What are the fundamentals?

[EdLee]

I can say that

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

was new to me.

These shapes are quite interesting to study.

For some beginners, an important lesson is the (d) shape doesn't split B.

$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | g . . . . ? . . f . . ? . . . . . . e |
$$ | . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . ? X 1 . . . ? X . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . , . ? . . O , X ? . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . ? . . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . ? . . . ? . 1 . O . . d |
$$ | . . . , . . . ? . , . ? . . . , . . . |
$$ | h . . O 1 . . ? . . . ? . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . . . . ? . . b . . ? . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 . ? . . . . . ? . O 1 . . |
$$ | . . X , O . . ? X , O . . ? . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X ? . . . . X ? . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . 1 . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | a . . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . c |
$$ ----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | g . . . . ? . . f . . ? . . . . . . e |
$$ | . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . ? X 1 . . . ? X . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . , . ? . . O , X ? . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . ? . . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . ? . . . ? . 1 . O . . d |
$$ | . . . , . . . ? . , . ? . . . , . . . |
$$ | h . . O 1 . . ? . . . ? . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . . . . ? . . b . . ? . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 . ? . . . . . ? . O 1 . . |
$$ | . . X , O . . ? X , O . . ? . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X ? . . . . X ? . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . 1 . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | a . . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . c |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | p . . . . ? . . o . . ? . . . . . . n |
$$ | . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . ? X . . . . ? X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . ? 1 . O , X ? . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . ? . . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . 1 ? . . . . . ? . . . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . ? . . . ? . . . O . . m |
$$ | . . . , 1 . . ? . , . ? . . . , . 1 . |
$$ | q . . O . . . ? . . . ? . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . . . . ? . . j . . ? . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . ? . . . . . ? . O . . . |
$$ | . . X , O . . ? X 1 O . . ? . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X ? . . . . X ? . X 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | i . . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . k |
$$ ----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | p . . . . ? . . o . . ? . . . . . . n |
$$ | . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . ? X . . . . ? X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . ? 1 . O , X ? . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . ? . . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . 1 ? . . . . . ? . . . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . ? . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . ? . . . ? . . . O . . m |
$$ | . . . , 1 . . ? . , . ? . . . , . 1 . |
$$ | q . . O . . . ? . . . ? . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . X . . . . ? . . j . . ? . . X . . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . ? . . . . . ? . O . . . |
$$ | . . X , O . . ? X 1 O . . ? . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X ? . . . . X ? . X 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . . |
$$ | i . . . . . . ? . . . . . ? . . . . k |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

( Naturally, there are still more local shapes. )

[dfan]

Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them?

OK, let's do this. People often have a mistaken view of what people at various levels know, so maybe this will be interesting.

To make up for the grammar school talk, here is something I consider part of "the fundamentals" with some diagrams (not that I much of a fan of the phrase):

In this shape with black to play he can more-or-less connect at a:

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I haven't internalized this exact sequence, but I know basically connects.

Strictly speaking white can cut by sacrificing 2 stones, but black's usually able to fight ok after this as white lost a lot to do so:

$$Wm6
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . X X O 2 . . .
$$ . 7 . O X O X . .
$$ . . . 5 X 1 4 . .
$$ . . . . . 6 . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm6
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . X X O 2 . . .
$$ . 7 . O X O X . .
$$ . . . 5 X 1 4 . .
$$ . . . . . 6 . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

This line hadn't really occurred to me.

White can try to cut like so, but a/b are now miai so black is connected. However with nearby support (e.g. at c) this could be effective for white.

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . a . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ c . b 2 1 5 X . .
$$ . . . . 4 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . a . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ c . b 2 1 5 X . .
$$ . . . . 4 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

If there was a stone at c in a game I might notice this sort of idea, but it's not a pattern in my mental dictionary.

If it's white turn she can prevent the connection like this, but its kinda slow:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

That I know, of course.

This is another way:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

And that.

