You are welcome. I'll be soliciting for donations to complete my opera omnia.

Of course, this is a joke. But the more I think about it, the more I think it's not a joke. One should sometimes think deeply about "simple" shapes. Here are some things to notice.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X b . . . .
$$ | . . . a 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

1. 'a' and 'b' are miai. (Maybe.)
2. By playing black prevents white from playing there. This is not a useless observation, as the shoulder hit against a 3-4 point is possible in some positions.
3. Is now less attractive for white to play at 'a' or 'b', because white would then be short of liberties and has no good continuation.
4. My 4 year-old daughter is just learning basic rules and would definitely not rule out white 'a' or 'b' out of hand. What is the reason that this is not innate knowledge, and how does it come to be that we eliminate these options as we get stronger? Does it get filtered out because we really understand, or does it get filtered out because we blindly copy stronger players and notice that kind of move is not frequently played?
5. White 'a' or 'b' right now would rarely be used as ko threats, whereas if were not there, what 'a' or 'b' are used as ko threats. Why? Think about it. This is not a garbage question. The ability to compare two bad results is important.
6. The fact that 'a' and 'b' appear to be miai is not complete, as white 'a' might be not answered by 'b'. Black may prefer to atari instead. Under which circumstances would an atari be better than connecting? Which atari is better if atari is better? Why?
7. What is the difference between playing first and then the other black stone later versus the order shown if they both end up with same shape. What does that mean about the value of tewari for the simplest questions?
8. If this move takes two moves by the opponent to cut, what if you have two of them and the opponent can threaten both? How is this related to why the following peep would frequently be answered?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W peep
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W 2 hanes and the head of 2 stones?
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B b . . .
$$ | . . 1 3 X . . .
$$ | . . . B a . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

9. In the above diagram, it appears that the miai to cut works against black. What does this mean? Who does miai really protect? Why do we feel that this is somehow a worse result than if only one of the marked black stones was in place? Is there a generalization to other classes of moves?

10. In the end, if we call a 'hane at the head of 0 stones' instead of giving its own, separate name like diagonal or kosumi, is there more insight or not?

Bruce Wilcox called the one-point jump a "sacrifice jump" because willingness to give up one of those stones is implicit in playing a one-point jump rather than a nobi. What a difference in mindset!

Maybe we can become stronger players if we think of things more elastically and sometimes try out new names. This may be more useful than trying to find a single, perfect name.

Korean haengma books will show this shape in many contexts, and there are so many functions. Getting hung up on 1 or 2 common functions of a shape may be limiting.

And thinking about stones in relation to opponent's stones that aren't there yet is not baloney, either. There's a kind of aji keshi that is basically no more than playing an a way that hurts your unborn groups...

Am I still joking? Yeah, sure. Or maybe not. You decide. Back to tesuji problems...

This is not what definitions of ko and ko threat are needed for. Ko and ko threat are 99% quantum mechanics: not needed to breathe.



For an average player, a definition of ko is not very useful, but a definition of influence stone difference is very useful. I produce both research for the sake of research and other research for the sake of improving playing strength.



I have not claimed a precise definition of ko threat to be found to be (very) useful for playing better.



You don't understand that that there is research not useful and other research useful for many players' playing strength.



I do not make such claims. You make the claim that I would make such claims. My claim is that I have a good chance of defining ko threat within 5000 hours of research. It is a difficult research topic with almost no immediate use for playing strength. Such is called fundamental research.



Right.



You do not get a big picture ALA you throw in statements such as "it may be nice to try [...] to say that you can extend n+1 intersections for some wall size n." that are almost the opposite of what I say. If you want to have a big picture, then stop confusing traditional go theory with my go theory. Then you can appreciate the big picture: my go theory, as far as it is developed and applied, raises the percentage of correct decisions.

This is absolutely not the kind of definition you prefer to phrase. It is more like the cloudy conception of terms that you battle against.

This means that you did not get the main point here.

Your kind of definition would include height, diameter, material, colour, surface condition, etc., etc.
This means that the player would have to put energy unnecessarily into checking his playing material. And he might be in danger that the material he used over time does not fit your definition.

And additionally, there would be further definitions of "stone", e.g. for the usage on computer screens.

On the other hand, you have given an example (unintentionally, I suppose) that shows the virtue of "cloudy" definitions.
If we limit the consideration on "usual" implementations of Go boards on computer screens, e.g. the diagrams in this forum, these are "usually" shown from above.

Nearly everybody will realize in no time that the circles, which they see on the screens, are images of the 3D-objects that they are used to play with in "reality".

With your kind of definition (and assuming the one for on-screen-usage still missing) they would be unable to play Go on virtual boards.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Cassandra, WRT to 'stone', I have not meant to provide a precise, complete definition.

