Honte - a primer

[Bill Spight]

The term seems to be used in situations where reducing the possibility for complications is a little bit surprising but shows a mature appreciation that efficiency is not always about greed. When I read Hane Naoki's The Way of Creating a Thick and Strong Game (unfortunately, in English) I assumed that the term honte would be used more than it was. But this may be a translator's choice.

I suspect that that is a translation of this book: 厚い碁の作り方 ( http://www.amazon.co.jp/厚い碁の作り方-碁の心発見シリ ... 4818204854 ). Hane has also written a book on honte: 本手の打ち方が分かる本 (The Book to Understand How to Play Honte), available at http://www.amazon.co.jp/本手の打ち方が分かる本-マイコ ... 4839925461 .

[John Fairbairn]

I have an impression that Bill, and maybe Kirby, are in the camp that believes honte are far from rare, and can even be a stylistic trait.

I differ. I'm not saying they are like hens' teeth, just that they are rare enough to be commented on when they do happen, and so on the whole it's become more of a commentator's word than a player's word. And while I don't deny that a predilection towards playing honte can be characteristic of a player, I still believe at best his games will like a cherry cake - too many cherries will ruin the cake. Plus, I don't really see that you can set out easily to play honte - it has to be a response to a situation in which your opponent has just as much say in how it is created.

However, rather than rely on impressions alone, I spent a little time sifting through the contents pages of quite a few books that I assumed were likely to talk about honte because they covered topics such as the difference between pro and amateur play, thickness, the middle game, etc. My finding is that not a single book had a section devoted to honte (or usote), yet all the usual suspects were there: e.g. how to attack, sabaki, shinogi, good shape - and, surprisingly often, direction of play. There are a few books on honte, of course, but relative to the number of books on those other topics, they are as rare as, well, honte.

So I retain my assertions about honte.

But the direction of play business intrigued me. It hadn't registered with me how often it appears in these books, and when I looked at some of the examples my feeling was that I understood perfectly well what DoP meant - but knowing that didn't help me in the slightest to get any of the problems right. So I concluded that knowing the term itself or the definition is not enough. But what was I missing?

In fact, from previous posts I think quite a few people share my bemusement about this. That seemed like a good excuse to compose another post like the OP of this thread to set the scene and elicit discussion on DoP.

But while the flesh is willing the spirit has been weakened by RJ and his derailments. How do I overcome that?

To be specific, I think the OP here may have taken me three or four hours by the time I'd retrieved books, looked everything up and made the diagrams. To spend all that time and see the work hijacked is not pleasant, especially as in practice the option of ignoring the hijack is not realistic.

So, grateful for comments, guidance.

[Boidhre]

It'll be derailed, yes. That won't diminish the worth of the OP in the eyes of the vast majority of users on here though. That, and I imagine many people do like I do and skip past the hijack related posts when reading the thread unless they're trying to kill some time.

[Kirby]

I have an impression that Bill, and maybe Kirby, are in the camp that believes honte are far from rare, and can even be a stylistic trait.

To be clear, I am not sure if honte is rare or not - just that the lack of commentary about honte did not necessarily imply that it was not common. I like the examples we can see of moves that are honte, but given an arbitrary move from an arbitrary board position, I don't know if I can yet tell if a move is honte or not. It's all still very mysterious to me, but definitely intriguing, nonetheless.

P.S. I've had no intentions to derail this thread, but admittedly, sometimes I lose track of what the original discussion was focused on.

[Kirby]

Further thread derailment:

P.S. I've had no intentions to derail this thread, but admittedly, sometimes I lose track of what the original discussion was focused on.

And why is that? Why do I lose track of the topic of the original post, just to let the thread become derailed? The only conclusion that comes to mind is because of the type of person I've become.

I'm not a John Fairbairn that spends three or four hours of thought to make a single post. I'm not a Bill Spight that has shown expertise in his depth of endgame thought. I'm a Donald Duck that thinks very little very quickly. Someone says something intuitively disagreeable? I've got something to say about it. Thoughts come quickly, but without depth. It's a pity, really. Maybe it's become that way since fast thinking has, in the past, been successful for me. Sometimes little depth is good enough. Sometimes it works. But alas, the guilt it gives me. Perhaps this is the reason for my aggression toward Disney characters - it's too easy to see myself in that role. Even when I play go, the same tendency arises: the opponent plays - Oh! I have a response! Maybe it will work, but all the worse, for the habit continues to be reinforced by its success.

