yea. he should have added. "i dont know this book"

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

As long as we can change that vote later. I will be getting it sooner or later.

Thanks, Jordus, for the starting the first one!

The way the poll works, you cant display the results up front if the person hasn't voted, however the person can view the results without voting by clicking "view results" underneath the submit button.

_________________
I'm thinking...

I read the first few chapters and found it very very informative.

The problems in that book are exactly of that kind I was loking for a while ago. Unfortunately there are too few problems. I would appreciate if someone could suggest a problem book (or web page or any other kind of resource) with similar problems. I mean problems like how to cut opponents jump, etc.

As far as I know, the japanese corresponding concept is "suji", but I am not sure if it is exactly the same thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


And about the book, one thing I appreciated the most is that he gives clear definitions.

Other articles I read before that were describing haengma as some kind of magical tool, like any kind of sabaki, escaping, cutting, connecting, etc. Consequently the concept was becoming more and more mysterious and did not mean anything. Well, if something means everything, then it means nothing.

This book defines it as movements towards the center and clearly excludes side extensions and any kind of life&death situations. It might be a too restrictive definition for some players but it is something extremely useful for those who have not yet understood the concept.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

I meant hide who votes what. I can view results, but it's only numbers. I've seen other polls here that allow seeing what people voted for.

I haven't seen this, but I agree that it would be better.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Cho Hun-hyeon's books Lectures on Go Techniques and Lectures on the Opening give the wrong solution (actually multiple wrong solutions) first. I like this method, as usually one of the main points of the correct solution is that it avoids the flaws of the wrong solutions.

I liked This Is Haengma a great deal, although perhaps it went down too easily - I feel like I could get more out of it with more work on my part.

Haengma is the local to global relation and development of all stones.

On the local scale, this amounts to making good and efficient connections in the (see Kageyama) struggle to get ahead, and this is where most books end their explanation. However, the global scale and the dynamic process must not be overlooked.

Sensei's Library has succesfully lost most of the meaning on the topic.

Here are some useful rec.games.go threads (move up to the first message in either thread before starting to read):

Haengma / The Fifth

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... 64b1aa30c1

Haengma / The Fourth

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... 1d5476a3f5

Also see my related book reviews:

http://www.gobooks.info/jasiek/master-of-haengma.html
http://www.gobooks.info/jasiek/haengma-dictionary.html

Not in my copy.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

This is haengma is a quite an easy read, but it lays an important foundation and I believe it should be considered in the broader context together with his other works.

For example, his book Inspiration of Pro also deals with haengma (among other things) but at a higher level that should provide more than enough challenge for those who consider This is haengma to be too easy.

All in all, it is an excellent book that can be read at almost any level and still be useful.

Kim Sung Rae writes so concise and clear that I will probably buy every of his books (in English).

The titles with dogmas/principles/heuristics + their accompanying explanations are excellent (e.g. p. 110-113) IMO.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

When entropi writes

"This book defines it as movements towards the center and clearly excludes side extensions and any kind of life&death situations. It might be a too restrictive definition for some players but it is something extremely useful for those who have not yet understood the concept."

and kirkmc writes

"it is said in the book that haengma cannot be translated. It is defined in several ways, as an "independent group" and a "moving group," but then it is said that it is "moving to the center." The author points out that in other books "the limits of haengma are not explained well and [...] the definition of haengma is confusing." [...] it seems that this is about nothing more than making good-shape moves while running into the center."

and Magicwand is having great difficulties to justify his liking og the book and his impression of the great importance of the concept by rather not explaining to us what haengma is,

then I wonder how the votes and opinions towards the very good to excellent side and Tommie's "concise and clear" can be justified. Does the book contain anything as conside and clear as my definition "Haengma is the local to global relation and development of all stones."? From all your descriptions, the book rather seems to miss it and kirkmc's citation from that book that "haengma cannot be translated" emphasises this fact.