This is another way that moves out to the centre and also aims at pressing at a. A little reading is required to see how it ends up in a good place to stop black from capturing the 2 stones in the 3rd diagram.

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

And that. If Black attaches underneath, White hanes to the left, Black cuts, White ataris, Black extends, and White extends down, and now makes a tiger's mouth so he can't be cut. I think I got that one from Attack and Defense.

But if black continues like so then the presence of a stone at 4 (but not extension at b instead) means he again threatens to connect at a. (White may or may not prevent that threat).

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 3 . .
$$ . . . . . 1 2 b .
$$ . . X , O . 4 . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 3 . .
$$ . . . . . 1 2 b .
$$ . . X , O . 4 . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

It's not in my dictionary, but once Black played I'd suspect that my split might fail, and would read it out, and indeed, that tiger's mouth is spoiled by .

But this jump doesn't stop the connection:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

That I knew.

[Gotraskhalana]

More detailed response:

In this shape with black to play he can more-or-less connect at a:

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I have seen this before and am pretty sure that it would turn out like this in a game. However, I have trouble visualizing the result beforehand which makes it hard to decide if an invasion is good in a certain context.

Strictly speaking white can cut by sacrificing 2 stones, but black's usually able to fight ok after this as white lost a lot to do so:

$$Wm6
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . X X O 2 . . .
$$ . 7 . O X O X . .
$$ . . . 5 X 1 4 . .
$$ . . . . . 6 . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm6
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . X X O 2 . . .
$$ . 7 . O X O X . .
$$ . . . 5 X 1 4 . .
$$ . . . . . 6 . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I think that I have seen this diagram before but it is not part of my active knowledge.

If it's white turn she can prevent the connection like this, but its kinda slow:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I am aware of this.

This is another way:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I am not aware of this, but would recognize my stones as being separated. It is possible that I would play this if there were an easily seen reason to want the stone on the second line.

This is another way that moves out to the centre and also aims at pressing at a. A little reading is required to see how it ends up in a good place to stop black from capturing the 2 stones in the 3rd diagram.

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I an very aware of this, part of one of Guo Juan's problem sets that I did.

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 3 . .
$$ . . . . . 1 2 b .
$$ . . X , O . 4 . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 3 . .
$$ . . . . . 1 2 b .
$$ . . X , O . 4 . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I have seen this, but I would not be able to check for this result in the beginning.

But this jump doesn't stop the connection:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Very aware of this, again part of the problem set I did.

[Bill Spight]

In this shape with black to play he can more-or-less connect at a:

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

I have seen this before and am pretty sure that it would turn out like this in a game.

Well, it probably shouldn't. The following diagram is joseki.

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 6 . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 6 . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Also, White has a clever play, depending on the circumstances.

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 2 X . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 2 X . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

After , is the way to stay connected. See viewtopic.php?p=211886#p211886 . OC, Black may prefer to capture .

However, I have trouble visualizing the result beforehand which makes it hard to decide if an invasion is good in a certain context.

The invasion is usually not so good. This position typically arises from a pincer and tenuki.

$$W Invasion
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Invasion
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

This is the usuall invasion.

$$W Reduction
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 1 . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Reduction
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 1 . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

And this is the usual reduction.

[JoeS1]

How do these fundamentals books compare to each other?

Strategic Concepts of Go
Basics of Go Strategy
Fundamental Principles of Go

These all seem like intermediate level books while Lessons of Fundamentals of Go appears to be more of a beginner book, so curious how these books compare to each other.

[Kirby]

Gaps is an interesting way of putting it. One can imagine go fundamentals as a net, the gaps through which the lost games slip.

I argue that gaps indicate a lack of mastery in the fundamentals. Basically, my view is that *everything* is fundamental. Complicated techniques are built upon simpler ones down to the very rules of the game.

Anyway, I don't see value in debating terminology like I mentioned earlier, and I'm feeling pretty crappy in my personal life, so I'll just leave things at that.

