A propros a discussion that seems to have popped up among the SL folk;

働く or 働きis how the Japanese refer to how a stone works, what work it does; from the example on that page, which I think Bill Spight added, it seems that work is very similar to meaning. That is, the meaning of a stone or the work it does can be assessed by looking at the follow-up sequences that can develop out of the initial stone.

However, SL also has an entry for efficiency. What is the difference between work and efficiency? Well, it seems the latter is being translated out of Chinese (效率) and Korean (효율), and the SL page doesn't list a Japanese translation. So is this simply yet another case where we have doubled a CJK concept by translating it now this way, now that way? Or is there an important strategic difference? I find it hard to believe that we will find an example where the stone that does the most work is not also the most efficient, or vice-versa.

Efficiency has a tendency of being considered as a local concept, while best use looks for the global context. If you change the scale of context (and so the study object), different qualities of work can occur. E.g., a locally bad shape move (inefficient) can be a best use move (maximal work) if it minimises the number of sufficiently big ko threats related to an active or expected ko fight.

Robert, it sounds like you are talking about the technical vocabulary of your own approach to Go. I was more interested in how CJK professionals and authors talk/think/write/teach/strategize about the game.

As a matter of personal preference, I would reserve the terms pretty/ugly for the distinction you are trying to make. "This shape is ugly, but here it is the only move that works" or "...but here it is efficient," makes perfect sense; on the other hand "This shape is inefficient, but here it reaches a maximum of global effectiveness" introduces a completely unnecessary sense of paradox.

The fact that they occur together doesn't mean that they are the same thing. I'd say that looking at how much work a stone is doing is a good way of telling if it is efficient.

Edit: To answer your question a little better:

Work = What a stone does. The actual direct effect that playing there has on the game.

Efficiency = An assesment of the stones effectiveness. I.e. the result of passing judgement on the work that it does.

jts, I read whatever about related go terms was available to me from whichever sources. Many sources, but sparse information. To make more sense of it, I have added my own insight. More sources might add more information. Altogether, information on work-related concepts is still sparse.

From my POV, my own additions include:
- best use
- space scale in its general sense applicable to any subboard
- time scale in its general sense applicable to any duration of a part of the game sequence (or a variation)
- numerical assessement of efficiency as a ratio points per stones and of mobility, usefulness, influence stones as differences for Black and White
- contributions to descriptions of efficiency and haengma

If, for the sake of argument, I remove these additions from my own understanding, then my work-related knowledge drops from 5d-with-potential-for-6d-understanding to weak 3d-level: I would be understanding little more than that efficiency is somehow related to a) a group moving out faster or more slowly with worse or better connection and b) avoiding overconcentration (still without knowing exactly what that is).

Now, go ahead, explore more sources (or only CJK sources, if you prefer), and find out afresh more understanding of work-related concepts. Please tell us, so that I get my chance to reach 5d+ understanding again:) But... you sound sceptical about my additions. Why? Wouldn't it be better for you to add anthing you find to all the existing understanding? I, for my part, prefer to continue from 5d+ understanding than to go back to 3d and start again.

In particular, what is the purpose of stones doing work if one may not think about their best use?

The Japanese word hataraku, which is often translated as "to work" really means more like "be effective". While we might say that one move is more effective than another, I doubt that we could say in many board situations what the most effective (= best?) move is. There is a connection with "efficient" but it isn't quantifiable. A move which creates an overconcentrated shape might be doing some work (having some effect) because it enlarges territory (by a small amount), say, but it might not be efficient.

The Japanese term is 能率 (nouritsu). I have added it to the SL page.



I had not particularly thought about it, but I suppose that it is like the difference between efficiency and effectiveness in English. And it may be just me, but I think that I am much more likely to talk about shape in terms of efficiency than work. The same goes for haengma, even though it is not a Japanese concept.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Pragmatists vs. the Utilitarians part II

Something that works may serve no useful purpose.

Thanks, Bill. That was the sort of concrete information I was looking for. Now I'm just curious as to whether there are more precise C/K terms for effect/effective/effectiveness...

Isn't kouritsu (効率) more commonly used in Japanese? I am not sure that I have ever noticed nouritsu used in Go but I haven't time to hunt around for an example right at the moment.
Edit: How about this video (no time to watch it myself )?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

I got 能率 from Takagawa. Maybe 効率 is more common.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Good example use of 効率

http://www.yasashiigo.com/rules/rule_3/3_3.html
効率よい地の囲い方

Wiki page for 囲碁 does use 能率 which was also a term I didn't see very often before

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%A2_ ... 2%E7%A2%81)
またこれと逆に、石の働きが重複して能率が悪い形などを「悪形」「愚形」などと表現する。

Added bonus for 働き example.

