A Complete Introduction to the Game of Go

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:14 pm

Page 8 wrote:What’s important is that you understand that every stone, in order to be placed on the board, and in order to remain on the board, must at all times enjoy at least one liberty.

( Bold in original text; not mine.)

Hi Joel, your statement above is incorrect:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------- $$ | B B B B | $$ | X B X B | $$ | . X . X | $$ +----------[/go]

All six

stones above have zero liberties left,
yet it's perfectly legal for "every

stone" above to remain on the board.

Your statement above says "every stone...in order to remain on the board, must at all times enjoy at least one liberty."
This is very much incorrect.

xed_over · Post by **xed_over** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:21 pm

EdLee wrote:Hi Joel,
Page 5 wrote:At the start of the game, each player is equipped with a bowl containing 180 identical stones:
I think it suffices to say if you have at least 181 and 180

Actually, you probably only need at least 150 stones to play a game, because unless you're using Ing rules, you'll probably not ever cover the board completely.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:28 pm

xed_over wrote:Actually, you probably only need at least 150 stones to play a game, because unless you're using Ing rules, you'll probably not ever cover the board completely.

You and I both have sufficient experience to know that most of the time, we don't run out of stones.
However, occasionally, it does happen.
Even with a full set of over 181

and 180

--
example: a long game, over 320 moves, with lots of captured stones removed (Japanese rules set), with a long ko, etc.

But that's not the point. I just thought it's a little strange
to mention exactly 180 stones in each bowl.

If anything, I would just casually mention many manufacturers (like Mr. Kuroki)
ship 181 (+spares)

and 180 (+spares)

, and leave it at that.
That's just my preference; you may feel free to mention "150".

xed_over · Post by **xed_over** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:30 pm

EdLee wrote:zed_over

X - as in cross(ed)

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:49 pm

Page 10 wrote:The second rule of stone placement dictates what happens when a player chooses to place a stone on the liberty of his own stone.

Hi Joel,

I understand your intention with this "second rule".
However, it's a little strange, to me.
I've only experienced Go for just over a decade --
during this period, I've met hundreds (probably less than 1,000 ? ) beginners,
and I've read various "beginner's guides" to Go --
I've never seen this "second rule" stated like this in your text, nor do I find it necessary.
This is only my opinion; maybe others feel differently.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:57 pm

Page 12 wrote:It stands to reason that the fundamental strategy is
to consistently make moves that aid in the connections of your own stones
while threatening the connections of your opponents’.

( Highlights are mine, not in original text.)

Hi Joel,

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with the above opinion.

If I were writing a beginners' guide to bicycling, and I claim that
The Fundamental Strategy is to consistently use training wheels...

...I would also be incorrect.

I understand that some people quite enjoy to "provide" to beginners
this "advice," or variations of it.

However, as many people soon realize,
the above "strategy" is full of traps and is something they have to un-learn very quickly.

From a recent thread, post 4:

Connecting and cutting are Not some fundamental strategy of Go;
rather, they are merely training wheels for the beginner to gain valuable experience.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:17 pm

Page 12 wrote:Remembering that diagonal relationships do not count as connections between stones,

Hi Joel,

I understand where you're going with this,
but I just want to point out it's a problem.
The problem is the way you discuss (or define) what constitutes a "connection" between stones.

In your text, up to page 12, when you write "connection,"
what you actually mean is, narrowly, a "solid connection":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Shape 1 $$ . . . . . . $$ . . X X . . $$ . . . . . .[/go]

Compare to, say, a diagonal shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Shape 2 $$ . . . . . . $$ . . . O . . $$ . . O . . . $$ . . . . . .[/go]

When we see a diagonal shape, above,
we consider the two

stones to be "connected" --
just not "solidly connected", as in Shape 1.

The obvious Q&A:
1. Can Shape 1 be cut by enemy stones ? No (unconditional).
2(a). Can Shape 2 be cut by enemy stones ? Yes (conditional) -- if White allows certain local Black moves.
2(b). Can Shape 2 be cut by enemy stones if White replies correctly ? No. (conditional)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Shape 2 $$ . . . . . . $$ . . x O . . $$ . . O y . . $$ . . . . . .[/go]

Because, as you are well aware, White has miai of (x) and (y) to become "solidly" connected.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:37 pm

Page 12 wrote:The third and final rule of stone placement is an auxiliary rule

Hi Joel,

I strongly disagree. I would say your "second rule" (pages 10-12) is in fact auxiliary (not necessary at all).

In contrast, the ko rule is not auxiliary at all -- it's fundamental.

As Mr. Demis Hassabis explained very nicely in his Oxford speech,
there are only two "rules" in Go (axioms): the liberty rule, and the ko rule.
(Actually, this is not quite true: you do need an auxiliary rule which explains
exactly what happens when the stone you play has apparently zero liberties the moment you place it,
but is in fact legal because you're capturing one or more enemy stones.)

