Also from my club's lore:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Black move 2 elsewhere
$$|.....3.......
$$|...,OXO..,...
$$|....X1XO.....
$$|.....XOX.....
$$|.............
$$|-------------[/go]

Results in

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc A pwnnuki.
$$|.....O.......
$$|...,O.O..,...
$$|....XO.O.....
$$|.....XOX.....
$$|.............
$$|-------------[/go]

That's really cool

I have the "rabid wombat", for those moves when you've suddenly dune something wrong, and decide the only way to rectify the situation is to go on an insane psychotic overplay rampage.

I call it the armpit hit...

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

I think there are many English terms that can and are substituted for the Japanese/Korean terms. I just think must people prefer to use oriental terms because it is part of the culture of the game.

Here is your example sentence rendered in English: "My knight's move is here to prevent him from making a framework from his [corner] enclosure."

It took me a bit, but I realized you probably don't want Chomsky, you want Jerry Fodor, who infamously has argued that we have a stock of innate concepts in the language of thought, and that this even includes concepts like carburetor. Aji and shimari would also be included.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

That, of course, couldn't possibly confuse a newbie.

I detect sarcasm, but I don't quite understand. The English terms should be much easier to understand for native-English players. For example:

Sensei: This is a good move because it enlarges your moyo.
Student: Moyo?
Sensei: Territorial framework.

So, why not just substitute moyo for territorial framework or just framework?

I just outright deny that "framework" means anything to anyone who hasn't played a lot of go already. ("Territorial framework" at least points in the right direction, but it still is quite vague; it's about as clear as "my moyo, which is for territory." I've never actually heard anyone refer to a moyo as a territorial framework; it's either moyo or framework.)

You learn what a moyo is by, first, having a bunch of examples of moyos shown to you (this is a moyo; this is a moyo; this is a moyo); second, by seeing games where a moyo develops into territory, or into a favorable fight; third, by getting a sense of better and worse moyo-building moves. Learning what the thing is is a slow process that will irritate some people and fascinate others. Whether you call it a moyo, a framework, or a territorial framework doesn't really signify.

Similarly, we could call tesuji "handy moves". The difficult thing about understanding these moves, though, isn't that te and suji are Japanese, whereas handy and moves are English; it's that learning to spot a tesuji is hard.

Other English terms may help a little, but bring unwanted associations with them. "Knight's move," for an English speaker who plays chess, conveys the information about shape that keima conveys to a Japanese speaker who plays shogi. But for a beginner, it also suggests that the go pieces move about the board. At the unconscious level, it pushes the mind to things like "K/B exchange" or "knight's tour" or "defending pawns" rather than to "cutting at the waist." Keima gives us a clean slate on which we can draw new connections.

I don't really get why people try to translate everything.

1. You usually can't get the full meaning anyway
2. If people are interested in something they should be able to learn the 5 or 10 extra words that you really need
3. Every sport/hobby/profession has their own words, why are we trying to change that for go
4. You don't really need all those words to teach beginners. For example:

When I teach beginners I usually only start with one foreign word: atari. First of because I teach atarigo and second of because there just is no real good translation in English (or German for that matter). When asked I usually translate it as check (Which is kind of wrong because that would suggest that it is very urgent to save that group, which usually isn’t the case. But we are playing atarigo, so I don't really worry about that) Of course I explain that atair means that one of your groups only has one liberty left, but spelling that out every time quickly gets annoying when you're trying to review games.

Once someone is above the complete beginner stage (starting to play their first game on 19x19) I introduce them to other work I found helpful like: tesuji, tenuki, moyo, sente and gote.

_________________
While I was teaching the game to a friend of mine, my mother from the other room:
"Cutting? Killing? Poking out eyes? What the hell are you playing?"

So, you've never read my stuff!!! Shame on you!

There is a lot of sense in what you say, but one also has to guard against being a frog in a well. There's moyo, jimoyo and omoyo, and kakoi. One major problem with adopting Japanese terms in the west is that they are badly misused (e.g. yose for endgame), so we end up with different meanings floating around, depending on how well the user knows Japanese.