If you want the SL translation to match between Korean and Japanese, use 效率 because these are the same chinese characters (or change the Korean translation).

能率 can also be translated as "efficiency", but I feel it has a different nuance. 效 has the nuance of a result or effectiveness, so the feeling seems directly related to "efficiency" (rate of effectiveness, maybe).　能, on the other hand, has to do with ability or skill, so there feels like a different nuance.

A question comparing the two can be seen here: http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa ... q117572116

The person asks what the difference between the two are. The person that answers gives an explanation, which concludes with:


My crappy translation is as follows:


So in my opinion, if you just want to say something is "effective" without much else, I'd use 効率. I'd guess (because I haven't heard it used in go, as opposed to 効率, which I have heard) you'd use 能率 if you wanted to say something like, "Iyama Yuta really studies go efficiently".

I think the important distinction is: The proportion of effort to result vs. What can be done in any given fixed time.

_________________
be immersed

What does "effective" as a go term(?) express at all? That a move does what it shall do? I.e., is it the same as "fulfilling aims"?

The more I read online, the more I think that there are many cases where these two can be used interchangeably.
For example, in a snippet from Oren's page: "能率が悪い形"

In English, I think you can say simply that the shape is not efficient. And I think that it'd be acceptable both to say, "能率が悪い形" as well as to say "効率が悪い形", and indeed, you can find examples of both phrases with a Google search.

Coming back to the distinction from earlier, I think you could say for a given position in go, "this shape is not efficient" because:
a.) The amount that you expended to get that position was not worth what was obtained (効率)
b.) The amount that was able to be obtained in a fixed period of time for this player was not good (能率).

Practically speaking, in both cases, it's just... inefficient

_________________
be immersed

Based on what I've been reading, I think that an "effective" in the context that we're speaking often refers to what's referenced by (a) and (b) above: A measurement of the proportion that a shape/move/play/person/etc. obtained vs. the cost of doing so.

_________________
be immersed

Just regarding the use of the English terms, "efficient" is an adjective, typically used simply to indicate the quality of a move, i.e., how well it performs it's various tasks; whereas "work," which could also be used as a noun or a verb, might be used to point out which tasks exactly the move accomplishes.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

A few points:

1. Not everyone in Japan accepts that hataraki is a technical go word. It is really just part of the normal language. But it is fairly common in go texts, which means some people like to highlight it.

2. Some of the meanings ascribed here are cases of western ideas being foisted on the Japanese term. In particular, bringing 能率 and　効率 (efficiency) into the equation is misleading. As the 率 in these words implies, they measure something (the utility factor). Definitions of hataraku by a Japanese would not use these words. He would describe it using words like 作用 (action/function) or　効果 (effect(iveness)/result).

3. The uses of hataraku (to work) in Japanese, even if they do not imply (measurable) efficiency, are many, of course. E.g. it may be pointed out that a move or sequence has an immediate effect, such as ensuring a connection, rather than some latent effect way down the line. But I think an especially valuable one for some of those who play in the Japanese way, where shape is often over-emphasised, is a curt reminder that pretty shapes are not enough; they actually have to do some work.

It is of course perfectly all right (though maybe redundant) to create a western concept of efficiency, but trying to pin a western tail on a Japanese donkey seems like an exemplary case of inefficiency by those who claim to be seeking efficiency.

Having mentioned the word work/hataraku several times in a short space, I think I need to go and lie down.

John's remarks remind me of Quine's work on indeterminacy of translation. He used the hypothetical example of two different translation manuals that correspond perfectly with expressions (facts) found in the language being translated but are themselves completely divergent in the sentences they prescribe.

The point he was making is that meaning doesn't work in such a corresponding fashion, namely, by way of matching linguistic entities as direct equivalents. In other words, it's not necessary to look for such equivalents because they don't exist. There are no intermediary facts of the matter that can decide between which of two divergent translation manuals is correct.

At the same time, that doesn't suggest any significant barrier in accurately, or adequately I suppose, understanding what words or sentences mean in a foreign language - both manuals do the job. So translating Japanese terms into English by foisting western concepts on them is really all we can do. We have no alternative method because nothing else independently exists to do that conceptual work for us.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Intuitively, we want to avoid work whenever and wherever possible.