The goals of joseki

[Mef]

When teaching someone who is still quite new about the opening, I try to narrow it down to two objectives:

-Settle your stones (make sure you will live)
-Begin development (give yourself the chance to make points later in the game)

A few years ago it was getting asked about so much in the beginner's room and KTL on KGS I tried to make a psuedolecture about these points...I can try to see if I can dig it up

[RobertJasiek]

While some professionals have said that they study joseki dictionaries as a source for their better understanding of go theory, now my books provide the contrary approach of first studying go theory so that then joseki understanding becomes an application. The great problem of trying to understand josekis is that they involve most aspects of go theory from local characteristica via neighbourhood considerations to the global context, from precise reading to concentrating on only the relevant and important. A good understanding of all those aspects is necessary or at least desirable but kyu players and especially beginners have an only intermediate, weak or even missing understanding of some and too many aspects of go theory. Learn joseki without understanding them and you forget them - learn both reasons / goals and the variations and you can memorize them or depart flexibly and intentionally.

High dan amateurs or professionals know much of the go theory (and filling their knowledge gaps is part of the way of improving) but different players have different mental representations of the knowledge. It can be explicit in the form of principles, methods etc. or implicit as "subconscious knowledge", "intuition", "experience" or "example databases". From my observation, the kyu players' greatest weaknesses are related to aspects of go theory taught (almost) only implicitly (like by examples) by the professionals. Assessing mobility for the sake of comparing two variations' resulting positions is such a case; distinguishing neutral stones from stones with future potential (like Yang Yilun does) is insufficient - one should also be able to assess how much better a variation is compared to another. The required extra effort is very easy if only one does have the essential idea, which I discovered last year while teaching, to count and compare numbers of neutral versus mobile stones. Everybody can count stones; one just has to do it. As you can see, I believe in the power of go theory expressed as principles and methods. Decision making can be easy if only one does know the easiest suitable and applicable principles and methods. In retrospect, I wonder how I could overlook such easy ways for decades. It is surprisingly difficult to invent wheels. Once they are found, they can be used forever. There is no need for everybody to reinvent the same wheels; it takes (many) years for each player. I suggest to learn the already discovered go theory as quickly as possible. If you want to discover things by yourself, then discover new things. Enhance current go theory instead of merely recreating it (spending many months or years). In other words, first learn the known theory, then enter the dictionaries and games to look for the still undiscovered. Or do both simultaneously.

[snorri]

It is sometimes difficult to separate the problem of not thinking clearly from the point of view of goals and heuristics from the limitation of simply not being able to read accurately. When you can't read, a lot of things that look like they might be possible aren't and vice versa. A novice may try, for example, to capture a stone that cannot be captured and spend some moves in this attempt. To a stronger player, this might look like nonsense and attribute it to poor strategy rather than simple misreading. Direction of play mistakes are often mistakenly identified when the real issue is poor tactics. How many times have we seen the following happen?

Strong player: "You should play from the weaker side here."
Novice: "I don't understand. That group is strong."
Strong player: "No it isn't. What if white plays here? What do you do?"

<... players play out some tactical sequence that the novice will likely forget ...>

Novice: "Well, I guess you are right."

(Novice, however, is still unsure the evaluation is correct due to the unfair analysis process of being forced to play a tactical sequence against a stronger player.)

IMHO, even the simplest looking josekis have variations that require dan-level reading or stonger to resolve. That's why we have joseki books in the first place, so we can hand down the constantly changing conclusions of deep reading and game experience. Joseki books also communicate viewpoints on what even exchanges look like.

That's not to say that heuristics are useless. They may be useful for pruning the tree when reading. Then again, too many heurstics can prune the tree too much. What is a tesuji, after all, if not a move that works depsite violating some proverb (unless of course, the purpose of the proverb is to encode the tesuji?)

For 20-30k, it's asking too much to expect them to fend for themselves when deviations from joseki occur and get it right. The reading just isn't there to support that. They can memorize some pre-read tactical sequences, like capturing a stone on the third line, or capturing a stone in a simple net.

When I was that level, the one thing I wished my teacher drilled into me more would have been to force me to decide which stones were important and which ones weren't. Reading becomes a lot easier when you don't care about all of your stones.


[admin]
At this point, posters get a bit off-topic. To skip their posts and stay on-topic, jump to viewtopic.php?p=65173#p65173
-JB
[/admin]

[Magicwand]

While some professionals have said that they study joseki dictionaries as a source for their better understanding of go theory, now my books provide the contrary approach of first studying go theory so that then joseki understanding becomes an application. The great problem of trying to understand josekis is that they involve most aspects of go theory from local characteristica via neighbourhood considerations to the global context, from precise reading to concentrating on only the relevant and important. A good understanding of all those aspects is necessary or at least desirable but kyu players and especially beginners have an only intermediate, weak or even missing understanding of some and too many aspects of go theory. Learn joseki without understanding them and you forget them - learn both reasons / goals and the variations and you can memorize them or depart flexibly and intentionally.

High dan amateurs or professionals know much of the go theory (and filling their knowledge gaps is part of the way of improving) but different players have different mental representations of the knowledge. It can be explicit in the form of principles, methods etc. or implicit as "subconscious knowledge", "intuition", "experience" or "example databases". From my observation, the kyu players' greatest weaknesses are related to aspects of go theory taught (almost) only implicitly (like by examples) by the professionals. Assessing mobility for the sake of comparing two variations' resulting positions is such a case; distinguishing neutral stones from stones with future potential (like Yang Yilun does) is insufficient - one should also be able to assess how much better a variation is compared to another. The required extra effort is very easy if only one does have the essential idea, which I discovered last year while teaching, to count and compare numbers of neutral versus mobile stones. Everybody can count stones; one just has to do it. As you can see, I believe in the power of go theory expressed as principles and methods. Decision making can be easy if only one does know the easiest suitable and applicable principles and methods. In retrospect, I wonder how I could overlook such easy ways for decades. It is surprisingly difficult to invent wheels. Once they are found, they can be used forever. There is no need for everybody to reinvent the same wheels; it takes (many) years for each player. I suggest to learn the already discovered go theory as quickly as possible. If you want to discover things by yourself, then discover new things. Enhance current go theory instead of merely recreating it (spending many months or years). In other words, first learn the known theory, then enter the dictionaries and games to look for the still undiscovered. Or do both simultaneously.

it is so hard to understand what you are trying to say.
am i the only one????

Robert: although you may write few books for some beginners.. you do not have enough go knowledge to judge professionals.(you may think you do..but YOU DONT!!)

[palapiku]

it is so hard to understand what you are trying to say.
am i the only one????

No.

[hyperpape]

it is so hard to understand what you are trying to say.
am i the only one????

Yes (well, you have one person agreeing). Robert's last post is perfectly clear, save that I do not know what neutral stones and mobile stones are. But they're obviously a technical term, so I can presume he defines them in his book.

Perhaps the paragraphs are too long, and he should have written a list .

[daal]

Malkovitch game: Magicwand vs. RobertJasiek. We want it!

[RobertJasiek]

Malkovitch game: Magicwand vs. RobertJasiek. We want it!

I know, I know, but really I cannot take that much time. I might need days per move to write down all my thinking and reasoning. So in practice you would only see a tiny fraction of it. Even then, I can't spend the time this year. Next year, I might reconsider it.

[RobertJasiek]

Magicwand and palapiku, the tesuji is to pose specific questions. Without them, all you are saying is "write 10 times as detailed" and that requires more time than I can spend. ("mobile" is defined quickly as "having potential for future movement". "immobile" is the opposite.)

Magicwand, the book is not only for beginners but for everybody stronger than 19k.

It seems to be fun making statements that somebody commenting on professional games would not be able to judge professionals' play. Read various amateur player authors' books and you know better. In particular, I make only such judgements in my books about that I am very sure and that I justify by reasoning. Making judgements about some moves or positions in other players' games does not require an understanding of all their moves in all their games or being able to beat them.

