
- Assume that there could be any more accurate but still practical assessment of connectivity. You will have problems to find anything else. Possible number of omissions is the (only?!) second candidate but it has disadvantages: a) It was not designed specifically for connection. b) It does not explain negative degrees.
- Similar for life, except that (a) was given for possible number of omissions.
- Assume that "current territory" would not be the best basic kind of territory concept for describing influence. Some centuries later, maybe per-move value theory can become a better candidate. Even then, it is hard to find a more practical and more successful (see next point) description of a territory concept for describing influence. It is so practical because its determination is straightforward (for those players 3 kyu or stronger who do reasonably accurate positional judgement several times every game)
- Assume influence stone difference would not be the most successful influence model for josekis. Go ahead, invent some alternative and prove that it applies in more than 399 of 400 cases!
- Assume there could be a more practical first approximative method than mobility difference for determining almost precisely the player who has more center influence and how much more he has. Difficult! The method is so beautifully simple and elegant! Have you ever seen any professional becoming more "accurate" than saying "this player has the thicker position"? I have not. My method is more precise and the only method I have seen so far that attempts reasonable accuracy at all.
There is so little attractive alternative theory that I do not only not see opposition but seriously doubt whether anything else reaches at least half the quality of my influence theories, as far as defining influence is the objective. The best alternatives mentioned so far were highly partial descriptions such as very doubtful symbolic number alchemies (I would not even call it theories). My theories are essentially always applicable. Alternative theories had only limited scopes.
You ask for opposition? I ask for approval and application! Which other go theory is equally mighty, equally accurate AND applicable for human players? I have a candidate for mighty and applicable: Go Seigen's New Fuseki insight and practical proof that 3-3 and 4-4 are equally valid first corner plays. Unfortunately, that candidate does not offer any accuracy. There is another candidate fulfilling all three criteria: miai counting endgame theory in combination with basic knowledge on gote and sente (where sente is unambiguous). Even older theories of positional judgement pale without my explanations of influence because an accurate and correct description of influence was missing entirely. You can judge the quality of my theory by comparing it with other go theory. Please show all the equally good or better mighty, accurate and applicable theories (about any important go theory topic)! I want to learn! If you can't, then why ask for opposition? Can you appreciate theory lying before you as much as it deserves?
Influence like other concepts you define as having several components.
Are you surprised? I am not. Influence is not a basic concept but an intermediate strategic concept presuming lower level theory knowledge.
One position can count for more influence in some respect than another but less in other respects.
Yes. Surprised?:) This can be understood easily: Compare different influences by these types of walls:
1) surrounding territory, no effect for later strategy
2) outside wall adjacent to huge empty space, great effect for later strategy
3) ultimate thickness wall adjacent to neutral space, looks great but has no relevant effect for later strategy
The influence protects territory in different forms:
1) already made territory
2) potential additional territory
3) not at all
As you can see, territory is a parameter of influence! So it is necessary to allow influence to have different degrees in territory.
Similarly, connection and life can vary in degrees when considering influence (or thickness).
So there is no order relation.
Right. Go is not simple. E.g., in general, endgames also do not have a simple order relation.
Bill defines influence as a scalar. Scalars are much easier to handle and to compare.
Simplicity of a model is not evidence of its quality. A model must describe reality. The reality of influence is: It is not a scalar concept.
So if possible give me a scalar theory.
It is easy to refer to simplifications. My models "mobility difference" and "influence stone difference" are scalar theories. You can use either IF A SIMPLIFICATION IS SUFFICIENT for a purpose of application.
For in particular these applications, a simplification is sufficient:
1) determining the player with the greater (center) mobility during the middle game
2) influence evaluation as a part of the joseki evaluation theory
For in particular this application, a simplification is insufficient:
- comparing the quality of two different walls
And if possible give me a theory where influences of individual stones can simply be added.
More meaningfully, influences of both Black and White are considered; after forming a player's sum, one must then compare both colours. For a typical application, a difference of Black's and White's sums must also be formed. Supposing you can swallow that pill, I have given you simplifying theories with such a small calculation effort; in particular, "mobility difference" and "influence stone difference".
However, it would be a bad idea to pretend simplicity for applications where it is impossible.
What you can do in your games is a PARTIAL and ROUGH application of a mightier theory. E.g., you might consider only connectivity, presume a sufficiently good life degree and ignore different territory potentials. E.g., it is already very instructive to compare examples of outside joseki groups that are 0-, 1- versus *-connected. But..., as much as you might like simplicity, a solid wall with its *-connection can still be worse than a 0-connected wall if the former does not have an extension but has a negative life degree. A partial application gives you partial but insufficient insight!
And even more nice if oppenent's influence can be subtracted.
This is being done in my simplifying influence models "mobility difference" and "influence stone difference". It is nice but application is restricted because either model is simplifying.
Your influence definition [...] I am not convinced that it's compoundness is necessary.
See above. Each of connectivity, life and territory is a necessary component. Both players' views are necessary. All unnecessary aspects, which can be implied from the necessary aspects, I have omitted! Eye value, thick shape, aji, board division lines, traditional names for specific degrees, active versus passive, further strategic concepts etc.