Dear Robert, you missed the decisive point again !!!

What you said above seems to be no basis of your work, neither of your argumentation.

I am afraid that you are unable to grasp the difference between "knowing something" and "knowing the definition of something".

My English has a very special German touch (and it may occasionally be difficult to understand) just because I did not practice English over decades.

As a matter of course, I am able to develop ideas above what I am able to express in English. Knowing more words in English would support the communication with others, especially with native English speakers. This means that the gap between what I am able to think, and what I am able to express, would narrow a bit with the growing knowledge of more words.

But practice will be still missing, so knowing more words alone is not sufficient at all.

On the other hand, just because language is so "cloudy", native speakers will refer mostly to the context of my texts, and successfully assume what I wanted to express (in the majority of cases).

+ + + + + + + + + +

In contrary to the written above, "Knowing the definition of something" would require to intensely study a "Reader's Dictionary" / "Learner's Dictionary" of the English language (maybe in conjunction with a German-English dictionary as well). But the net effect will be very small, for several reasons:

-- I simply do not know, when I am mistaken (i.e. when to look into the dictionaries).
-- If I am in doubt, studying the dictionaries is a very time-consuming task.
-- Neither dictionary may provide me with a distinct answer.
-- If I receive a distinct answer, this may not be what I wanted to express.
-- If the answer matches what I wanted to express, it still might be not correct in the given context.

"Defining something" is your main line of argumentation, and of working. This is like writing a Reader's Dictionary for a non-native speaker of English.

It will be self-evident that a work like a Reader's Dictionary is of maximum use for someone, who already is an expert in English, and wants to explore the last hidden corners.
For anyone else who wanted to become better in English, the best way was to go to the United Kingdom, and practice, practice, practice.

This is the same with Go and with your hunt for the "definition of terms". Your hunt does not benefit the "usual" player, nor touches "hidden corners" that Go experts are interested in, nor can I see that the results of your researches currently become valuable input for computer programming.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

No. It is one of my main lines. Other main lines include principles, concepts and their application.



Not the hunt lets players benefit, but the results of the hunt.

It is not the same as language dictionary, because

a) a language dictionary is too big to be learnt by heart,

b) definitions of go terms are not supposed to be applied alone, but together with other forms of go theory, such as principles and concepts,

c) go theory is supposed to be learnt (but a player can choose whether he learns a precise wording or the rough, basic idea of, e.g., a term).



It depends on what you mean.



Your limited imagination does not restrict CG application. E.g., recently a professor praised and asked me to help with such input.



Whenever(!) you do not recall a needed dictionary entry well enough.



Therefore, know the relevant theory by heart!



Apply more generally applicable go theory, when more specific go theory does not provide a solution.



Good go theory allows you to identify whether its application is likely correct in a given context.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

RJ will always be right, as long as everybody is using his definition of "right".

Again - allow me to just cherry-pick two of your statements.
I really have no time to deal with what you say word-by-word at the moment.


This might not be exactly what you mean - but this is how you come across, as I have said.
And this is one of the reasons why so often what you say makes you appear so controversial, even if it is technically correct.


Right.
And as I said - research for the sake of research is great, but then - why talk about your (or anybody else's) playing strength progress?
As you say - you conduct two different types of research, one for its own sake, and one for improving strength. You seem to be mixing them in and out constantly.

For example:

• For the purpose of this conversation, my point ist hat:
  An everyday guy - me - can improve, enjoy and talk about Go just fine using terms which have some level of ambiguity in them. What's more - I don't think precise definitions of the form you create will add anything to my play, enjoyment or communication. As a matter of fact - I like some of this ambiguity, and I think it is very useful at times. This is pretty much the *only* point I was making. Again - for everyday guy in non-formal setting. And its not really an opinion - its a fact! I know its a fact because *I* do it. Might not apply to everybody, but it sure applies to some people (the vast majority, I would say.)

Now - why would you bring 5000 hours of formal research about formal definition of Ko Threat if this is not relevant to what I was saying?!?

This is partially what I was talking about when I said 'your framework' in the other thread. It seems to me that you try to force any conversation into what interests you rather than trying to understand what the other person is saying, and you are unable to step out of your preconceived notion of what is important to you.

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

I mention both, because this thread is about terms in general, not about only one type of terms.



Now you have clarified that your earlier statement "the same understanding can also be reached in other ways, possibly even faster" does not enable you to achieve the same understanding in other ways faster, but it appears that you mean only a restricted understanding.

yes, this is correct. Maybe I should have made it more clear on my end.
What I mean is - the same 'practical' understanding, i.e. the same understanding with respect to how strong you play.

