Review by the Author:

General Specification

* Title: Life and Death Problems 1 - Basics
* Author: Robert Jasiek
* Publisher: Robert Jasiek
* Edition: 2013
* Language: English
* Price: EUR 23 (book), EUR 11.50 (PDF)
* Contents: life + death
* ISBN: none
* Printing: good
* Layout: good
* Editing: good
* Pages: 196
* Size: 148mm x 210mm
* Diagrams per Page on Average: 5.5
* Method of Teaching: principles, structure, examples
* Read when EGF: 20k - 5k
* Subjective Rank Improvement: +
* Subjective Topic Coverage: o
* Subjective Aims' Achievement: ++

Introduction

Life and Death Problems 1 has been written with especially these two aims:

* To fill a gap in the literature. Previously, it was difficult to recommend an English book specialising in life and death for a broad beginners' range. Not everybody wants to start with Asian books.

* To offer a systematic overview on all important basic techniques of life and death. Beginners do not wish to study many problems books to reinvent the wheel, but they simply want to know: what are the basics?

The book concentrates on its problems and answers, but it also teaches the necessary techniques and principles.

Problems

The book contains 171 problems and their answers. Most of the problems are newly invented. There are about three problems per finer technique. Since every major technique has three finer kinds, the altogether nine problems per major technique allow the reader to become familiar with it. The final problem chapter has ten mixed problems.

The easy techniques have the simplest problems, whose solution relies on the reading of just one short sequence and denotes the 20 kyu end of the recommended range. Other techniques have problems of various degrees of difficulty up to about 5 kyu level. Typically, the most difficult problems can have about ten variations, of which a small number have a dozen moves per sequence. Most problems, however, lie in between: their solution consists of a few variations, of which each has a few moves.

A double digit kyu will find the most difficult problems too difficult; the idea is to motivate him to overcome his current level and learn solving more than the easiest problems. A single digit kyu can solve the simplest problems at a glance; one must, however, not dismiss their techniques, because each kind of move can be relevant in life and death situations.

How often have we thought that a problem book did not show every interesting variation? This book is different: every important variation is shown and explained. Thereby, the reader can verify the correctness or incorrectness of his reading. He learns not to overlook any relevant variation, but he is encouraged to develop a reasonably complete reading of move sequences.

Theory

Every chapter introduces its technique with definition, short description, and one or a few examples. This prepares for the problems and their answers. An extra theory chapter introduces basic terms, such as 'eye', 'lake' (potential eye) and 'nakade'.

Techniques are studied on two levels. A problem can be solved on the level of the fundamental techniques, such as 'threatening to cut' or 'preventing an atari'. When this is insufficient, the following techniques of the 'second level' are an alternative set of tools. There are techniques related to

* the positional environment, when running or connecting to another group,
* an almost constant eyespace, when fighting about a lake, nakade or partition of the eyespace,
* an eyespace of changing size, when using an 'expansion', 'reduction', 'big reduction' or 'throw-in',
* liberty shortage, when using a 'snapback', 'one-' or 'two-sided approach block', 'external' or 'internal liberty shortage'.

Most of these major techniques have 'creating', 'threatening' and 'preventing' as their finer kinds. For example, one can 'create', 'threaten to create' or 'prevent' an external liberty shortage. In a life and death situation, threats are said to be as important as a move's direct meanings.

Double and multiple purposes or threats, basic reading principles, a short epilogue and a detailed index conclude the book. The principles can help to simplify reading, by disregarding inferior and emphasising interesting moves.

Conclusion

Life and Death Problems 1 can be a beginner's first or second problem book on life and death. For the intermediate player, it is a systematic reference to the basic techniques and reading principles.

Looking at the sample pages I wonder if it is really suitable for 15k-20k EGF. As far as I remember most almost-new players register around 20k EGF in their first tournaments, and definitely the first problem in the sample pages (Page 18, problem 1, white to move) is far, far more complicated than what a total (or almost-total) beginner can grasp or read by himself.

PS: Problem 3 in that same page is missing who moves. Maybe somewhere else it is stated that in this case the status should be determined, but just wanted to let you know.

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

The book is definitely not for ABSOLUTE beginners. 15 - 20k need to think harder than stronger players, naturally. The book does not throw double digit kyus into the cold water, because the main technique to be applied in the following problems is first explained.

If you read the Introduction (in the sample), you will find explained that problems without specified turn allow either player to move first.

