Looking for a modern basic joseki book

[gowan]

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

[Kirby]

Now, you may not have reached that conclusion in the game, but you could have done the tewari and realized that, despite your reading error, the loss of 6 stones did not mean a bad result in the corner. The moral is that when something goes wrong you step back, wash your face, and do a cool headed analysis.

I really like the idea of stepping back to do a cool headed analysis, though, it's something that is very difficult for me to do during the game - especially with time pressure. Perhaps also without time pressure, due to the emotional attachment I get to the game. If my plan fails, I feel I have failed, and it is difficult for me to be objective.

[emeraldemon]

This is not a book but An Younggil's commentary on pro games is very modern and often explains specific joseki and alternatives in depth.

https://gogameguru.com/get-better-at-go ... -go-games/

[oren]

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

[gowan]

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary treats basic and fundamental as synonyms. The Japanese kihon is translated equally as basic, fundamental, or standard. I don't see any reason to choose one over the other and, in practice, basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

[Boidhre]

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary treats basic and fundamental as synonyms. The Japanese kihon is translated equally as basic, fundamental, or standard. I don't see any reason to choose one over the other and, in practice, basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

The problem is the difference between asking for a basic book on Russian grammar and a book on basic Russian Grammar. Some people buy the wrong book.

[EdLee]

basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

I fundamentally like basic.

[Bantari]

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary treats basic and fundamental as synonyms. The Japanese kihon is translated equally as basic, fundamental, or standard. I don't see any reason to choose one over the other and, in practice, basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

To me, as a non-native english speaker, there is a pretty clear difference between 'basic' and 'fundamental'.

Fundamental is something you can build on, like a foundation.
Basic means 'simple', and that's that.

You can have 'basic' which is not 'fundamental' and 'fundamental' which is not 'basic'.
For example - some variations of taisha I would call 'fundamental'. I would not necessarily call them 'basic'.

Might be just in my brain, but I'd like to think this is a reasonable distinction.

[Boidhre]

To me, as a non-native english speaker, there is a pretty clear difference between 'basic' and 'fundamental'.

Fundamental is something you can build on, like a foundation.
Basic means 'simple', and that's that.

You can have 'basic' which is not 'fundamental' and 'fundamental' which is not 'basic'.
For example - some variations of taisha I would call 'fundamental'. I would not necessarily call them 'basic'.

Might be just in my brain, but I'd like to think this is a reasonable distinction.

Good explanation here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ic?q=Basic

It's a tricky distinction in English. The problems are: the 3rd definition is much more commonly used than the 1st listed there and the rules for basic vs fundamental get a bit tricky when dealing with something like joseki. Often "fundamental skills" and "basic skills" mean essentially the same thing when said even though strictly they have different meanings. I've seen a tendency to say "fundamental X" rather than "basic X" to avoid the confusion about whether you mean "simple X" or not. Language evolves etc. Main takeaway: basic doesn't always mean simple.

[Kirby]

My intuition about these two words matches pretty much what Bantari has pointed out.

The feeling I have for the word "fundamental" is more of "something you should have", perhaps "foundational" to more complicated things.
I don't have such a strong feeling with "basic", other than something that is simple or rudimentary.

However, a quick search online shows the etymology of the words:

* fundamental - from the Latin "fundare", which means "to found".
* base - "bottom, foundation, pedestal," early 14c., from Old French bas "depth" (12c.), from Latin basis "foundation," from Greek basis "step, pedestal," from bainein "to step" (see come).

The words seem very similar to me, but I do feel that one or the other is better suited for certain contexts.

Back to the topic, if we're talking about joseki, I'd personally feel the following:
* Fundamental Joseki - "Ah, this book must include joseki I've gotta know. More complicated Joseki will build off of this one!"
* Basic Joseki - "Ah, this book must include the easy stuff."

As the words are so similar, you could probably use the names interchangably, yet I still have these initial feelings when hearing the titles.

[Bill Spight]

I just searched Amazon Japan for books about kihon joseki. Aside from the general dictionaries, there were books aimed at beginners (shokyu), intermediates (chukyu), shodan, and 3 dan. I stopped there. AFAIK, there are kihon joseki for 5 dans. Obviously kihon joseki covers a wide range.

[John Fairbairn]

It's easy to show that there can be a difference in English between 'basic' and 'fundamental'. For example, if we dismissively say of a book "it has a pretty basic plot", it would not make much sense to replace that with "it has a pretty fundamental plot", which would be more a statement of praise.

But stripped of emotion (such as dismissiveness/praise above), the terms are usually interchangeable. This is amusingly illustrated by kihon, which does only have the 'building on a foundation' sense. The Japanese for two well known English phrases "fundamental human rights" and "Basic English" uses kihon. Of course BE is an interesting case, as its founder was obliged to use a more 'basic' (i.e. easy) word to convey the sense of 'foundation'! (One of the main proponents of BE was Frank Daniels, a Prof. of Japanese here in London.)

There is, however, another contextual linguistics-based approach. I posit that a when person is presented with something that says simply either Basic Joseki or Fundamental Joseki (or variants such as 38 Basic Joseki), it raises a very strong expectation that he will be given what is essentially a list (something easy to grasp). Even if the writer believes he is presenting something he believes the reader can build on, from the title the reader will expects that to be presented in easy fashion.

If the writer wants to convey in a title that he is offering meat and two veg instead of an ice cream cone, he will instinctively turn to phrases such as "Fundamental joseki to get you to 1-dan", or "Basic joseki theory". Conversely, if he wants to stress that is offering the sugary option, he will to well to use phrases such as "100 basic josekis everyone has to know" or "The core josekis".

There is also the problem that using joseki as a plural can create a different expectation. 'Basic joseki' sounds more abstract and so leaves open the possibility you'll be getting a bit of theory. 'Basic josekis' tends to emphasise the lustiness.

[Yukontodd]

If you're looking as a beginner, I found Baduktopia's Joseki Jeongseok Compass 1 a really nice start. It gives a review of past joseki to play out, a new basic joseki, errors and follow-ups and maybe a variation or older version that's still okay, some step by step exercises, then some openings with the joseki in it, two with errors to find, two professional openings. It covers 20 joseki. Will there ever be a second volume?*sigh*

[saxmaam]

If you're looking as a beginner, I found Baduktopia's Joseki Jeongseok Compass 1 a really nice start. It gives a review of past joseki to play out, a new basic joseki, errors and follow-ups and maybe a variation or older version that's still okay, some step by step exercises, then some openings with the joseki in it, two with errors to find, two professional openings. It covers 20 joseki. Will there ever be a second volume?*sigh*

Hey Todd,

I just ordered this book which has been out of stock at YMI since May 2014 and just became available. Didn't see it on the YMI site but bought through amazon.

Sensei's net and this other site seem to indicate that there are 4 books, but maybe the last 3 haven't been translated?

http://www.schaakengo.nl/www_schaakengo ... al_ld.html