I agree that in the context of pure research there is a huge difference. Was not talking about that.

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

Thanks for the clarification.

This raises another question: you might be, e.g., very strong at reading and not so strong at understanding terminology, or vice versa. I.e., the same playing strength can mean very different things WRT to understanding terms.

Understanding "Jasiek" terminology?

This might be true.
I can say even more - some people might not even know (m)any Go terms and still play much better than some people who do. Or some people can call the same things by completely different names, and still be able to play and communicate. Terms are just terms, and for practical purposes - they are exactly what they need to be, no more and no less, sufficient and appropriate, or they would have been something else. Think about it. You come and impose different purpose on the terms, and so you need to define and re-define everything, but that's just you and your purpose, not the world in general.

However - this is not very pertinent to what we are discussing here.

In practical sense, I do not feel that your definitions (Ko, nakade, etc) contributed anything to my playing strength nor to my understanding of Go in context of playing strength. Form what others are saying, it seems they think so as well. Thus my conclusion that in practical context the precision you advocate for is not required and possibly not even welcome. I also assume that I have a rather strong understanding of what Ko is, or Ko Threat, or Nakade, even though I cannot write a formal paper on it.

In purely formal-theoretical-research context, if I was inclined and had time to delve into that, it would probably have contributed a whole bit, but this I cannot really say for certain. You have much more expertise in this field than I do, so I assume it is priceless since you put so much emphasis on it.

But this is not what discussion here is all about, I assume. Most people posting in this thread(s) are not formal researchers, nor do they pretend to be, nor do they have much interest in that, it seems... So for you to successfully discuss things in such setting, you need to take off your researcher hat and try to understand what people are trying to tell you - without constantly sidelining to your research and theory, as impressive as it might be.

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

This reminds me of an episode. When I was a TA, in the good old days, one Technical Writing prof for whatever brainless reason requested me as his little 'helper'. Part of that was marking and grading papers of other students. I remember when I got the stack of papers, I was terrified. But when I went to work, I found glaring mistakes in every other sentence. I was amazed that I, a non-native speaker of english language, could find so many mistakes in writings of others. I took my trusty red pen and went to work. When I was done, there was more red on the paper than blue.

The prof, when he saw it - was furious. But for some reason he liked me, so instead of asking for another TA, he sat with me a showed me how he wants it done. He said: do not concentrate on every single mistake and each little thing you disagree with. Pick the main point or two, what the student was trying to say, what's important, and work with that, comment on that.

I tried to do as he told, found it harder than going nuts with the red, but it seemed to have worked better - as the semester progressed, the students wrote more thought-out and interesting papers, even their grammar was getting better (as far as I could tell.) Only their spelling still sucked. But that made me think: what is really important?

Its easy to miss the forrest for all the trees.

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

Wrong. Used to show possession. Irrelevant here.



Wrong. Things are rarely easy.



No. We are not talking about nostalgia here.



Wrong. Should have only one "r".



Wrong. Nothing is "for all", because of conflicting desires.



Interesting topic, but maybe OT in this thread.















-----------------------------------------------



Oh, is this what you meant to say? Yes, I totally agree!

_________________
be immersed

Robert, I recall prior discussions where you wanted to carefully distinguish your work on Ko from the work that you thought actually mattered for play, and that one could not judge the practical merits of your research based on your work on Ko.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

For many superfluous terms, I suggest to drop their use. For most of those terms I have treated so far, my definitions are meant to be or contribute to clarifications. A few terms I redefine. A few terms without prior definition I define. A few, previously missing terms I invent.



Not surprisingly, because you mention only terms that a) can contribute only very litte to playing strength because the precise definitions affect only rare cases or b) are about so fundamental aspects that your playing strength can easily compensate for using imprecise understanding of related terms.



What others (the same few in all threads) are saying here? They don't know or don't want to use those terms, and principles using them, with significant protential for becoming stronger. ALA as they don't seriously learn and apply those terms, of course they do not profit from them.



Let me repeat: precision is optional. Those preferring less precision can easily use less precision. E.g., for n-connected, it is not necessary to know the exact value of n. For thickness, my informal definition ("...connected easily...") can be used instead of the formal definition and its n-connected. Etc.

But the following I buy from nobody: that he would want to always ignore and overlook the connection of the stones forming thickness. (Same for the life of the stones.)

Connection is required, and nobody rejects connection of thickness as unwelcome.

Admit it: in the practical context, I am right that connection is a key aspect of thickness.

Uh, but you do know that the Ko definition paper has relatively little practical merit, while the Ko and Dame Endgames paper has also intermediate practical merit (up to 4 points per game)?

The idea of n-connectedness is an example of speaking precisely about a fuzzy concept.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.