SmoothOper wrote:So in the mean time if the play implies a series of forcing moves that one of the players had though out in advance, then it would be a pre-calculated play not a joseki, since it isn't obvious that the play gives equal results one way or the other.
I think you're misinterpreting me. I think the translator turned 'joseki' into 'pre-calculated'. It is fairly close in meaning but as things are pointed out a lot here, there are some fine meaning differences.
SmoothOper wrote:So in the mean time if the play implies a series of forcing moves that one of the players had though out in advance, then it would be a pre-calculated play not a joseki, since it isn't obvious that the play gives equal results one way or the other.
I think you're misinterpreting me. I think the translator turned 'joseki' into 'pre-calculated'. It is fairly close in meaning but as things are pointed out a lot here, there are some fine meaning differences.
Who is misinterpreting who? I wasn't talking about agreed on equal result plays, except in the context of how to mask pre-calculated plays.
SmoothOper wrote:Who is misinterpreting who? I wasn't talking about agreed on equal result plays, except in the context of how to mask pre-calculated plays.
Ok, then I'm confused. What do you mean by 'masking pre-calculated plays'.
SmoothOper wrote:Who is misinterpreting who? I wasn't talking about agreed on equal result plays, except in the context of how to mask pre-calculated plays.
Ok, then I'm confused. What do you mean by 'masking pre-calculated plays'.
As was noted in another thread, most professionals sit at home and work our variations of play, some more than others. These variations tend to become joseki if they are equally profitable or the play is refuted perhaps only after the game. The trick is that once they are played, they tend to get studied, which leads to the question is do professionals do anything to obfuscate their favorite variations, to prevent them from becoming joseki too soon.
oren wrote:I think the translator turned 'joseki' into 'pre-calculated'. It is fairly close in meaning but as things are pointed out a lot here, there are some fine meaning differences.
Well, we have had translators who are not so good, but such a translation is improbable. First, joseki is already an English term. It does not need translation. Second, joseki are standard patterns, not just pre-calculated.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
lesenv wrote:what are pre-calculated plays? i always thought one does a move, after this the other begins the think.
Lee Changho's book always say, "The next sequence is pre-calculated". I interpret this to mean that it is a sequence of forcing moves that one of the players has calculated either before hand or during the game that once the conditions arise and the first moves is played, the subsequent moves follow with little deviation.
How about an example or two from the book? That would help us know what you are talking about.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Bill Spight wrote:Well, we have had translators who are not so good, but such a translation is improbable. First, joseki is already an English term. It does not need translation. Second, joseki are standard patterns, not just pre-calculated.
If it's a book translated from Lee Changho, there could be some desire to not use the term 'joseki'. Lately Korean books seem to just use jeong-seok, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it used that way.
I don't know what else 'pre-calculated' could mean otherwise.
I don't know about the book, but I think he's referring to my post when he talks about discussing it in other threads: (viewtopic.php?p=116825#p116825).
OK, so it's a joseki book about new plays and lines of play. In that case my guess is that the phrase might mean a prepared line of play. You still have not given an example.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
I think pros do eschew worn paths, which isn't really topical but I think is true. After all, someone lost those games, probably for reasons. There is some kind of relevant chess quote here.
Well, the game consists of hundreds of moves, and they only really need one move to give a point or two edge.
I think you are misunderstanding, often times pros make mistake in games that cost 10 points or so. Even top pros that are 9p like leechangho make big mistakes sometimes, or don't play the best move on purpose but rather the best move to win.
The games are usually close and endgame moves that are worth a point can of course be important, but pre-studying anything for a point or two is worthless usually unless you mean like in a corner joseki you do a tigers mouth instead of connecting for a few extra points which does help in certain joseki...
but mostly even pros don't worry over a point or two but they will try to take the better path of course. So basically a point or two= nothing but they will of course play the point or two way better. Does that make sense?
lesenv wrote:what are pre-calculated plays? i always thought one does a move, after this the other begins the think.
Lee Changho's book always say, "The next sequence is pre-calculated". I interpret this to mean that it is a sequence of forcing moves that one of the players has calculated either before hand or during the game that once the conditions arise and the first moves is played, the subsequent moves follow with little deviation.
I can't say about the specific cases you are talking about. However, my guess, based upon commentaries I have seen in Japanese, is that the following sequence has been read out, probably by both players. They probably played it very quickly. A prepared move or sequence that one player springs on another would probably be called a new play, I think.
This is clearly the answer. Bill won the thread, we can all go home.
NoSkill wrote:but mostly even pros don't worry over a point or two but they will try to take the better path of course. So basically a point or two= nothing but they will of course play the point or two way better. Does that make sense?
If you're saying that pros sacrifice points in order to get another advantage or a position that works better with the rest of the board then of course that's true.
Otherwise I must disagree. Pros fight over every point on the board. That's only natural because the difference in strength between pros is very small. My favourite quote from Ishida (Vol.1 ch.4 diagram 15): "An unconditional loss of two points is unbearable."
However, my guess, based upon commentaries I have seen in Japanese, is that the following sequence has been read out, probably by both players. They probably played it very quickly. A prepared move or sequence that one player springs on another would probably be called a new play, I think.