Another problem with adopting Japanese is that the grammar gets lost, so we end up with made-up grammar such as "to make sabaki" or the somewhat nonsensical "to tenuki". We also get made-up and varying pronunciations.

Yet another problem in the past, and maybe still to a degree today, is that some people with long memories don't like the Japanese. Using Japanese terms offends them.

That's not much of a problem nowadays but it's been replaced by another one. The Koreans are very chippy about people in the west using Japanese terms, and would much prefer us to use Korean. My sense is that they've realised that is a futile exercise, but the problem still rears its head.

One benefit of saying things in English is that while they may mean little to a novice they at least sound welcoming. For every putative negative association with chess you can probably adduce several positive ones such as "this guy is trying to communicate with me" or "he's not a nerd". Jargon is offputting, but it's possibly twice as offputting if it's foreign as well.

There are several other aspects to consider, such as choosing a lingua franca for westerners who do not have a native command of Englsh, but the upshot is that the whole business is a mess and will probably remain so for a long time, and each writer or teacher has to try to make a judgement on how much jargon to use, and in what form, depending on his audience. He will probably fail a good percentage of the time.

This is actually not a problem exclusive to us. The Japanese have been down this road. We may usefully refer to the very long article 術語をいかにすべきか？ (What should we do with technicaal terms?) in Kido, Vol. 37, No. 12 (1961). This was the transcription of a round-table discussion led by the Kido editor. It involved all the top go writers of the time, plus a couple of top pros. It was essentially this meeting that determined that go terms came to be written mostly in katakana.

To give a flavour of what they were talking about, here is part of Hayashi's introductory remarks.

"Voices were raised several years ago saying we must somehow standardise technical terms. Recently, new people have started writing game commentaries and the problems of technical terms have again come back to the boil. Almost 500 books have been published since the end of the war, and although some may feel it is too late, I thought that if we could form a research group again, as you all are deeply versed in technical terms it would be a group that has some authority. Today’s meeting is the first step and I would like to hear your various opinions. Takagawa sensei was also meant to be here today, but circumstances meant he could not come. He will give us the benefit of his opinions on another occasion.

"The problems of technical terms can broadly be divided into two: the problem of standardisation of terms and then the problem of the characters used. At present there is also the problem of whether or not technical terms are being used inaccurately, but I think the most thoroughly confusing issue is the use of characters. There are people who use old-style kanji and there are others who use hiragana, and there are also some people who use katakana. Also, even among those who use katakana, there are complexities to do with declensions and at what point you put the katakana. I believe it would be a step towards reaching the ideal state if a grammar, as it were, could be standardised and if all writers would follow it as much as possible.

"One further thing where we must think about the future is how to handle the case of translating the terms into foreign languages, but, for the time being, of these three problems I would like to hear your opinions of the first two, fundamental, problems."

One speaker, Mihori Sho, who will be known as the reporter who covered many famous games, also showed some foresight as regards the international audience. He said:

"I am the one who knows least among those here, and I have come expecting to learn a great deal today. But if I were to state my general view to get things started, ultimately one kind of technical term is, first of all, those where they give a name to the meaning of the stone just played. A second type is those named according to their shape. These can be understood from the situation. I also believe that, as regards the problem of characters Mr Hayashi has just mentioned, using katakana is best, since the [government] restriction of kanji is now being welcomed everywhere. To take the characters for osaeru [to block], there are as many as four proper ones: . 約、押、抑and 捺. I have some sympathy for using the old characters, from before the restrictions, as Inoue Takuji [a famous pre-war go writer] often did in order to convey a meaning or a nuance, but we have a mission to think internationally and so I think it is surely better not to use the old characters."

Before the war, the typical amateur go fan who bought books and magazines was pretty strong. He was at home with technical words, although, as the above discussion also showed, pros and amateurs had (and still have) rather different vocabularies and usages. After the war, there was a new audience who were much weaker, and often couldn't read the old characters (or properly understand the old grammar used before the war). This meant a big change and the introduction of quite a few terms that were of little use to strong players but were necessary for beginners. Under this pressure, too, some terms such as joseki and tesuji and hane became fuzzy, at least among amateurs.