I accept your view of fundamentals being like a net, even if I don't see it that way.

[RobertJasiek]

How do these fundamentals books compare to each other?

Strategic Concepts of Go
Basics of Go Strategy
Fundamental Principles of Go

These all seem like intermediate level books while Lessons of Fundamentals of Go appears to be more of a beginner book, so curious how these books compare to each other.

The answer is in the appropriate - book - forum:
viewtopic.php?p=212163#p212163

[Pio2001]

How do these fundamentals books compare to each other?

Strategic Concepts of Go
Basics of Go Strategy
Fundamental Principles of Go

I don't know the two first ones, but according to the description that Robert Jasiek gave in the book forum, they seem to deal with maybe 10 or 20 % of the fundamentals. The third one is maybe around 25 %.

There are so many fundamentals in go that they can only be covered in one volume at the novice level. That's what initiation books try to do, although sometimes it takes two volumes (Learn to Play Go vol 1 & 2, by Janice Kim and Jeong Soo-Hyun).
In comparison, Go, a Complete Introduction to the game, by Cho Chikun, lacks a chapter about endgame.

But when we talk about fundamentals, we mean fundamental principles at a slightly higher level.
I've not read the Second Book of Go, by Richard Bozulich. It seems to be a real book about fundamentals at the double digit kyu level.
Learn to Play Go vol 4 and 5 are about fundamentals, from the double digit kyu level to the single digit kyu. They cover maybe 90 % of the topics that are relevant at this level. The 10 % missing are essentially positional judgement.
And for the single digit kyu to the dan level, Elementary go Series covers a good deal of the fundamentals... in seven volumes ! (I've only got volumes 1, 4 and 5.)

And besides that, fundamentals are not everything. We need books with exercises too, and books with professional games.

[JoeS1]

How do these fundamentals books compare to each other?

Strategic Concepts of Go
Basics of Go Strategy
Fundamental Principles of Go

I don't know the two first ones, but according to the description that Robert Jasiek gave in the book forum, they seem to deal with maybe 10 or 20 % of the fundamentals. The third one is maybe around 25 %.

There are so many fundamentals in go that they can only be covered in one volume at the novice level. That's what initiation books try to do, although sometimes it takes two volumes (Learn to Play Go vol 1 & 2, by Janice Kim and Jeong Soo-Hyun).
In comparison, Go, a Complete Introduction to the game, by Cho Chikun, lacks a chapter about endgame.

But when we talk about fundamentals, we mean fundamental principles at a slightly higher level.
I've not read the Second Book of Go, by Richard Bozulich. It seems to be a real book about fundamentals at the double digit kyu level.
Learn to Play Go vol 4 and 5 are about fundamentals, from the double digit kyu level to the single digit kyu. They cover maybe 90 % of the topics that are relevant at this level. The 10 % missing are essentially positional judgement.
And for the single digit kyu to the dan level, Elementary go Series covers a good deal of the fundamentals... in seven volumes ! (I've only got volumes 1, 4 and 5.)

And besides that, fundamentals are not everything. We need books with exercises too, and books with professional games.

I'm talking about higher level fundamental books around SDK that goes into depth on fundamentals and not just a little explanation and a few examples. All the books you've cited are too low level. I've also already read the Elementary series. I already own Strategic Concepts of Go. I know I've read some of it, but not sure if I read the whole thing as it would have been years ago. I just don't know much about Basics of Go Strategy besides it being an update of Strategic Concepts, and Fundamental Principles of Go or any other book that's worth getting on the subject or subjects of the fundamentals.

[sparky314]

Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them?

Good exercise.

To make up for the grammar school talk, here is something I consider part of "the fundamentals" with some diagrams (not that I much of a fan of the phrase):

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Aware of the basic shape, but most should be at SDK. Though, more common with w at A.

In this shape with black to play he can more-or-less connect at a:

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O 6 . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Yep. Though, I'd have to read the sequence out every time.