Translation is difficult because even before definition is. I have needed a decade to find mine and it describes haengma as something pretty abstract and flexible. Professionals have had great difficulties with defining other terms of such a nature. So it is not surprising that defining haengma was too difficult, too.

Why not assess that correctly - why rushing ahead and calling the book excellent nevertheless? "excellent" means "cannot be better". But it could! It could have provided a good, concise definition! Therefore, although I have not read the book yet, it seems to me that those liking the book should have chosen "good" rather than "excellent" to describe the book's quality. Otherwise you won't have an appropriate ranking when another book really is excellent.

fyi, i didnt read that book but i have read many many books on hangma.

if you start reading what other people are writing instead of criticize without reading comment you may be able to see what i wrote and may learn something.

what is your purpose in life? trolling on this forum?
if so you are very successful in your life.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Excellent, in terms of a book of this type, is judged based upon its usefulness. The author acknowledges at the beginning that he is using a much more restrictive definition of Haengma than is commonly used. The book is very good at illustrating and facilitating the concepts covered. If this were a rules text or terms dictionary, the definition of the term would matter. As it is not, as long as the terms used are internally self-consistent, it makes no difference.

Robert is not trolling but his perspective is significantly different than the majority of the users of this board. (Not necessarily a bad thing.) Your definition is simply not precise enough to meet his standards. If you write a more precise definition, it might be good enough.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

Tommie, I fully agree that the definitions in the book are clear, concise and supported by the description and figures



Language is by definition an abstract thing. Therefore, the broader a concept is defined, the useless it becomes. A definition for a specific teaching purpose should try to be as precise as possible. That is what Kim Sung Rae does.
Your definition (Haengma is the local to global relation and development of all stones.
) may be an aesthetically nice one and may cover the concept completely. But I find it way too broad for being usefull as a teaching tool.

Besides, how can you counter-argue if Kim Sung Rae says "well, my definition given in the book is precisely what I understand from the term". It's his mother tongue and as said, language is an abstract thing.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Utter nonsense.

A concept with a very broad meaning requires a very broad definition to fully grasp all the concept's meaning. Such a very board concept and definition then also requires a very exhaustive breaking-down to its very great varieties of applications. Otherwise not the concept in its entirety is explained but only a specialized part of its meaning.

You argue as if the General Theory of Relativity would be useless while only the Specialized Theory of Relativity would be useful or as if the general definition of ko would be useless while only basic ko would be useful.



I as a teacher find it appropriate to teach all instead of teaching only specialized parts. I as a go player have learned the more from haengma the broader and more complete I have perceived the definition.



1) What IS his definition given in the book?

2) I talked to some Korean professionals about what haengma is. They did not provide a definition but examples and hints from that I then could construct my definition. If Kim's understanding of a definition was considerably more specialized, then his understanding would be only a subset of what those Korean professionals have conveyed to me.

This is only / mainly about a specialized part of haengma: (good) movement / development of one group considered alone.



This is like saying that sacrifice would never be a good thing.



If it were only about one group's development or about not getting into life and death trouble, then it would not qualify as "the most important" concept.



My apology for having made the contrary assumption.



Not easily but well possible! The greatest difficulty is not translation into western thinking but clear and complete understanding within either eastern or western thinking.



The Koreans developed the concept in a much broader understanding of global inter-relation and dynamically changing process than I have seen in Japan or China for related concepts like Kajiwara's direction of play, shapes (or even Saijo's proclaimed beauty of shapes), Kageyama's struggle to get ahead or ideas of movement and development directions.



In the dozens of beginner or kyu level books about haengma in Korean bookstores, almost all contents restricted itself to local movement and connection (one might say: efficient movement) of a group or its currently moving stones.

Robert, in my original post I quote the definition from the book.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

If so, then that would not be a consice and clear but an ambiguous and incomplete definition attempt.

Which was, in fact, part of my point in quoting it.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville