This is not necessary at all !

If the vital point was already occupied, there would be no Ko.
It remains the question why you consider the exceptional case so very important.

By the way, in "common understanding" "Nakade" and "Seki" exclude each other !
Just because you cannot kill a group and not kill a group at the same time.

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

Your teaching forgos the exception. My teaching does not even create the exception, because I exclude it already once and for all time in the definition. Something that is not excluded and so possibly must always be watched whether it arises and causes problems. Without the exception, straightforward principles become possible, such as "A non-seki group, whose eyespace consists of one nakade, is dead." With your teaching this becomes: "A non-seki group, whose eyespace consists of one nakade, is dead or can be involved in a ko."

Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=152523#p152523



As much as some of those would react negatively that are used to the meaning of a stable local position, if somebody uses nakade in the meaning of a nakade move / move creating a stable local position.

OTOH, people have not cried in the past when different authors or speakers have used nakade with different meanings.

Only now that I clarify the meaning of nakade in its 'stable local position' variant, more people start to realise just how little consensus there has been for nakade as an English go term.

As little as I want to write "stable nakade" whenever I write "nakade" (because I always mean the stable nakade), as little others want to write "nakade move" whenever they write "nakade". A text can clarify which meaning(s) of nakade it uses. My text does so on 8 pages, plus more pages to explain the more fundamental terms. If every text clarified at least which of the following it means, then more readers of more texts would be happy:

* the instable local nakade position
* the instable local nakade position together with its environment
* the shape in the instable local nakade position
* the stable local nakade position
* the stable local nakade position together with its environment
* the shape in the stable local nakade position
* the move transforming the instable into a stable local nakade position
* the process starting from the first move transforming the instable into a stable local nakade position to an almost-filling
* the process starting from the first move transforming the instable into a stable local nakade position to a removal
* the attacker's string(s) inside the stable local nakade position
* the attacker's string inside the stable local nakade position if it is exactly one string

All of the meanings I have seen or heard in English or German for "nakade".

It is not so surprising that such a great variety of meanings has been floating around, because

* they are all related to the same potential behaviour of possible transformation to almost-filling and (after the nakade(-creating) move, in the stable local position) the defender's missing possibility of partitioning the local position,

* too little attempts were made to settle or clarify the meaning in English (or German) during the last 100 years.



I read this.

Sensei's Library is not a reliable source for go terms. There, terms are defined by a) the only SL writers interested in writing about a particular term or b) those SL writers winning, or having the potential to win, an editing war. SL is too little open to convey every existing meaning of a term, but a few writers can prevent an even smaller number of other writers trying to state existing alternative meanings of a term.

If SL were an impartial source of information, it would also explain the existing English meanings of nakade and clarify that there is a variety of such meanings.

When you see a definition on SL that is unsigned, you do not know whether it is authoritative or whether it represents the misunderstanding of amateurs. However, the discussions about nakade have signed contributions by John Fairbairn, a renowned go translator, who references the Hayashi encyclopedia, which is about as authoritative as you can get.



I am one who believes that dictionaries should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. But dictionaries do not have definitions that include misunderstandings, unless they are ancient and hallowed. Since go terminology is about concepts that help us to understand the game better, to include definitions that reflect amateur misunderstandings does no service to the go community.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Taken from viewtopic.php?p=152547#p152547 because it seems to fit better here and having a conversation in several places at once seems to be the preferred style.



Let me get this straight, you are praising someone for having the courage to use a phrase which you deem inferior to the one in common use? I hope that I too receive praise for accusing you of dropping the whiffle here.

I think that you should bear in mind that the value of a term is diminished if it causes the a native English speaker to stumble. I understand your desire for precision, but if a term is not easily grasped, and causes the reader to incessantly flip back to the definitions page where he is invited to struggle with an explanation, you have little hope of the term becoming widely used with your intended meaning.

A word such as "lake" helps the reader understand the concept by creating an association with something familiar. Defining "nakade" in a way that is not intuitive to a native Japanese speaker simply adds muddiness to the word.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

This tract is a good example of RJ's technique, and maybe a good reason he should add a health warning to his books. Note that, without acknowledging previous attempts at correcting him, he suddenly switches to "nakade position" (which is OK - nakade shape was recommended and is probably better) instead of the "nakade" he usually insists on (mis)using. Note the continuing refusal to use correct English (instable). Note the list and pseudo-mathematical language ("if it is exactly one string").