It's not about posting on the forum. It's not about go. It's deeper than that. To my core, I'm impressed with a fear. A fear that I've but little time left. Without responding and acting quickly, I'll never have time to do become someone - or to do the things I want to do. I won't have time to become 9d at go, or to work at Google. I won't have time to master Japanese or Korean, or read all of the books I want to read. I won't have time to do or be something... meaningful.

Paradoxically, I am coming to feel more and more that it is this fear and hurriedness that has brought me this far in life - without truly experiencing life. Continued down this path, I will soon come to pass, having accomplished little deeply and with true thought.

But alas, it is difficult for people to change. I've had moments of self-reflection in the past. But they become just that - the past. Will this Donald Duck ever come to truly think and change? Only time, my bitter adversary, will tell.

[hyperpape]

I share the same sense of not knowing how to select moves, even when I feel as if I understand the concepts. In this case, I was unable to select half or even more of the honte moves, even knowing that I was looking for a honte move. I don't think I'd now get the ones right that I got wrong, except if I remembered the positions.

As far as the arguing over definitions, this thread has still had a lot of good discussion, even though there was some noise.

[Bill Spight]

I have an impression that Bill, and maybe Kirby, are in the camp that believes honte are far from rare, and can even be a stylistic trait.

I differ. I'm not saying they are like hens' teeth, just that they are rare enough to be commented on when they do happen, and so on the whole it's become more of a commentator's word than a player's word.

I think that we agree on how often (or rarely) the word, honte, appears in commentary. It is just that I think that many honte escape comment. For instance, in the Meijin League example I gave above, I think that the only reason received comment was that Okada preferred another play. Another commentator might note the honte but not comment on it, while yet another might disagree that it is honte.

$$B Honte
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . W 2 . . .
$$ | . . X W X . . .
$$ | . . 1 X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Honte
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . W 2 . . .
$$ | . . X W X . . .
$$ | . . 1 X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

is honte, yet I doubt that it would receive comment unless the commentary were aimed at kyu players (who might not be aware that it threatens the stones).

The blurb for Honte Shinan says that in the book Otake takes honte patterns from joseki. And the examples at the Wikipedia Japan honte page are taken from joseki and appear to be nothing remarkable. (Since Otake's book is a reference for the page, they may well have come from the book.) From what I hear, Ishida refers to some joseki plays as honte. Most honte in joseki are what I had in mind by "garden variety" honte.

Would we expect joseki plays to receive special comment? For the most part, I think not. (Unless the commentary were aimed at kyu players, OC. ) And if not, why would any other honte receive special comment? Perhaps because it is an unusual choice, perhaps because it is a very good play, perhaps because it may not be so good.

There is another reason that a honte might not receive comment as a honte, which is hinted at on the Wikipedia Japan page. It might be called a thick play. The two terms are not synonymous, but there is substantial overlap. A honte might also be called good shape. (I do not recall a honte that is bad shape, do you?)

And while I don't deny that a predilection towards playing honte can be characteristic of a player, I still believe at best his games will like a cherry cake - too many cherries will ruin the cake.

I think that players with a thick style will be more likely to play honte. The Wikipedia Japan pages mentions Fujisawa Hideyuki and Otake Hideo.

Plus, I don't really see that you can set out easily to play honte - it has to be a response to a situation in which your opponent has just as much say in how it is created.

I quite agree. You might set out to play thickly. You might set out to avoid zokushu and usote. You might set out to make good shape. But I doubt if setting out to play honte is a realistic goal.

However, rather than rely on impressions alone, I spent a little time sifting through the contents pages of quite a few books that I assumed were likely to talk about honte because they covered topics such as the difference between pro and amateur play, thickness, the middle game, etc. My finding is that not a single book had a section devoted to honte (or usote), yet all the usual suspects were there: e.g. how to attack, sabaki, shinogi, good shape - and, surprisingly often, direction of play. There are a few books on honte, of course, but relative to the number of books on those other topics, they are as rare as, well, honte.

