Easy: Provide factually correct reasons for your opinion. E.g., if you think that there are brilliant Japanese strategy books, then do not just express this as an opinion or just mention books which you consider brilliant, but explain well why, IYO, they are brilliant. Do not abuse "brilliant" (or "excellent") for what objectively can be called "good" or "very good" at best.



It is not a matter of belief but of evidence or missing evidence.

When you have, e.g., the opposite opinion, it is not an advertisement for Asian books but - so far - missing evidence for - as you might claim - superior Asian books (other than the few brilliant classic problem books, other than what either Western or Asian books do not discuss at all so far).

E.g., you say that methodical semeai liberty theory is not studied in Asia at all; this means that you are having difficulties claiming that Asian books on that topic would be superior; rather you claim that not studying methodical semeai liberty theory at all would be better than studying it. It is hard to claim that Asian books on that topic would be better if they essentially, if we believe you about it, do not exist.

To start with, you lost the Japanese rules battle, which kept us (and Geenius at Wrok and John Fairbairn) busy discussing for a good part of the first of the two decades. (You, IIUYC, belonged to the faction claiming that the vicious circle of life and death defined by rules versus given by strategy could not be dissolved.)



No. My opinion is: reasons / evidence beat missing or wrong reasons / evidence.



How, IYO, should books be so that they are not dry or clinical? I also dislike such books, but presumably we have different opinions on what makes books dry. You might consider Capturing Races 1 dry because it is too theory-heavy, I consider most example-only books dry because the writing style is too monotonous and too clean of absent generalisations.

You state the context wrongly. It is more like this:

The context is: "Someone: does anyone know of any brilliant Japanese go books? Robert: there are a few brilliant classic Japanese problem books, but to find any brilliant Japanese strategy books, one should compare candidates to brilliant strategy books such as mine."

It is really relevant because, see earlier messages (brilliant books are scarce, every possible reference is useful, strategy books should be better compared with strategy books rather than with problem books).

If you provide an evaluation scheme (other mine) for books allowing quality assessment independent of reference books, then the context of possibly existing brilliant books is not so relevant because they might not be needed as a reference. Do you have criteria for an evaluation scheme? Don't you like the criteria improvement potential, amount of knowledge, importance of new inventions (if any)? Would you wish to REPLACE them by, e.g., easy and fun reading or being not dry and clinical?

I disagree:

Joseki 1 Fundamentals: it gives more and / or better general advice on first corner stones, enclosures, approach moves, pincers and extensions than each other source. It provides a classification of moves types (relevant for josekis) with fewer necessary types than provided by only traditional go terms (of which there are too many and too many that are shape- or location-dependent).

Joseki 2 Strategy: it gives general explanations of more strategic concepts, more analysis methods, important general principles for strategic choices and strategic planning than I have seen in any other book. It discusses strategic lines and group meanings systematically at all. It invents unsettled group average, methods of local positional judgement, territory efficiency measured as a value, unrest level, mobility count and difference, usefulness count and difference, generalised terms of connection, life and territory, both practical and formal definitions of influence and thickness (previously these central concepts were nebulous and often confused!) and some related aspects, a definition of stability and investment.

Joseki 3 Dictionary: it provides the major strategic choices for josekis, states stones difference, territory count and influence stone difference for each of its josekis, invents a functional classification of josekis and states applicable strategic choices and general usage principles, invents a general evaluation method for josekis applicable, invents a value type classification of all josekis.

First Fundamentals: invents a complete set of principles to avoid all important beginners' mistakes. (Where beginner refers to being above absolute beginner level.)

Capturing Races 1: invents the New Semeai Formula, the term fighting liberty, useful semeai classes and definitions of all needed basic terms. Invents a complete classification of basic semeais with two groups. Provides always correct principles for all cases.

And all that you call "not doing that well with my own methods"? (I might ask the same also for my non-book research.)

Compare; take e.g. Joseki 3 Dictionary: Have you ever seen any other dictionary that would at least state the stone difference for each studied joseki? All the other joseki books fail already with these essential and most simple basics. How many other joseki books do you know that assess each joseki's influence value? It is essential information but every other book avoids a careful study.

Why don't you cry for all those other books to teach at least the basics of the essential? Instead you are suspecting me to possibly not doing that well. Why?

I don't really remember the specifics of that, but...

This forum is full of very smart people, which is absolutely great. You are one of them. Given such company, only a fool expects to win every argument or be always right. Of course I was wrong at times, and lost some arguments. Will happen in the future again, no doubt. I would not want it any different or it would be boring. But this is now what I was trying to say... if you read carefully.

What I was trying to say is not that you are wrong or that I was right - but that it seems very hard for you to see things from different perspective than your own, to understand or acknowledge what others are trying to say to you. This is especially apparent (to me) when discussing issues of opinion (for example the Good Sportsmanship debate a while back or the current topic of book 'brilliancy'.) This post of yours, among others, seems to confirm what I say - so I stand by it.

I'll decide tomorrow if there is any point to address the rest of your comments, its late now.
At first glance, they sort-of either confirm what I think or miss the mark.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Sure. There is, however, a strategy for winning a good number of heavy discussions: participate only in those that one, from the start, is confident to win. It is like attacking only when having the knowledge of a stronger board position.



It is hard for me (and for many others) to accept someone's different view as objectively true if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons.

Have you considered that in some areas of discussion, such as "brilliance", there is no "objectively true"? The possibility that by its nature, brilliance can be achieved simply by the reader finding it brilliant, and therefore can have a value judgement that is entirely subjective?