But note above all the sweeping statement, without citations: "All of the meanings I have seen or heard in English or German for "nakade"".

Where? Not the standard English books that deal with beginners' L&D. Go Proverbs (the Segoe book and the S&S one) don't contain "nakade", nor do any of the general beginners' books, such as Koishikawa, the Nihon Ki-in guide and so on. James Davies in his seminal L&D book refers to eye shapes or bulky five etc. not to nakade. Every issue of the British Go Journal used to contain - maybe still does - definitions of Japanese terms used in the journal or by British players. For nakade it said (in toto): "a move played inside an enemy group at the vital point of the principal eyespace to prevent it from making two eyes".

It is true that misuses can be found occasionally. The American Go Journal has: "It concentrates on two themes, ishi-no-shita (under the stones) and nakade (big eyes)" - Dr Straw, and "he spent 90 minutes reviewing nakade (dead shapes) with me last Sunday" - Chris Garlock. But the explanations in brackets obviate the confusion, and in any case these examples are alongside others such as "Problems range in difficulty from simple nakade shapes to moderately difficult shapes".

Actually the misuses (usually only in speech) by English speakers can usually be explained easily by the acceptable practices of ellipses and metonymy. After all, a native speaker would not blanch at the phrase "the theatre is a beautiful institution" and would always interpret this as a reference to the art of live acting being a valuable cultural activity. If a foreigner, not recognising metonymy and knowing that institution might refer to a building, came along and said, "I don't like it because it's made of red brick", we'd think it odd. That is what is happening with the Germanic misuse of nakade.

In the case of RJ's list idea of "reduction then vital point" when no list was intended (and a "well known" "proverb" he has thereby concocted himself), and his trumpeting of his "discovery" that you often actually start with the vital point - all claimed to be based on western sources: again, where?

Kageyama's book has already been cited. But we see plenty of other texts that show the intended meaning clearly enough:

(a) Segoe's Proverbs (under the proverb heading of "There us death in the ha-ne"): There are two keys to unlock the problems of life and death. One is to strike at the key-point of an eye-formation, transforming it into a dead formation, and the other is to kill it by narrowing the eye space it needs to make eyes."
(b) The Nihon Ki-in Handbook of Proverbs has a heading "Enlarge eye space to live. Reduce eye space to kill." It then continues: "These are perhaps the most basic life-and-death proverbs. They apply in most cases, except when there is a vital point."

As to "approach liberty", I will just note in passing that James Davies uses "approach move" in his L&D book. But this and the usages in all of the above works will be enough to show we are not talking about my personal preferences).

To repeat a common refrain: there is much that is stimulating in RJ's ideas and content. But his presentation doesn't just let him down: it antagonises. The eagle-eyed will have noted the same point in the German review he cited (the content was praised but he had a major problem with his "Darstellung").

I have often wondered why he doesn't listen to the pounding on the door. I blinked several times when he praised Rob van Zeijst for "courage" because he said "adjacent threat" instead of "local threat". PLease, please, please, please, please don't let it be the case that RJ thinks that by ignoring the pounding and keeps on adding to his store of new terms exponentially that he has bucket-loads of courage. Though, come to think of it, if you redefine reduction you can redefine courage - as we will perhaps see in his next post (though I hope he will recall it is Remembrance Day today).

Bill, I do not doubt John Fairbairn's understanding of Japanese go terms in Japanese texts or speech, but I criticise his and your incomplete perception of nakade used as an English or German go term in English or German texts or speech. Signing a related SL page does not remove this problem.

I would not call the non-Japanese meanings given to a word of Japanese origin "amateur misunderstandings", but such other meanings reflect a desire and need to express something in a non-Japanese language by a word or phrase familiar to those having the desire and need.

It is a common process of languages that words are imported from other language, and that such words do not always keep their original language's meanings, but can sometimes assume new meanings in the new language.