Then foreigners came along and just made the situation worse, not just by being even fuzzier, but fussier as well.

What to do about such a to-do? There is wisdom in the old rhyme (seek and ye shall find):

Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear,
Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair,
Fuzzy wuzzy didn't care.
Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fussy, wuz 'e?

Yes and yes. And......that's why when I teach raw beginners I use zero jargons.
No atari, no ko, not even "liberties," "capture race," or "eyes."
In only a few minutes, all the basic rules can be shown with zero jargons.
This can easily be done in English and Chinese, and perhaps this also works in most other languages.
The only exception is the name itself, Go.Yes, and my sense is that it is also futile to try to teach people how to teach beginners.
At our Go club, my friends have seen me teach beginners for years (using no jargons),
yet when they start to teach a raw beginner, they are so happy to immediately throw around terms
like atari, ko, liberties, eyes, etc.

Most of the understanding we gain comes from matching the words used to the context and their application, at least in my experience. A framework is fine if the audience understands a) the word framework itself, and b) the understanding of territory to a degree where "staking it out" makes some sort of intuitive sense. A beginner is unlikely to grasp "b", and a child may struggle with "a".

There are plenty of ways of addressing this, such as "this move helps these stone have more of an impact on this area over here" that start to get the concept of influence understood - or perhaps for a child: "imagine these stones are like your soldiers. You want to own this bit of land, so you start putting soldiers out on the border to mark it as yours".

Teaching means understanding the person you are teaching, having a grasp of the contexts (in life generally) that they are already familiar with, to which you can tie Go concepts, and the ability to make the process of understanding it as intuitive as possible within the constraints around the way they already like to think. Sounds easy? Ho ho.

I agree that you should not teach difficult concepts like ko or capturing races until the beginner has enough experience to understand them. (I would even consider eyes to be too difficult for the first course) Since I only teach a fraction of the actual game I also only uses a fraction of the technical terms. Go is a complex game and you have to be careful not to rush your "student", but I do not believe that you need to shelter him a few Japaness terms. Especially since they have to learn them eventually so why not when you introduce them to the concept.

If you want to know more about my teaching methods I have outline them in this thread.

Maybe we should stop going of topic, but I sure would like to know how you teach go without explaining liberties?

_________________
While I was teaching the game to a friend of mine, my mother from the other room:
"Cutting? Killing? Poking out eyes? What the hell are you playing?"

No, you misunderstood. I have no problem teaching the concepts of ko, atari, liberties, and cap race.
The key is they can be shown without the use of any jargon: atari, ko, liberties, or capture race.

Teach the concept, not the jargon.Of course. I think it's better for the beginner to discover eyes on their own, for instance, during capture Go.Show it. Show the concept, without using the jargon liberties.
Imagine you have to teach Go on a video clip with no audio or any visual texts.
Imagine you have to teach someone Go and you cannot use any words (including sign language).
Imagine a child watching two adults play Go, and without any verbal communication,
figuring out for herself the concepts of atari, ko, and liberties.

If you can teach the basic rules without any words (this may take more than a few minutes ),
now imagine how easy it is to do the same thing with words -- just don't use any jargon.

I think our positions may be quite close. But surely you'd admit that, once you've taught them the concept without jargon, you want to assign a jargon-word to the concept so that you can invoke the concept later, to teach more complicated concepts?

Yes, everything is for the promotion of Go and for the benefits of the learning process.
At first, jargon is a hindrance so I avoid it; later, it is a short-hand and efficient way to communicate, so we use it.

The following won't apply to someone who struggles with "a," a child in your example, but I imagine the following scenario: a teacher is trying to explain to his student what "moyo." So, he shows him three board positions with large moyos and points to each saying "moyo." I feel that the student, having no idea what a moyo is in any context may put his own incorrect meaning on the term that only has shades of the truth. In my mind, if you repeated this exercise to someone in category "a" and said "framework," because of the familiarity with the term, they will come closer to understanding the true meaning of the word.

No matter what you call it, it is true that your understanding of the concept becomes better with experience as most other concepts in go -- e.g. territory.

I always thought of him as diverting to political views after he because known for linguistics. I have read a lot of his linguistic writings but barely touched his political stuff.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Although I agree with the overall point you are making, it falls down a bit in the detail, and it is instructive to consider why.

First, to point to a "large moyo" and say "moyo" is as misleading as Tarzan pointing to Jane and saying "You Tarzan, me Jane". One has attributes the other just doesn't have, and we all know it's these attributes that make life interesting

Second, if we try to list the attributes that most kyu players associate with the word moyo, top of the list is probably "mine, all mine!", supported by mental images of signs saying "Keep out", "Minefield", "Fort Knox" or whatever. Usually the list stops there - no other attributes needed. But if a kyu player lists the attributes associated with the word framework, he gets a rather different mental image. Something rickety, perhaps, as full of holes as a colander. He probably tacks on more attributes, as a way of coping with these holes. Instead of "mine, all mine" he possibly thinks, "Oh, my gawd, how do I cope with this mess?" And that's a BIG improvement in thinking.

I suspect some people like to say moyo because the image makes them feel more comfortable - in their mind they already have a large territory. This sort of thinking is not limited to pros. I've just been reading comments by Sakata where he remarks with surprise on a move by Go Seigen. They have been playing in the lower left, then Go suddenly leaves the position there unfinished and switches to the upper right. Sakata says he would have first played so-and-so in the lower left (settling the position) in sente and then he could still turn to the upper right. He says he finds Go's style leaves too many possible moves, breeds confusion, and requires much more time to think. If Sakata had been a western amateur he would have been a "moyo" man. Go would have been a "framework" man. Don't make too much of that - the real point is simply that words have associations, and even associations have associations, and that we can be guided by these or led astray.

In that sense, saying "framework" can arguably be a great step forward from saying "moyo". But that still doesn't mean the usual attributes of a framework are correct. Consider this case. Suzuki Tamejiro, writing about how to count boundary plays (a little jewel, incidentally - he doesn't mention deiri or miai once) points outs that when the usual time to play boundary plays comes upon us, we will find that most plays will fall in the range of six points to fifteen or sixteen, and that nearly always the biggest of these plays are in the corners or on the side (and, digressing even further, the majority will involve either hanetsugi or capture of one stone). Contrary to what most amateurs think (he says), the big-looking plays in the centre are normally small. The way to handle territory in the centre is implied in this sentence of his:

"Territories made in a natural way as the result of attacking the opponent's stones by utilising a moyo/framework will be large, but territories made by simply surrounding an area will, in most cases, be small."

Now I would maintain, with great confidence, that the concept of "utilising" a moyo/framework plays no part whatsoever in the associations for these words of most kyu players, and maybe not too many dan players. They might get as far as thinking of attacking elsewhere in order to shore up a moyo/framework, but for many amateurs the moyo/framework is the end, not the means. Even for a framework thinker, a framework is like the timbers that mark out the walls of a house and the priority is most often to get the plaster up as quickly as possible to keep people out. But for a pro one prime way to utilise a moyo for attack is to tempt the opponent inside and (Takemiya's advice) don't kill - let him live small. I would speculate that such a strategy would be quite unthinkable for a standard moyo=piggy bank kind of thinker but, with guidance, would easily be within the compass of a framework thinker.

My conclusion is that framework is not ideal but is conceptually more versatile and a better choice for beginners. It could also be a useful change (because of word associations) for people who currently say moyo unless they can truthfully claim to understand already what is meant by utilising a moyo for attack.

New go words, yes. Old go words with proper meanings and properly considered associations, yes, yes, yes!

If this is true, I wonder why this association is made. For example, if the word was totally foreign, say it was something like "blim-blahm" instead of moyo, would people still association "blim-blahm" with the same attributes as they do moyo? Or does the fact that the word has a meaning in another language have some sort of bleeding effect - which maybe is not properly translated?

If we were totally isolated from Japanese words, I wonder if it is different to adopt totally new words that have no meaning whatsoever than to adopt English words that have some types of attributes associated with them already.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything anybody's said here, by the way. I'm just stating some curiosities.

_________________
be immersed