I think that Laman's post, which currently resides here,
viewtopic.php?p=108364#p108364is also better placed in this thread to fit the context better. Anticipating the moderators' message movement, I am replying here.
Laman wrote:your habit of praising your books while critising others
To be fair, you should add that I praise also other books (calling a few classic Japanese problem collections "brilliant" or giving ++ ratings to a few English language books).
In this particular instance, I have reasons to criticise Japanese go books (other than the few brilliant problem books) and, in comparison, praise my go books:
- Most Japanese books teach by examples only or almost only. This makes it very hard to study for those wishing to learn by general advice. In comparison, all my books teach both general advice and examples. This allows the reader to choose whether he wants to learn from and apply general advice, examples or both.
- Most Japanese (or other Asian) books teach very little general contents. They teach so little general contents on average that I learnt, e.g., only about 30% of the principles in Joseki 1 Fundamentals from Asian literature and had to invent the remaining 70% by myself. Most of what Asian books teach as principles is not taught explicitly but hidden in a diagram or even in only one move of a diagram. For most of those hidden, implicit principles, I had to notice that there was something noteworthy and new to be learned and had derive and invent the implied, underlying principle by myself. (Those Asian books have only short diagram comments with relatively many move number references and the interesting move is typically not among them. Therefore, it does not require knowledge of Japanese or Chinese to realise that the texts do not explicitly teach what I could learn from those books nevertheless.)
- There are very many Japanese (or other Asian) books with trivial or little contents, e.g., books suitable only for elementary school pupils or a whole book on nothing else than nobi examples (and a next book only with turns). Apparently, Asian bookstores sell such books, but this generates a problem: it makes the good books even scarcer for the "advanced player" than they are.
- In the entirety of those Asian books I have read (over 500) or seen in bookstores (thousands), there was nothing even approximately similar to the quality of contents of my books. The closest one can get appears to be John Fairbairn's presentation of literally only a few Japanese books published since World War II and showing at least an attempt of working out some general advice contents. Including both my experience with Asian books and John's selective description of the creme de la creme, the best contents in Asian is worse or even pales in comparison to the contents of my books: a) A general study and solution of at least some types of capturing races? Non-existent. b) Advice for making the right extension: less frequently correct than my advice. c) General advice on principles for approach moves etc.: below 30% of what I describe, see above. d) Local move selection, unsettled group average, local positional judgement, strategic lines: almost non-existent. e) Number of principles per book: relatively small in even the best Asian books. f) Joseki dictionary structured by strategic choices: non-existent. g) Book explaining all beginners' mistakes (and not just some arbitrary selection): non-existent. h) Evaluation of influence: The best in Asian books is only symbolic number models, i.e., guesswork. Comparison: my books offer a few general(!) theories. (Where a few Asian books are still better is about topics Western writers have not or not sufficiently written about yet: e.g., using thickness.)
- Almost all Asian books do not invent general new theory, although many professionals have had decades of time for invention. Comparison: My books, which are written within a few years, also invent general new theory (such as the New Semeai Formula, general definitions of influence and thickness or the joseki evaluation theory).
I want to learn from books and also from Asian books, but they offer too little knowledge in comparison to the needed amount of knowledge. So why shouldn't I regularly criticise most Asian books? Criticising without saying how it can be done better is only half the value. So why shouldn't I regularly praise books (such as mine) that do it right? By doing neither, nothing will change and Asian literature will remain at an on average pity level of quality. (There is a sign of hope though: Books promoted by the KBA or KABA are, on average, at least much better than the average Asian book.)
Note that there are also very good books from other authors: Lessons in the Fundamentals, Tesuji (Davies), Attack and Defense, Strategic Concepts of Go. However, as good as they are, they do not belong to the "brilliant" category because they excel only at the aspect "improvement" and this only for rather limited ranges of players (e.g., how often do we hear "I am too strong for Attack and Defense") or there are other books with more related contents. So part of the reason why, in this context, I praised my books but not these other English books is that I consider them to be "only very good" but clearly "not brilliant". They do not make any attempt to teach much knowledge or a sufficient percentage of knowledge for a topic; they are more like teasers "improve 2 ranks as SDK and then notice that you need more literature". Compare this to what a brilliant book is: Igo Hatsuyoron. If you can solve its problems easily, then you have top pro level problem skill. If you have solved problem #120, then you are in heaven. This is a kind of quality "brilliant". Other kinds are important inventions or exceptional amount of generally applicable knowledge.