I understand the desire to have a common language of go terminology in all languages of the word, but such is a dream. In practice we see efforts to bring Korean words into English etc. Language is always changing, and the Japanese origin (combination of word and meaning) does not always win. Furikawari, what was that? It is so much nicer to say exchange!

***

daal, I can appreciate somebody's courage, without liking what he does. It just shows that also other writers affect the use of terms.

***

John, of the 11 possible meanings of nakade used in English at times, I use just 1 meaning. No health warning is needed:)

'Nakade shape' is NOT better, because the features of a stable local nakade position are INDEPENDENT from the shape appearance. Instead, the features depend on the nature and effects of possible move-sequences. (Nakade shape can be used for a different purpose, e.g., to show a list of diagrams with all basic shapes having these nature and effects. According to Thomas Wolf, complete lists need programs, because there are millions of such shapes, especially near the edge or corner.)

As usual, you are amused of the pseudo-mathematical language. I am not amused that typical lists of nakade shape diagrams show such with exactly one string, but do not show examples with several strings. Such lists suggest something wrong: that there would always be only one string.

Where? I do not waste my time on collecting references and records of pieces of texts and speeches. (Except, of course, for the topic go rules.) Therefore, I cannot show evidence.

What do you have against my definitions of 'reduction'? Which are yours?

You consider my departure from Japanese origin antagonising, while I consider it antagonising that you exaggerate use of Japanese in English texts and call a variety of different meanings in English use "misuse". Unlike your comments on my texts, I do not draw your texts in the mud because of language trivialities. What matters is contents, and whether the contents can be retrieved from a text. It is easier to retrieve contents from a text that explains each term it uses than from a text that does not do so. IIRC, we both explain the relevant terms we use in our texts. Why not instead antagonise about authors that do not do so?

Do you really assume that this is the "appropriate" approach ?
"Appropriate" in the sense that it would minimize your overstressing of your audience ?

+ + + + + + + + + +

In my book on "Igo Hatsuyôron 120" you will find the "common" explanation for "Nakade" in the book's glossary. I.e. "dead bulky shape" / "move that occupies this shape's vital point".

Throughout the book, we use the term "Nakade" to name
-- the very special arrangement of black, and white, stones on the left side of the board,
-- touched by Inoue Dosetsu Inseki's genius
-- that may, or may not, become filled with a bulky shape of black stones,
-- which may, or may not, cause the death of the surrounding white group.

Additionally, we use "Oki" (and NOT "Nakade") for those moves that occupy this special region's vital points.

If we take it literally, our usage of the term "Nakade" is neither correct, nor does it fit our own explanation in the book's glossary.

However, which problems should arise from this ?

+ + + + + + + + + +

Your "very precise" way of naming things probably would talk of

-- "potential Nakade", as long as White is able to capture the Hanezeki's tail in the centre, as a single requirement for getting life for her group,
-- "Nakade", only after Black connected the Hanezeki's tail, so really enclosing White's (then) one-eyed group,
-- "left side region" / "inside White's left-hand group" otherwise.

How should this distinction help the "usual" reader of the book ?

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

Cassandra, WRT to the 11 possible meanings, my "audience" is the readers of this forum. I list every possible meaning, so that the Japanese-influenced people can state more easily which of the possibilities they include in the nakade meanings. So far, it is clear only that they include the nakade move ("the move transforming the instable into a stable local nakade position"), but what else do they include? SL and the Almanac are too imprecise to know it.

"The stable local nakade position" is the only meaning that I use in my texts under the name 'nakade'. Yes, I consider it the appropriate approach to use the term with only one meaning, because the other possible meanings are too far away for letting one word express everything. In particular, there is a difference between the move creating the follow-up position and the follow-up position itself. From multiple meanings of 'nakade' in the same text, problems arise when the meanings need to be distinguished. E.g., one can say that the attacker need not attack the stable follow-up position and so can tenuki, but one cannot easily give a tenuki advice when a nakade move (creating the stable follow-up position) is still available.

Maybe your book does not need to make such distinctions. A general life and death book, however, should make it; the reader must learn when playing elsewhere is or is not possible. This is essential, because such decisions must be made at every move of every variation.