Joelnelsonb · Post by **Joelnelsonb** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:40 pm

Thank you very much for the suggestions, Ed! Some I find quite valid while others I disagree with, however, I appreciate the work you've put into each one of them. I have no intention of arguing with you over any of the finer points but I will ask you to keep in mind: This book is intended for the absolute beginner. In other words, if the student wouldn't think to ask the question then I'm not going to labor into the technicalities of it. This book is the result of having taught countless people to play go and figuring out what the best/most strait forward approach to the game is. Also, a lot of the points you bring up will be elaborated on and cleared up in future chapters. Thanks again! Keep it coming and this might actually turn into something worth reading...

xed_over · Post by **xed_over** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:02 pm

while I agree with your goal of keeping things simple for the beginner, you should try to look for better ways to word what Ed suggests, as you shouldn't need to correct yourself later.

I'd be curious as to which points of Ed's you disagree with -- I don't believe he will get offended, besides, what's the point of having a discussion forum if we can't ~~argue~~ discuss?

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:58 pm

Hi Joel, you're welcome.

Joelnelsonb · Post by **Joelnelsonb** » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:33 pm

EdLee wrote:
Page 8 wrote:What’s important is that you understand that every stone, in order to be placed on the board, and in order to remain on the board, must at all times enjoy at least one liberty.
( Bold in original text; not mine.)

Hi Joel, your statement above is incorrect:
$$B
$$ +----------
$$ | B B B B |
$$ | X B X B |
$$ | . X . X |
$$ +----------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------- $$ | B B B B | $$ | X B X B | $$ | . X . X | $$ +----------[/go]
All six stones above have zero liberties left,
yet it's perfectly legal for "every stone" above to remain on the board.

Your statement above says "every stone...in order to remain on the board, must at all times enjoy at least one liberty."
This is very much incorrect.

This is an example of being too technical. No beginner is going to stop you short and bring this up as the second liberty rule clearly elaborates on how this works.

Joelnelsonb · Post by **Joelnelsonb** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:13 am

EdLee wrote:
Page 6 wrote:The winner is the player who can get the most stones permanently placed on the board.
( Bold in original text; not mine. )

Hi Joel, Are you sure about the above statement ?
$$B Zero captures
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Zero captures $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . | $$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Very Sure. This is an unfinished board as white has many, many place left to places stones where as black has run out. Any black stones placed on the right side of the board will be captured and of no use. I get into this in the future chapter called "scoring methods" where I describe the basic functions of area and territory scoring which remove a players obligation to completely fill in. It was left out of this chapter because scoring methods are an example of strategy, in my opinion. The purpose of this chapter was to focus on clear, concise rules which is the method that I found most productive for teaching the game. I do, however, allude to this idea briefly in the beginner of the chapter when I mention that the objective is to use your stones to control more of the board than your opponent. I don't get into what "control" actually means yet.

Joelnelsonb · Post by **Joelnelsonb** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:17 am

EdLee wrote:Hi Joel,

The first empty board photo on page 5 is quite pretty. It's nice.

Page 5. wrote:The 19x19 board size is the standard and you will seldom see competitive players using anything else as this has been the custom for at least 2,000 years.
Are you sure about the 2,000-year-at-least duration for 19x19 ? I seem to recall they used to play 17x17 (and other sizes) in ancient China.
Where's your source (citation?) for the 2,000-year-at-least duration for 19x19 ?

I am not certain about the fact mentioned here and now that you mention, I recall someone on this forum talking about a 17x17 being commonly used around 1,500 years ago. I will be making this adjustment but do you have any idea how far we can date back the standard use of the 19x19?

Joelnelsonb · Post by **Joelnelsonb** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:20 am

EdLee wrote:
xed_over wrote:Actually, you probably only need at least 150 stones to play a game, because unless you're using Ing rules, you'll probably not ever cover the board completely.
You and I both have sufficient experience to know that most of the time, we don't run out of stones.
However, occasionally, it does happen.
Even with a full set of over 181 and 180 --
example: a long game, over 320 moves, with lots of captured stones removed (Japanese rules set), with a long ko, etc.

But that's not the point. I just thought it's a little strange
to mention exactly 180 stones in each bowl.

If anything, I would just casually mention many manufacturers (like Mr. Kuroki)
ship 181 (+spares) and 180 (+spares) , and leave it at that.
That's just my preference; you may feel free to mention "150".

Definitely over technical. The motivation behind stating the number of stones is just to give the reader an idea of how big of a bowl I'm talking about in case they're not sitting in front of a goban as they read. No one would ever stop at this point and pose the questions that you guys are bringing up.

Life In 19x19

A Complete Introduction to the Game of Go

Re:

Re:

Re: A Complete Introduction to the Game of Go

Re: A Complete Introduction to the Game of Go

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: