Review: The Endgame (Ogawa / Davies)

[RobertJasiek]

Review: The Endgame (Ogawa / Davies)

General Specification

* Title: The Endgame
* Author: Tomoko Ogawa, James Davies
* Publisher: Ishi Press (now: Kiseido)
* Edition: 1982 (2nd printing, brown cover)
* Language: English
* Price: EUR 16.50
* Contents: endgame
* ISBN: none (now: [?])
* Printing: good
* Layout: almost good
* Editing: good
* Pages: 211
* Size: 127mm x 181mm
* Diagrams per Page on Average: 3
* Method of Teaching: principles, examples
* Read when EGF: 10k - 3k
* Subjective Rank Improvement: -
* Subjective Topic Coverage: --
* Subjective Aims' Achievement: +

Preface

Although this is an old book first published in English in 1976, it is still sold because it is well-known and part of the Elementary Go Series. There are still only a few English endgame books so the book remains an option to be considered. My impression when I read the book as circa a 5 kyu is almost the same as when I reread it in 2018, 28 years later, as a 5 dan and endgame researcher, except that then it was the only English endgame book and now I can better justify my impression.

Overview

The book has five chapters. Chapter 1 uses one game to introduce the endgame informally. The game comments are mostly uninteresting descriptions ("White 38 threatened an invasion of the upper right corner again, so I defended at 39.") but interludes prepare the reader softly for the next chapter, show variations of enclosure josekis, which a reader of expected rank may find useful, or give a sample illustration of counting territory during the game. For that purpose, the diagram annotation is a bit strange: for the sake of counting in pairs, two adjacent intersections carry the same integer.

Chapter 2 is the core of the book. It explains evaluation of moves of local endgames. First, some theory is explained shortly. Second, nine problem diagrams each with three local endgames, a few answer diagrams and one combination diagram per problem train application of the theory. Apparently, the combination diagrams presume an unshown whole board context during the early to intermediate endgame, where the three local endgames must be played first in their correct move order.

Chapter 3 shows a good variety of the most basic endgame tesujis and a few problems for each type. If you have not seen the monkey jump or other tesujis of a comparable, basic level before, the chapter should be useful.

The macroendgame (transition from the late middle game to the early endgame) is the topic of chapter 4. There are nine whole board problems each with five moves to choose from. The answers are short. That is all. Chapter 5 is similar but shows two games during the intermediate endgame, each with ten problems and multiple choice among three candidate moves.

Except for the interludes in chapter 1, the chapters 1, 4 and 5 are mostly filling material trying to compensate the too short theory in chapter 2. In particular the macroendgame would have deserved general theory and at least careful approximative calculations of the move values of the top two candidates. Instead, we mostly get disappointing informal text, such as "Although tbe continuation is a bit difficult, there is no question that Black 1 is the right move".

The Theory

Chapter teaches move values of gote, sente, reverse sente and double sente for traditional endgame theory, where you multiply by two for playing in sente or reverse sente to compare with playing in gote. The book compares "Black goes first" and "White goes first" but avoids a term for the calculated difference value. It compares the two resulting local positions but avoids terms for them (nowadays we call them black and white follower) and the counted value (we would call them the count). It counts locally but does not explain the concept of locality (which I would call the locale). It studies follow-ups but avoids this term like the plague. To calculate the impact of a follow-up on a move value, it sometimes considers the white follower's white follower or the black follower's black follower but, as we know, avoids these terms. Instead, it uses various, confusing, informal descriptions for the same term, concept or value. The reader must enlighten himself. Likewise, the book describes newly acquired values by different phrases with a preference for "to gain". As a consequence, the author herself lacks a clear understanding and sometimes makes the mistake of adding gote and sente gains without first calibrating such different values.