It is easiest if the terms used need as little explanation as possible, or explain themselves naturally to the reader based on his understanding of the language.

E.g. the term "lake" will immediately put the reader in mind of an open area which can have a variety of shapes, may have islands and can be either fully enclosed or connected to other bodies of water. Had you used e.g. "river", the reader would immediately associate it with words like long, narrow, and moving, none-of which would be appropriate for the term.

If you use the phrase "approaching the liberties of a group" to also include occupying actual liberties, you frustrate understanding by using terminology that does not naturally associate with what you mean. When you are approaching a location, you are not yet at that location. Therefore, it is natural for the reader to assume that any moves that are "approaching the liberties" are not in the location of actual liberties. (So this is an entirely natural term for those moves that are required first to take liberties without themselves taking any actual liberties).

Quick comparison, ordered not in terms of correctness, which I cannot judge, but in terms of clarity:









I personally am more willing to forgive less than accurate definitions than I am to forgive less than comprehensible formulations. To some extent, this is a reflection of my go understanding, but the more linguistic clarity, the more likely I am to mentally make note of a concept.

Above, Cassandra asks what problems are created by her own admittedly inconsistent use of the word in her book. I say: fewer than caused by a precise definition that is so formulated that one opts out of trying to figure out it's meaning.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Herman, ok, approaching the approach liberties is not such a good idea:) Liberties are filled / occupied in order to approach a string / group.

daal, what you cite about nakade was written as a draft for the researcher, not for application as a player. Not surprisingly, you find it difficult to read. It is. (Actually, for the researcher, getting the seki and ko conditions right is a nightmare.) For the less than accurate version, see the OP:
viewtopic.php?p=152336#p152336

This is not the essential point.

It is much easier to be in accordance with the common reader's understanding to name something "Nakade" that -- on first, and even on second, sight -- looks like a "Nakade" and possesses it's typical characteristics than to make the reader believe, and to "verify" in detail, that this -- in principle -- is something else, just because there is only one of two main variations of the solution (the branching point is move 162 of 180), wherein this "Nakade" becomes the single eye of a dead group.

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

Dear Robert,

It is pity that you do not have access to original Japanese sources. Japanese do not have the problem described by you.

In Japanese, a "Nakade-move" (= "nakade-te") simply does not exist !

If "nakade" is used in Japanese to name a MOVE, this move is the one that occupies the vital point of the eyeshape. Thereafter, moves ("te") are used to occupy further points of the eyeshape.

If "nakade" is used in Japanese to name a SHAPE, this always happens in conjunction with "xx moku" (= xx points), and names the EMPTY area of the board. E.g. "gomoku nakade" is "five-points Nakade". This means that the Japanese do not have the opponent's stones in mind that occupy parts of the eyeshape, but always the resulting (empty / unoccupied) shape after capturing these stones.

This is another reasoning why you should refrain from using the original Japanese term "nakade" for your purposes.

If you wanted to overcome a historically grown, and possibly unclear / bewildering, usage of "Nakade" in English, you simply should choose another (own) technical term.

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

As you might know, I have got rid of most Japanese words and prefer to use only the very few, for which there is no good English alternative: ko, gote... For nakade (stable position), I have not found a suitable English replacement yet. The closest candidate at the moment is: stable lake. However, since I do not share the view of the Japanese fans and have seen the stable position meaning more frequently used than the nakade move meaning, I have felt no need to abandon using nakade.

Actually, I also feel no need for others to write one of 'nakade move', 'nakade shape' etc., because it is very easy to adapt to such another, consistently used meaning when reading a text of another author. Quite like it is very easy to understand 'tree' used for 'game variations tree', and not the tree used for the board's wood.

How about "big eye?" (Cho Chikun)

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Big eye is an established term for eyes of size 4+.

German "Klumpen" =

English
http://dict.leo.org/#/search=Klumpen&se ... wSingle=on

German "Klotz" =

English
http://dict.leo.org/#/search=Klotz&sear ... wSingle=on


choose one ...

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

Sorry, but I am NOT searching a word for the attacker's single inside string.

but ... ?

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