I know for a fact that there are some books I consider brilliant (and films), that other people think are just crap. I still stand by my judgement in those cases too

topazg, I do not have a problem with that if it is declared to be subjectively brilliant and not pretended to be objectively brilliant.

I agree that where people are expressing an opinion it helps to make it clear that's what it is, but you may be asking too much. Can something really be objectively brilliant? If you're talking about the definition of brilliant that refers to its luster (like a brilliant diamond), how shiny is "shiny enough"?

If you're talking about quality, you have similar problems: Firstly, there's the fact that such an objective classification is normally a summation of subjective assessments. You yourself demonstrate a prime example of this. You classify books with a -- > ++ scheme (which I actually really like, much better than 1 to 5 stars for comparing work in my opinion), yet where you place a book on this scale is based on your own value judgements as to what constitutes quality.

Secondly, there's the subjectivety of choosing which of those subjective assessments are important. You like to see formulaic principles that can cover all possible cases, without exceptions, in a simple and clean manner. To you, with respect to an issue like liberty fights or the outcomes of ko situations, these are so valuable that they are pretty much a necessity - much better than vague generalisations like "one eye beats no eye". However, to other people, formulaic approaches are fundamentally bad, and make them not want to pick up the book. Not that formulaic approaches are incorrect (the accuracy of an approach has a much greater chance of being argued on objective merit I think), just they turn the person off from reading a book and not want to touch it again. With respect to the quality of the book, that certainly demonstrated that the book has a low value in their mind. On the contrary, some people love maxims such as "never push from behind", "never peep when you can cut", "one eye beats no eye", "atari? extend!" as these are the sorts of advice that people don't forget. For these people, even running the risk of applying them incorrectly is fine for the benefit of having something simple they can pick up, read, and learn (and teach!). For them, brilliance comes in utter simplicity.

Why is your definition an objectively better one than theirs is? If person A considers a book brilliant for reasons M, N and O, and person B considers it rubbish for reasons X, Y and Z, who can put themselves in the position to judge objectively which of the factors M, N, O, X, Y and Z are more important? How can this be anything other than subjective?

Saying you believe it implies neither that you lack evidence nor that you do not know it.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Yes, given an agreed upon definition and subject to its specifications.



Yes, but I discuss and explain my ratings when necessary. This makes it possible to verify whether they are chose reasonably.



Yes. Weighing criteria is a factor. I have explained my weighing style. When will others start to explain theirs?



This is an over-generalisation of my view. I want to see (also) generally applicable advice. It is of secondary importance in which form that advice appears. Principles are one possibility, methods are another etc. Covering all cases is not always possible but if it is possible in even a simple, clean manner, then, yes, it must be stated and explained.



Of course. "one eye beats no eye" (as a pretended general principle) is one of the greatest and worst falsehoods of go teaching in history. True statements must correct that.



So they continue to make mistakes such as possibly always trusting "one eye beats no eye".

People who dislike formulaic approaches also dislike endgame calculations or positional judgements. Their playing suffers.



Sure. I do not write books for people rejecting to learn or wishing to learn half-truths (i.e. half-falsehoods) but I write for those willing to learn correct (or almost correct) knowledge.



And this lets you suggest factual falsehoods as a measure of book quality? Do not listen to such people but listen to those advocating factual truths!



This is DDK learning level. DDKs do not need precise principles when almost correct principles are available and simple. However, I would never teach big falsehoods such as "one eye beats no eye". Do not suggest desinformation of beginners (or anybody else)!



Because (relative frequency of) truth is better than falsehood!



By relying on fundamental insights such as "truth is better than falsehood" or "knowledge is better than no knowledge".

That's my point, you won't get a generally agreed upon definition.

The OP of the other thread may say, quite reasonably, that the book is brilliant due to the fact it reached his definitions and specifications of brilliance. Of course you can disagree, because you feel that your own definition of brilliant is a more appropriate one, but that's kind of the point - feeling that way is subjective.



With respect to the brilliance of a book, that's simply your subjective opinion

I define briliant as weak player getti.g stronger by reading that material. Robert's book is not that book.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Can we stop the Turing test now?

The original question was which of Western and Japanese go literature is more brilliant. For me that includes all go literature, not just instructional material. So there is no question that Japanese go literature, with all its commented game collections and studies of go history, is far more brilliant and, imo more useful.

Robert Jasiek said

A brilliant example of disinformation. Please show where Japanese pros have actually said in "go teaching in history" that one eye beats no eye.

The truth is: there is a phrase in Japanese: me ari me nashi which simply describes a situation where "there is an eye, and there is no eye".

There are, further, two Japanese proverbs derived from this:

1. me ari me nashi kara semeai - [the study of] capturing races starts with "one eye, no eye"

2. me ari me nashi mo toki ni yoru: "one eye, no eye" also depends on the occasion

In addition, a typical comment on the base case - picking up the first Japanese book to hand - is not "beat" but that the situation tends to be "extremely advantageous" for the side having an eye.

For Capturing Races 1 and if you mean "significantly stronger", right. For First Fundamentals, there is a good chance that you consider it brilliant:)

Part of the literature is much better in Asia (e.g., entirety of go problems), part of the literature is much better in the West (e.g., mathematical research). (Note: there are exceptions on both sides.)

I cannot prove it because I did not record it. However, I have witnessed it several (or many?) times in pro teaching lectures at ECGs.



It was not this form that was presented, but it was explained as if "one eye beats none" were always true.



Great. Unfortunately, such better knowledge does not make it to EGCs, as far as I have witnessed in 100s of pro lectures.

A similar comment I can make for "to kill, first reduce eyespace, then play the vital point".