Furthermore, the book tries to simplify. It approximates by rounding to avoid fractions and prune the impact of iterative follow-ups on move values. Although this works for the simple examples in the book, this also means that the reader does not learn determination of move values of local endgames with intermediate to large iterative follow-up positions. The book speaks of average, mathematical average or mean (all meaning the same) but does not explain how to calculate an average. For the simplest calculation, the calculation shown multiplies a value by 1/2, puts this in brackets and adds this to some previously calculated value. Otherwise, the book avoids brackets for arithmetic. It invents, however, a creative alternative use for brackets to indicate a rounded value as being slightly smaller, such as "5(-)", or larger, such as "5(+)", than an integer. It also avoids negative numbers but speaks of White's points. This may work for the simple examples of the book, but the reader does not learn proper calculation in general. Funnily, the book cannot quite admit to avoid negative numbers when writing "the total difference is 1+1=2 points". If White's points were accounted properly as negative points, we would indeed have the difference "1 - (-1) = 2". After dissolution of bracket and minus signs, this becomes the sum stated in the book.

Does the reader profit from all those attempts of simplification? Hardly. Besides the few principles hidden in ordinary text, he has to make sense of several different methods of how a gote follow-up is calculated. Sometimes it is the average of two numbers, the average of one number (and - not declared by the book - the number zero), derived from the white follower's white follower and an average, or derived from the black follower's black follower and an average. Without the underlying theoretical explanations why each method works and produces correct move values, it can be hard to understand everything while overcoming confusion.

At least, the move values in the book are correct if we tolerate approximations. Sometimes the author was lazy and an approximation is correct only plus-minus 2 points. The explanation of theory for sente, reverse sente and double sente is even shorter. The relative value of sente or reverse sente are explained by an argument fitting modern endgame theory: points per difference in the numbers of played stones. Unfortunately, this is the only aspect of modern theory in the book.

More confusion arises when gote and gote (or sente and sente) have different meanings. Either word might refer to the type of local endgame or to the kind of sequence but the book never says "gote sequence" or "sente sequence" when it means such. The reader must always disambiguate the context, especially when both contexts occur in the same sentence. Worst of all, we learn that a reverse sente "is gote". What this means is that a move played in reverse sente starts a gote sequence. Such problems occur when a book does not properly introduce the basics and avoids by far too many terms, which would clarify everything.

Not surprisingly, the book introduces double sente as "either side can play in sente", means local double sente and is unaware of its inexistence. As a consequence, the answers to the problems calculate move values in double sente even when the most obviously the follow-up threats are too small by far. In the most obvious example, the author noticed this by herself ("Black 1 is not necessarily sente, either.") but did not draw the right conclusion. The harm from this conceptual mistake is limited though because the book offers useful practical advice for when to play double sente.

From the theory and problems in chapter 2, the reader learns calculation of move values of gote or sente without follow-up. Hardly from the theory alone - but from the combination of theory and problems. Learning reverse sente is made more difficult. Maybe the bright reader also learns calculation of a move value if the local endgame has simple, direct follow-ups. However, calculation of a move value is peculiar in the book: only intersections of either player's territories with changes are counted by mentally comparing two diagrams. This works for the simple examples in the book but the method might fail for more difficult examples.

The Missing Theory

Endgame evaluation in the book misses the following theory: in general exact move values instead of approximations, move values of local endgames with iterative follow-ups and larger impact than rounding approximations, a careful explanation of the basics, basic terms, basic concepts other than move value, count of an initial local endgame, counts of followers, evaluation of ordinary kos or ko threats, gains (when Black's and White's moves gain different amounts not both described by the move value), net profit, theory relating the different values, careful study of different kinds of follow-ups, modern endgame theory, microendgame, area scoring, a clear distintinction of sente and gote, ambiguous local endgames, evaluation of long local sequences, value theory for move order during the early and late endgames, advanced theories.

Conclusion

The book is written for beginners of endgame theory. Apart from the additional chapters, it only touches the only one aspect of move value. The unclear, confusing presentation with countless omissions especially of basic descriptions make good understanding of the contents unnecessarily hard especially for the intended readership. Theory and didactics of the book are outdated.


Disclaimer: Robert Jasiek is a researcher in the endgame and other go theory, author of endgame books and other go books, and go teacher.


