Reduction

[skydyr]

Would any DDK miss the obvious move here?

I’m ~13k, and for me it is clear where to place my stone, never mind the colour, the spots are blinking red, ringing an alarm bell, and hopping up and down, screaming “HERE, HERE”.

There is a huge difference between 11k and 19k, of course. I suspect these all fall somewhere on a spectrum one could be expected to master somewhere in that range.

[Bill Spight]

Would any DDK miss the obvious move here?

Yes.

[Bill Spight]

When the (bad) proverb says "First reduce, then play on the vital point."

As I suspected earlier, you are indeed redefining the meaning of reduction without telling your audience.

Cher Robert, you just cost me a half hour trying to find that proverb. I suspected that it was one of the amateur proverbs on Sensei's Library, but I could not find it there. Then I thought, well, maybe it is a Japanese proverb I had not heard of, and I spent some time searching for it, to no avail.

Now, coming back and reading this thread further, I find that you have indeed redefined reduction, as John says, and, now that I understand what you mean by reduction, I know that there is no such proverb. Since the easiest way to make life is to make a large enough territory, the first think to consider, as a practical matter, when trying to kill a group is to constrain it to a small region. If that does not work, then considering the vital point or points comes later. The first/then refers to priority of consideration, not sequence of play, which is the plain meaning of your so-called proverb.

Actual proverbs relating to this idea include "There is death in the hane," and "Hane, kiri, oki."

[RobertJasiek]

The proverb (or variants of its wording) occurs in various books, of which I can mention immediately Lessons on the Fundamentals of Go, p. 123. However, I have heard it much more frequently from (mostly Japanese) professionals at demonstration boards at European Go Congresses (and sadly it often was pretty much the only thing a professional could say about solving LD problems). I have heard it also from a few other professionals and quite a few amateurs. IMX, the proverb is a few times as popular as the second most popular advice on LD. Hasn't it reached New Mexico yet?:)

When you say "when trying to kill a group is to constrain it to a small region. If that does not work, then considering the vital point or points comes later." and we imagine a large territorial framework, it makes sense. Unfortunately, such examples were not used in the many cases I heard the proverb; the used examples were small, pretty tightly enclosed LD problems, as you see them in many LD problem books.

You are an optimist in "The first/then refers to priority of consideration, not sequence of play, which is the plain meaning of your so-called proverb.". This is how it should be taught, but rarely was. (Not "my" proverb! I am its strongest opponent!)

[cyclops]

The proverb (or variants of its wording) occurs in various books, of which I can mention immediately Lessons on the Fundamentals of Go, p. 123.......

And the next sentence is:
"If it works you need look no further. If it does not, then try something else ..."
The idea is that you start reading with the reducing move(s) first. Not that reducing first is obligatory. I don't understand why you didn't cite this sentence too, Robert.

[John Fairbairn]

Cher Robert, you just cost me a half hour trying to find that proverb. I suspected that it was one of the amateur proverbs on Sensei's Library, but I could not find it there.

Bill: I shared your bafflement but, having got used to some of RJ's weird thought processes, I thought I discerned what had happened here. His subsequent posts have more or less confirmed this.

As you say, the main proverb in this area is 死はハネにあり. However, this is sometimes phrased 死はハネから. Naturally this can be translated as 'start with hane', or 'hane first'. RJ then (I inferred) believed he made a huge step in his 'research' by extending the idea of hane as a futokoro-reducing move to any type of move and calling them all 'reductions' (ignoring the fact that Japanese books explaining the proverb also say that hane is just one such technique - though the commonest).

Then (or so I inferred) he made an erroneous, but quite understandable, link from the fact that this proverb is often explained by showing one hane, sometimes two, followed immediately by a move (a nakade or oki) at a vital point.

It is very common when this proverb is quoted, to link it with advice also to look at (first - but this is not always spelt out) moves at the vital point. If you are list-driven, like RJ, it is very easy therefore to see this as advice always to play a futokoro-reducing move first and then to follow-up, in the same problem, with a move at the vital point. Understandable, but wrong.

If you look at the reference to page 123 in Kageyama, you will see that RJ's claim that the proverb is quoted there is also quite wrong. There is, instead, a list of ideas to try: 1. Hane; 2. Vital point. He has concocted a proverb out of this list - a wrong proverb that is actually right on many occasions, which makes it a rather subtle bug. Subtle but BIG.

'Reduction' here is a poor choice for various reasons, I believe. RJ's misuse of transitivity is one reason, and confusion with keshi is another. And playing inside is a form of reduction (reducing liberties). The Japanese phrase is futokoro o semaku suru, with hirosa sometimes used for futokoro. 'Narrowing' might therefore be better in English also, since 'narrow' is not normally used for any other go concept.

[Bill Spight]

oren, having just studied hundreds of problems and their solutions, I know that usually the best place to start reading is the one and only obvious move.

Cher Robert, I agree with you that to solve a life and death problem, a vital point is likely to be the best place to start one's consideration. However, in a real game restricting the opponent's Lebensraum is likely to be the best place. For one thing, in most life and death problems the group to attack is already confined.

[Bill Spight]

'Reduction' here is a poor choice for various reasons, I believe. RJ's misuse of transitivity is one reason, and confusion with keshi is another. And playing inside is a form of reduction (reducing liberties). The Japanese phrase is futokoro o semaku suru, with hirosa sometimes used for futokoro. 'Narrowing' might therefore be better in English also, since 'narrow' is not normally used for any other go concept.

Thanks, John.

This afternoon I was wondering whether constrain or constrict might be good terms to use in English.

[Kirby]

Even if hane doesn't kill, it's a good place to start reading. In the worst case, if you can't solve the problem or find a way to kill, at least you make a good play that is likely to reduce narrow (?) the opponent's points.

[RobertJasiek]

cyclops, because it was hidden in ordinary text. I see. He writes:

"Fundamentals of Life and Death

Life

1. Get more room (widen your eye space).
2. Occupy a central eye-making point (vital point).

Death

1. Reduce the enemy's room (narrow his eye space).
2. Occupy a central eye-making point (vital point).

[...]

First check the fundamental rule. If it works you need look no further. If it does not, then try something else, but the fundamental rule should come first. The cases where the fundamental rule works without any alteration may be in the minority, but it is where you should start nonetheless."

In this context, the, what he calls, fundamental rule makes more sense than the rule alone. Still I dislike this advice, because,

the generally applicable principles must come first, such as:

1. "If possible, simplify reading".

Then more specific principles / methods can be applied, such as:

2. "If the eyespace consists of one lake and there is only one obvious first move, start with its verification."

3. "Fight about the size of (the attacker decreases, the defender increases the size of) the eyespace."

In a complicated LD situation, generally applicable principles are important. In simple LD situations, (2.) becomes a more specific instance of (1.). Teaching only the principles in (2.) and (3.) would be pretending that all LD situations were simple. As everybody knows, this is not so.

[RobertJasiek]

John, I did not

- say that all Japanese books would say the same
- they would overlook other shape moves,
- the proverb would always be shown for hanes,
- suggest only lists (but it can be necessary that principles and methods require a non-sequential application!).

Despite your heroic attempt to show examples of better interpretation of the proverb, what I saw before was mostly the weak, bad kind of presentation. Regardless of the history, it is nice to see that, now, you and Bill give better meaning to the proverb.

I have not started from hane, but I have searched for a shape-independent generalisation of reduction moves and called the generic reduction move a 'reduction'. This simplifies reading: one kind of move for the same function, regardless of the shape.

Since you emphasise my "misuse" of transivity so much, looking up my dictionary, it says that reduce is transitive. I see. This can make sense in ordinary English. However, go writing is specialised English. Go writing about local life and death situations is even more specialised. In such documents, when reduce or reduction are applied to eyespaces or lakes, it is ALWAYS an eyespace or lake that is being reduced. By context, the transitive object is obvious. Therefore, in such specialised use of English, it is more efficient to allow the verb reduce to be transitive or intransitive. The purpose of language is not to be static, but language changes, when new uses are found useful or old uses become extinct.

There is no confusion with keshi. In other texts about territories or moyos, the context there determines the object, or, if the object is non-obvious, it can be stated explicitly.

For liberties, the phrases are "approaching the liberties" or "decreasing the number of liberties". I would not say "reduce the liberties".

[Cassandra]

oren, having just studied hundreds of problems and their solutions, I know that usually the best place to start reading is the one and only obvious move.

Dear Robert,

the "one and only obvious MOVE" is played at the "one and only obvious POINT".

Do you discuss in your book how to IDENTIFY this POINT ?

[oren]

In a go problem, single answers often exists. In real games it is often multiple possibilities. Reducing from the outside is often better.

Robert, how much experience do you have teaching beginners?

[John Fairbairn]

Since you emphasise my "misuse" of transivity so much, looking up my dictionary, it says that reduce is transitive. I see. This can make sense in ordinary English. However, go writing is specialised English. Go writing about local life and death situations is even more specialised. In such documents, when reduce or reduction are applied to eyespaces or lakes, it is ALWAYS an eyespace or lake that is being reduced. By context, the transitive object is obvious. Therefore, in such specialised use of English, it is more efficient to allow the verb reduce to be transitive or intransitive. The purpose of language is not to be static, but language changes, when new uses are found useful or old uses become extinct.

1. You need a new dictionary. Reduce can be intransitive - just not in the way you use it.

2. You don't get to decide the language that native speakers use. If you insist on pissing in the wind, don't be surprised if you get splashed. Irritating native speakers and established go players with multiple idiosyncracies is not a way to attract readers/buyers. Teaching raw beginners words in your zoo they will not find when released to the wild will not help them survive. Language changes, but glacially - not by means of bulldozers.

For liberties, the phrases are "approaching the liberties" or "decreasing the number of liberties". I would not say "reduce the liberties".

'Approaching liberties' is gibberish. I'm guessing you mean 'filling in liberties' but it really is guesswork. 'Decrease liberties' is understandable but sounds very odd. 'Reduce liberties' is best. (Decrease has a nuance of something happening naturally; reduce has a nuance of you making it happen.)

You can't assume even in a L&D that reduce refers to futokoro and leading to a vital point play. You can reduce liberties so as to set up a 'rooster on one leg', which is after all a pretty fundmental L&D shape.

[Cassandra]

*snip*

For liberties, the phrases are "approaching the liberties" or "decreasing the number of liberties". I would not say "reduce the liberties".

'Approaching liberties' is gibberish. I'm guessing you mean 'filling in liberties' but it really is guesswork. 'Decrease liberties' is understandable but sounds very odd. 'Reduce liberties' is best. (Decrease has a nuance of something happening naturally; reduce has a nuance of you making it happen.)

Dear Robert,

Again, your wording does not fit "common understanding".

Being a non-native speaker of English (but being supervised by one in this context), I usually use "to occupy a liberty" in my book on Igo Hatsuyoron 120. In my opinion, "occupy" makes evident that something is absent now that has been there before.

When using "to reduce", this usually happens like "the number of liberties has been reduced to five".

"to approach" gives me the feeling of getting near to something. Placing a stone in the direct neighbourhood of an opponents group would fall in this category, in my understanding.

In my understanding, "to approach a liberty" describes putting a stone in the direct neighbourhood of a liberty.
However, "occupying an approach-move liberty" / "playing an appraoch-move" is something more special, and related to a preparatory move, because directly occupying the liberty in question is impossible.