Indeed. And why is that, if honte are so wonderful? Why are there not as many books about honte as about shape? Or as many books as there are about myoshu? Myoshu are rare, probably even more rare than comments about honte.

Hane Naoki has written a book about how to play honte. The blurb states that very few amateurs understand honte. Perhaps his view is close to yours, John.

[quantumf]

But while the flesh is willing the spirit has been weakened by RJ and his derailments. How do I overcome that?

One thing that may work is that you try and avoid disagreements with Robert? In this thread Robert's first comment was a fairly mild and short alternative (and not that vastly different) definition. If you treated this as the opinion of just some random poster on the forum you may or may not have answered, and if you had answered, you probably would have answered warmly. Your response to RJ's post was quite severe and critical, presumably based on your previous interactions.

I realize the thread could still go a little haywire as other posters may feel obliged to battle Robert (although I hope they try and resist), but at least you may feel a little more serene, and you could focus on responding to posts that are more aligned with yours - in spirit, that is, because I hope you welcome some level of disagreement or doubt.

I think you should also give Robert some credit for his discipline in starting new topics to limit off-topic derailment.

I enjoyed your first post and subsequent follow ups. I didn't entirely understand or even agree with them, but they gave me considerable food for thought. I also enjoyed (some of) Robert's inputs, because more viewpoints are usually useful rather than less. I'd like to believe I can eventually distill something that is useful to me.

[lemmata]

I would love to survey 10 Japanese professionals about the meaning of "honte" (and whole host of other terms that English-speaking players argue about). Would we get 10 different answers? Honte is obviously not like hane or nobi, which are clearly defined. Even if their answers are similar, I bet that there would be slight variations.

It seems to be a term that is like pornography in the sense that it can't quite be defined precisely but strong players know it when they see it.

I think the productive approach is to appreciate the value of a move when a strong player tells us that it is honte, rather than trying to appreciate the "honte-ness" of it. I do very much enjoy John's cultural and linguistic exposition on the usage of such words though. Maybe that's because he's a good writer, rather than because the topic itself is interesting.

[Bantari]

I would love to survey 10 Japanese professionals about the meaning of "honte" (and whole host of other terms that English-speaking players argue about). Would we get 10 different answers? Honte is obviously not like hane or nobi, which are clearly defined. Even if their answers are similar, I bet that there would be slight variations.

Yes, I wonder that too.
What I also wonder - would they each give a verbal description/definition - or would they slap some stones on the board point, to a move, and say: "this is honte."

[RobertJasiek]

RJ and his derailments. How do I overcome that?

Maybe by seeing a different opinion (e.g., "safe is not specific enough for distinguishing what is from what is not a honte") as constructive contribution instead of as derailment?

[hyperpape]

Your response to RJ's post was quite severe and critical, presumably based on your previous interactions.

we must have been reading different threads.

By itself, nothing is wrong with Robert saying "here's my definition" and John saying "ain't gonna cut it". That's not derailment, and the back and forth was constructive, in my opinion. The derailment came later.

[daal]

But while the flesh is willing the spirit has been weakened by RJ and his derailments. How do I overcome that?

It takes two to tango. Try phrasing your replies to Robert more concisely - it will give him less to quote back at you.

[quantumf]

Your response to RJ's post was quite severe and critical, presumably based on your previous interactions.

we must have been reading different threads.

By itself, nothing is wrong with Robert saying "here's my definition" and John saying "ain't gonna cut it". That's not derailment, and the back and forth was constructive, in my opinion. The derailment came later.

OK, if John agrees with you, then I withdraw my suggestion. Perhaps John is referring to high ratio of posts made by Robert? Most have been on topic, but there have been some which are defensive in nature, of that granular quote/response/quote/response/quote/response style which many find so irritating. In general, I would say this thread hasn't gone too badly off topic (compared to some), and Robert has broken out some new threads to discuss certain sub-topics in more detail to limit derailment.

[Bill Spight]

How should we perceive 'honte' in light of the nugget "When your position has no weakness, it means you are playing inefficiently" from Wang Yang as quoted by Benjamin Teuber in SL?

To relate to that, I think that we can say that a honte not only shores up weakness, it's also a good move.