EDIT: add disclaimer

[John Fairbairn]

I find trash talking a rival book under cover of a review to promote your own book rather distasteful.

As it happens, I too found the Ogawa/Davies book disappointing, so I am not defending it per se. I just find the circumstances a bit stinky.

[RobertJasiek]

If you find any mistake in the review, discuss it. If you don't, don't call it trash talking.

[pnprog]

Hi Robert!

I haven't read any of the books (but read both of your reviews).

Considering your position as author of a competing book, and as such, being potentially financialy biased in your reviews, you should at the very least add a disclaimer at the top of your review to explain the situation (with maybe a link to your other review).

Really, this is just good practice, even in science.

[RobertJasiek]

Thank you for your suggestion, but if I add something like "Disclaimer [of possible conflict of commercial interest]: I have written other endgame books [and write more].", doesn't this sound more like an unnecessary advertisement at an inappropriate place than a disclaimer? I can add a disclaimer, but what should it express? It could be extended to mention being an endgame researcher already in the disclaimer instead of the review.

On a related topic, in this review I have avoided discussing the impact of this book and similar books on my own development of endgame skill as a player and everybody's such development. In my recent self-review, I have mentioned my opinion of the impact: after learning something about the endgame at all, I think that the limitations of such books have greatly delayed further development of endgame skills. Shouldn't I also add a disclaimer that the review is not as critical as it might be because of not addressing this impact?

[Bill Spight]

I looked at Ogawa/Davies not long after it came out. Along with Kano's Yose Dictionary it was one of the first endgame books to question the idea of double sente, while not yet able to reject it. Ogawa and Davies pointed out that double sente implies division by zero, which does not make sense.

Like just about every pro authored endgame book before O Meien's recent text, it contained cringeworthy calculations.

----
Edit:

I suppose that I should also mention that I am an endgame researcher and author of academic articles on the mathematics of the endgame.

I have an interest in Robert's new book, although not a financial one. This year he showed me part of his draft, and I offered some remarks. He has sent me a complimentary copy of his book.

[Bill Spight]

I do think that it would have been appropriate for Robert to mention that he is an endgame researcher and author of endgame books, as well as other go books. The reader can draw her own conclusions about his motives and expertise.

[EdLee]

double sente implies division by zero, which does not make sense.

Hi Bill, would it possible for you to elaborate a bit on double sente ? ( Or maybe it's covered at Sensei's somewhere ? ) Thanks.

[RobertJasiek]

I do think that it would have been appropriate for Robert to mention that he is an endgame researcher and author of endgame books, as well as other go books.

Ok, this sounds like a reasonable style of disclaimer and resembles typical remarks in newsjournals or scientific texts, as I have seen them. I will add some such disclaimer soon. As far as I have seen them, such disclaimers tend to occur after a text, therefore this will be the place where I put my disclaimer.

[Bill Spight]

double sente implies division by zero, which does not make sense.

Hi Bill, would it possible for you to elaborate a bit on double sente ? ( Or maybe it's covered at Sensei's somewhere ? ) Thanks.

I have written about double sente on SL and here. Let me offer some brief remarks here. See, for instance, these threads.

viewtopic.php?t=11129
viewtopic.php?t=11134
viewtopic.php?t=11167
viewtopic.php?t=11149

Also, these discussions:

viewtopic.php?p=223244#p223244
viewtopic.php?p=194476#p194476

Many moons ago I submitted an article to the Go World magazine claiming that there is no such thing as double sente. I have since changed my mind. Like nearly every word, sente and gote have acquired different meanings. There are plays such that, on a given board, correct play is to answer them, regardless of which player makes them, and corresponding local positions. Whether to answer them depends upon the rest of the board. They are double sente on that board.

However, there is a sense of sente that does not depend upon the rest of the board, which we use when we evaluate positions and plays. There is a similar sense of gote. Let me call these intrinsic sente and gote.