Strictly speaking white can cut by sacrificing 2 stones, but black's usually able to fight ok after this as white lost a lot to do so:

$$Wm6
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . X X O 2 . . .
$$ . 7 . O X O X . .
$$ . . . 5 X 1 4 . .
$$ . . . . . 6 . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm6
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . X X O 2 . . .
$$ . 7 . O X O X . .
$$ . . . 5 X 1 4 . .
$$ . . . . . 6 . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

No, wasn't aware of the potential cut, nor do I think I'd have read this out in a game.

White can try to cut like so, but a/b are now miai so black is connected. However with nearby support (e.g. at c) this could be effective for white.

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . a . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ c . b 2 1 5 X . .
$$ . . . . 4 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . a . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ c . b 2 1 5 X . .
$$ . . . . 4 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Unlikely to have tried this, and don't think I've seen this in any game. White definitely looks too weak here to consider.

If it's white turn she can prevent the connection like this, but its kinda slow:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Yes, though not how I'd typically cut.

This is another way:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Would cut like this. Probably learned at 5-7k as part of the corner joseki (high approach to 3-4).

This is another way that moves out to the centre and also aims at pressing at a. A little reading is required to see how it ends up in a good place to stop black from capturing the 2 stones in the 3rd diagram.

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Aware of this, but never used it.

But if black continues like so then the presence of a stone at 4 (but not extension at b instead) means he again threatens to connect at a. (White may or may not prevent that threat).

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 3 . .
$$ . . . . . 1 2 b .
$$ . . X , O . 4 . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 3 . .
$$ . . . . . 1 2 b .
$$ . . X , O . 4 . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Unaware of this sequence.

But this jump doesn't stop the connection:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Aware that this doesn't disconnect.

[John Fairbairn]

I've been looking further at some of the new books I just got, and to a large degree much of what I read is repackaging ideas I already know very well. But that, plus the replies above that seem to confirm that some people asking about the fundamentals already know about them, got me thinking. Eventually I realised that for most people here, "what are the fundamentals?" is probably totally the wrong question. And the right question applies to dan players just as much as kyu players.

The right question is "How do I remember to apply what I already know?"

We all know much more than we think (intuition as well as explicit knowledge). But how many times do we realise, even during a game, that we "forgot" something just at the time we played a stone, only to realise ourselves a few moves later that it was a crappy move? Or how often a commentary on a game we have played or studied rings a dull note of remembrance - oh, yes, I've heard of that...

We don't know everything but we all know a huge amount more than we realise, and if we could tap into that we should be playing more good moves, right?

So what are the steps? Suggestions, please, but here are mine to start the ball rolling:

1. Stop playing blitz games - these don't allow you time to dredge up knowledge from your memory.

2. Stop playing very slow games - these allow you too much time to dredge too many things up and get confused.

3. Use tricks to help you remember things during games. I've mentioned before that I used to put, say, three stones in front of me to remind me to think of three things before I played each move (e.g. make a base, don't invade, hold back on forcing moves).

4. Replay pro games through the prism of a single theme. E.g. connections: for kyu players, how they are made, when they are made; for dan players, are they made at all, and if not made, are they implied?

I think it is important, too, to remember that there is a considerable difference in types of knowledge. There is a somewhat different mindset involved between remembering that the L group is dead and the principle that making territory in front of a live group is small. The vaguer kind of knowledge represented by the latter seems easier to overlook during actual play, even when understanding of it is simple and complete. For example, to take connections again, I'm sure that every dan players knows that connecting on a dame point is embarrassing, but how often does it happen nevertheless?

So, again, it's not "what are the fundamentals?" but "where are my fundamentals hiding?" and "how do I get them to show their faces?". And this applies to all players - each level has its own set of hidden fundamentals.