It would be more interesting for me to read a review by a neutral third party (in general, for everything, nothing specific to your work). Would you consider asking someone well respected in the community to review the book for you? Ideally someone who has taught a lot of ddks.

Reader reviews tend to be fair when the readers have bought the books they review, because they are interested in the topic and read the books reasonably sincerely to get something in return for their payment. Reviews by people not intending to buy a book involve the risk that they get something they don't really want or need, and then you see that in their reviews possibly written faster than a book's author needs for proofreading. I guess there would also be fair free-copy reviewers, or such exaggerating praise to show their gratitude. IOW, reviews for free copies is lottery. I am a fan of reviews on bought books. Therefore, I have bought (almost) all the books written by other authors and reviewed by me.

I don't think this works for instructional books. The target audience may not be strong enough to spot the errors.

Errors in books is an interesting topic worth separate threads. Here, the question is whether readers can find any errors of the contents in this specific book. I think they have a good chance, because the answers to the problems and comments are about as detailed as necessary. In other books, e.g., problem books with a low ratio of 'variations shown' versus 'variations necessary to read', readers would have much greater difficulty to find errors in their reading or in the book. Hence, what does not work for some instructional books can work for other instructional books; it depends very much on the kind of book.

Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean errors as in diagram errors but methodology errors and similar.

A link to find the sample pages would be nice!
Have you invented yourself the term "lake" in the context of go theory?
I hope you didn't define the term "nakade" in the same wording as in your thread not so long ago. As much as I tried I never could make any sense of it.
As soon as I visit my local go book dealer I will have a look at your book. I am quite curious.

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

cyclops, links are in the other thread
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9328

IIRC, I invented "lake" between 1997 ~ 2002 and have occasionally used it in public. I consider it as important as "eye". It is so much more convenient to say "lake" than, e.g., "connected, visually surrounded part of the eyespace".

"nakade": Of course, I did not use the same wording. Research is not for the beginner's book, which needs explanations understood by everybody.

Boidhre, it is a good idea for reviews to discuss the books' methodology, concept, didactics etc. I wish that many reviews would discuss such in detail. When you ask for such a review on a specific book, you are, I am afraid, too optimistic about reviewers. They might, but often do not describe:

- Is the conveyed go theory good, useful, relevant, sufficient for the book's scope and correct?
- Are there any examples suffering from the author's missing or wrong understanding of go theory relevant for them?
- What, for the book's topic, is missing in it? What in the book does not belong to its topic? If the topic allows the author some choice about what to include, is the actual choice good or representative?
- Is the methodology of the contents good and appropriate, or does it contain errors or severe gaps?
- Are the didactics good and appropriate for the chosen style and intended readership of the book?
- How do these aspects compare to other books?
Etc. (What else might you mean?)

I can only go by the sample pages and what is said here, but it appears that "lake" is being used for the Japanese term futokoro, which is very common and so has been translated into English many times, normally (?always) as "eyespace". Since RJ in his sample pages uses "eyespace" distinctly from "lake", there is perhaps a conflict here.

RJ is continuing to use nakade incorrectly. Although he has justified this by pointing to the common (?but decreasingly so) mistaken usage elsewhere, it seems odd to insist on defining terms "understood by everybody" on the one hand and ignoring a very confusing usage on the other. The very, very simple change to "nakade shape" would solve the problems and retain the buzz word, but it should also be noted that there is widespread use of other terms (I think Davies used "unsettled shape" or similar).

I found the sentence "reduces by connecting" very odd English. An intransitive usage made no sense, and the assumption that it's transitive with ellipsis for the object is defied by the context shown. Is "reduce" also being redefined?

In principle, there is nothing at all wrong with trying to introduce new translations, or re-using existing terms in a new way, but I would hope that authors would then warn readers that they will be learning words and usages that fly in the face of usages already well established in the go world.

Dear Robert,

If you wanted a reviewer to completely work through your list, it would be necessary to pay her.

Additionally, you needed not only a very experienced person, but someone who is so very interested in the topic (despite reading the book might not benefit her personally) that she spends a lot of time to study the book. Not to mention the effort to write a high-level review.

It should be evident that even giving the reviewer a copy of the book for free will not in the least be a compensation for her effort. However, you firmly reject even this very small "gift", so there is no chance at all that you get what you wanted.

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

Regarding reviews: I think it depends on the readership. If you write a review to promote a book (in my opinion the main reason why you want to write a review when you are not doing it professionally), you will focus on the points which make the book attractive to like-minded readers.
For Go-players and problem books I assume this will something like educational, good composed and a wide variety of problems with various difficulties, good explanation of the solution/variations, possibility to practice a variety of techniques, possibility to quickly solve problems (good format, easy to find the solution diagramme to each problem), no significant mistakes in move order, labelling of problems or even whole solutions and so on.
Of course you can remark on stuff that makes a book somewhat special, i.e. a structered approach to techniques while still being a problem book (contrary to Dictionary of Basis Tesuji) or a great system of increasing difficulty, i.e. starting with the simplest snapback (for living and killing), going over to the double snapback (preferably not as a three-move-problem) and ending with a problem which involves a snapback and another important technique.

I would not write more than one sentenced about the term "lake" because I find it irrelevant how you call it. I would furthermore don't review anything about Go-theory in a problem book unless you give good rule of thumbs (better than Kageyama's :P).

I already have an eye on your Fighting Fundamentals, so maybe I treat myself two or your books for christmas this year ^^

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

It seems to me that Robert uses "lake" as an expression to indicate a part of the board that probably might become ONE distinct eye.

In my experience, "futokoro", as well as "eyespace", is generally used to indicate the entire part of the board that might be used to generate eyes for a group, how many ever.

"Widening the eyespace" (for creating a living group) usually means that the eyespace created is sufficient for at least TWO eyes. Otherwise, this technique does not make sense.

Concluding, it seems to me that a group's (potential) "eyespace" contains 1 to n "lake".

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

Lake, nakade etc.: will answer in a different thread:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9335

Check list for a reviewer: I do not expect a typical review of some book (not just this particular book) to answer all the questions in detail. However, I want to encourage reviewers of any go books to consider such questions more than before.

Robert, I notice a lot of awkward grammar choices in your sentences. Rather than back that up with evidence, I would like to just state that as an unsupported assertion. I am insufficiently qualified to argue the nuances of the reasons for different choices of language. I am neither a writer, nor a linguist, but merely a native speaker of British English. I just have an internal sense of what sounds correct in my mother tongue. A subjective opinion rather than an objective truth.

In my unsupported opinion, there are three Go book writers whose grammar choices rise a level above the pack: John Fairbairn, John Power and James Davies. If all three happen to settle on a particular phrasing, I think it is a safe assumption that they are right. So before introducing new terms, it would be worth double-checking against their work to see if they have already selected a word or phrase for that concept.

This new use of lake is just another example. I may be reacting to an unfamiliar new usage, but I don't think so.

Well, the idea is that the reviewer is giving their view on a work not a complete and total view or one that you necessarily agree with. Each reviewer has their own "list." This is how it kinda works, I read certain people's reviews of some things (outside of go) because they cover aspects I care about and don't spend too much time on the bits that don't bother me, etc. Extreme detail in a (non-academic) review is problematic as readers often won't wade through it. One that covers a few key points about the book is far more likely to be read by people.

Of course, better than Kageyama's extension of the popular proverb "1. reduce, 2. occupy the vital point". As a general advice, this is WRONG, because it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. The inverse order can sometimes be correct.

Why, o why, is this proverb so extraordinarily popular? I sometimes get the impression that almost nobody studies LD theory carefully.

***

PeterHB, there is no point in avoiding more efficient language with a few new terms and phrases using them. E.g., thankfully Davies introduced 'snapback' to the English terminology. New terms must be used, when the prior terms are inefficient. See also the other thread on such terms.

BTW, I am surprised that nobody so far has mentioned 'approach block', 'external / internal liberty shortage'. IMO, no such English terms have existed so far, I am inventing them, because their techniques deserve names. (And speaking English is better than hard-to-remember Japanese 'oi-otoshi'.)

Well, I guess there is - again - the theoretical approach and the practical.
For me this sounds like the difference between the japanese nobi, tsukiatari, narabi, sagari, hiki and de. My take is the avarage player does not care and he still plays these moves frequently and correctly. Knowing the difference between the terms does not make you stronger or make you play better Go, knowing terms in general does not make you stronger, I would assume.
If you like to explain a technique in detail then there is always the question if you can do that without drifting into the realm of too many technical terms. For "oi-otoshi", I simply say: White or Black cannot connect (thus save) his stones with one move because connecting does not increase his liberties. Or something along this line. No technical terms except "connecting" and "liberties" which are basic terms in everyday Go use and also easily understood in non-Go English.

Do not overegg the pudding : )

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go