It is possible for a play to be intrinsic gote and yet be sente, or even double sente, on a particular board. As I now see it, one problem with traditional endgame texts is that they confuse these different senses of sente and gote. They pass this confusion on to players. That certainly happened to me.

Edit: In particular those books present local positions and call them double sente. That's just wrong.

Even worse, at least one book presents a whole board position with several so-called double sente and shows sequences for each player where that player gets to play all of those positions with sente, so that the resulting difference between the results when Black plays first and when White plays first is huge. And wrong.

Edit 2: Ah! I found this post, which shows the offending position and play, along with a position where the professional authors got it right.

viewtopic.php?p=194535#p194535

[asura]

I have read this book at least five times and I think it is a good book. Everyone, who has not studied endgame so far, will surely profit from reading this book. This is a go-book and no math-book (like the book Robert Jasiek just wrote), but it teachs all the math you need to evaluate the positions.
It strikes a good balance betwwen practice and theory. I think you can easy improve yor endgame by 10 points whith this book.

It seems to me, that Robert Jasiek does not really understand the concept of deri-counting, but once you understand it, it will become clear that there are many situations when this way of counting is more easy then miai-counting. And of corse, you will get the same answer with both methods.
(You could compare deri-counting vs. miai-counting with probability calculation, where you could write the chance to roll a six with one dice is 1/6. You could also write 16.67%. Yet another way would be 1:5 (one six and five times no six), but the confusion could start when someone will treat ":" and "/" the same and write f.e. 1:6 instead of 1/6. When you understand these concepts you will realize, that depending on the question you have, in some calculations one way of representation will be more comfortable.)

[Knotwilg]

I am a small sample myself but I liked Getting Strong at the Endgame much better than Ogawa's book. Ogawa's book is neither theoretically well grounded nor very practical. GSatE is very practical, with its many exercises and the quiz fore & aft.

From analyzing pro games I learned that the endgame is all about sente and sente is all about life & death.
As a rule of thumb, taking all your big sente (the small ones are ko threats) first, then the biggest gote, is good enough.
The concept of reverse sente is almost meaningless and when I read about it in Ogawa's, it confused me.

Precise counts are great for encycopedeas, in actual play the technique costs too much time. On the other hand, a fighting spirit principle like "mutual damage" is very practical.

Oh, and Robert has all the rights to review competing books: he reviews his own too.

[Knotwilg]

There are plays such that, on a given board, correct play is to answer them, regardless of which player makes them, and corresponding local positions. Whether to answer them depends upon the rest of the board. They are double sente on that board.

Which means that the result is independent of that play and so one player has an advantage bigger than the local count. Which means that the other player has made a big mistake already.

[Bill Spight]

There are plays such that, on a given board, correct play is to answer them, regardless of which player makes them, and corresponding local positions. Whether to answer them depends upon the rest of the board. They are double sente on that board.

Which means that the result is independent of that play and so one player has an advantage bigger than the local count. Which means that the other player has made a big mistake already.

Then I have expressed myself poorly. In real games, many double sente are ephemeral, arising in a sequence of elevated temperature. Nobody is going to tenuki, and so they get played and answered right away. Usually nobody gives them a second thought.

Sometimes they can stay on the board a long time. That can happen when the time to play them is right before a temperature drop. For instance, suppose that there is a gote that gains 5 pts.; if Black plays it, White's response gains 4 pts.; if White plays it, Black's response gains 3½ pts. Suppose that the current temperature is 7 pts., so no one makes that play yet. When the temperature drops to 5 pts., someone does. But then there is a drop in temperature to 3 pts. on the rest of the board. Then the play will be double sente. (As a rule, OC. )

[pnprog]

Ok, this sounds like a reasonable style of disclaimer and resembles typical remarks in newsjournals or scientific texts, as I have seen them. I will add some such disclaimer soon. As far as I have seen them, such disclaimers tend to occur after a text, therefore this will be the place where I put my disclaimer.

Disclaimer: Robert Jasiek is a researcher in the endgame and other go theory, author of endgame books and other go books, and go teacher.

Yep, this is a fair enough disclaimer