[Knotwilg]

So far, nobody has replied to my post about Minue's "Haengma tutorial for beginners", which to me addresses exactly the question "what are the fundamentals of Go" and not the equally important question John addresses: "how to apply what we already know". John's answer to that question relates to things I have mentioned in daal's popular question "why is it that some people never seem to reach shodan" or in more general terms "why do we reach plateaus in our playing, which seem to be well under our level of understanding".

So, I will here summarize the teachings of Minue, in a few posts. If that body of knowledge remains ignored, I will at least have attempted to bring it to the attention:

Before learning about haeng-ma in detail, we should know about attributes of stones. Simply put, they can be classified into two categories.

1. Stability of stones (strength)
2. Direction of development (growth)

He elaborates on stability:

There are many factors which are relevant to the stability of stones:

- Their Liberties
- Their location
- Their shape
- Friendly stones and opponent's stones nearby
- Inner connectivity and potential eye shapes

Of those, liberties and location deserve attention:

All other things being equal, more liberties for stones means a greater stability (strength) for stones.

Location is another important factor that affects the degree of stability (strength) of your stones. If your stones had infinite liberties they would get unconditional life; but, the Go board is finite, and so we cannot make infinite liberties for our stones. Another way to make unconditional life is making two eyes. As you probably know, in the corner it's easier to make eyes (in other words, a base) than in the sides or center. (...) So, assuming all else is equal, stones in the corner are best at stability, then stones at the side, and last stones in the center.

This is how it starts. I think many people will think the above is rather trivial. But what's trivial to some, is really fundamental to all.

(to be continued)

[John Fairbairn]

I will here summarize the teachings of Minue, in a few posts. If that body of knowledge remains ignored, I will at least have attempted to bring it to the attention:

Since you seem perplexed at the lack of reaction, I will offer a view. Lists.

Obviously I can strictly only offer my own view, but in journalism we have a saying, "Lists make bad journalism." Whenever a journalist got himself into a bind and up against a deadline to write a feature, if he resorted to an article of the type "Ten Reasons Why ..." or "Ten Best ..." laughter and scorn would ring round the newsroom all day long. The point there is that journalists have learned from very long experience that their readers don't really like lists. It doesn't mean you can't ever use them, but you won't get away with it very often and you do have to learn to incorporate them in an interesting way. So, in the sense that I am also reflecting the wide experience of the body of journalists about reading tastes, I am not just offering my own view. I believe I am offering the majority view.

It's not a matter of saying that the information is wrong, or is not inherently interesting. It's just that you don't serve dinner by putting a raw egg, a raw potato and a tin of beans on a plate and offer it as egg and chips. Minue's list presentation offers a "tutorial". What we get is a reference list. If you went for a tutorial with a professor, would you really expect him to spend the time just giving you a list of things?

Robert Jasiek has had the same problem in his books. He has, belatedly but happily, tried to move away from the list style, though personally I think he still has some way to go.

There are, of course, some people who do like that dry style, but I (and other journalists) believe they are in a very small minority. The way to promote Minue's work, therefore, would be to rewrite it. Then it may get the attention you (probably rightly) believe it deserves.

That's just my opinion - not something to fight about.

[Pio2001]

I'm talking about higher level fundamental books around SDK that goes into depth on fundamentals and not just a little explanation and a few examples. All the books you've cited are too low level.

Where is the limit between "fundamental" and "advanced" ?

If we add the 1500 pages of Elementary Go Series with, say, 250 pages of introduction for complete novices, we have already 1750 pages that are equally divided into text and diagrams.

Covering all and every topic at a higher level would require more than 2000 pages ! At this stage, should we still call this "the fundamentals" ?

Or, if "advanced" is the opposite of "basic", maybe we can talk about "advanced fundamentals", but in this case, what is the opposite of "fundamental" ?

[Uberdude]

Obviously I can strictly only offer my own view, but in journalism we have a saying, "Lists make bad journalism."

17 Buzzfeed authors disagree! The seventh will shock you!