[RobertJasiek]

hyperpape, neutral stones are those immobile live stones neither making nor threatening to make territory either. Good neutral stones at least contribute to creating a large scale scale cut with attacking potential on opposing stones. Bad neutral stones do not even do this.

[Magicwand]

Magicwand and palapiku, the tesuji is to pose specific questions. Without them, all you are saying is "write 10 times as detailed" and that requires more time than I can spend. ("mobile" is defined quickly as "having potential for future movement". "immobile" is the opposite.)

Magicwand, the book is not only for beginners but for everybody stronger than 19k.

It seems to be fun making statements that somebody commenting on professional games would not be able to judge professionals' play. Read various amateur player authors' books and you know better. In particular, I make only such judgements in my books about that I am very sure and that I justify by reasoning. Making judgements about some moves or positions in other players' games does not require an understanding of all their moves in all their games or being able to beat them.

stronger than 19k? does that include 4dan or stronger? i dont think so.
1) if your book is confusing as your post here i dont think i want that.
2) i would never purchase a book by a weak amature who thinks he is strong enough to write a book.

[RobertJasiek]

stronger than 19k? does that include 4dan or stronger?

It includes players of ALL ranks incl. 9 pro dan. While I think that most professionals and strong amateurs have a subconscious knowledge (or they might say "intuition") of most contents of the book, most could improve their decision making (and teaching) if they did learn the analytical side.

Some contents of the book reveals new research results. Anybody can learn something new from them simply because they are new.

1) if your book is confusing as your post here

My book is more much more detailed, has much more invested time per text line and is proofread several times.

2) i would never purchase a book by a weak amature who thinks he is strong enough to write a book.

You would rather buy weaker books by stronger players. Such that do not explain lots of topics at all or contain only 0% to 10% as "many" principles. Book quality is not proportional to playing strength.

[Magicwand]

It includes players of ALL ranks incl. 9 pro dan. While I think that most professionals and strong amateurs have a subconscious knowledge (or they might say "intuition") of most contents of the book, most could improve their decision making (and teaching) if they did learn the analytical side.

Some contents of the book reveals new research results. Anybody can learn something new from them simply because they are new.

i am sure you wouldnt purchase a book written by 1 kyu claiming that they have something you can learn..

My book is more much more detailed, has much more invested time per text line and is proofread several times.

i dont want detail. i want a book that is clear and correct.
from what i see in this forum i have a feeling that your book i nither.

You would rather buy weaker books by stronger players. Such that do not explain lots of topics at all or contain only 0% to 10% as "many" principles. Book quality is not proportional to playing strength.

again..you are claiming that you teach better than professionals who studied go all their life.

book quality may not be proportional but if your are not strong enough to start with how can you write a book that will teach professionals?

i have seen your ko theory paper which has nothing to do with getting stronger and tedious as hell.
i am really surprised that there are postive reviews on some of your book.

IMO only book you are qualifed to write is for ddk players at best.

[daal]

stronger than 19k? does that include 4dan or stronger? i dont think so.

Perhaps not, but John Fairbairn has recommended that "every serious go player up to about 1-dan should buy at least Vol. 2."

1) if your book is confusing as your post here i dont think i want that.

While this is not true of all of Robert's posts, I agree with hyperpape that except for the undefined terms this post was not at all hard to follow.

2) i would never purchase a book by a weak amature who thinks he is strong enough to write a book.

Of the 25 go books on my shelf, almost half of them were written by amateurs, and based on what I've read so far, Robert's book will at some point join them.

[Tryphon]

I suspect RJasiek to be a mathematician, and likely an algebrist (due to the fact he can spend hours talking about very obscure and uninterresting aspects of rules).

Whereas I ignore conscenciously most of his interventions about rules, that I found despicable his dispute with Csaba Mero, and that I have the feeling he's not a nice person, he said something that really makes sense for me, when he says that what strong players (even pro) call intuition can be, and must be put in words for the greater understanding.

I'm convinced this is true for Mathematics, which is also an activity where the distinction between technique and intuition stands, and I feel some legitimity to claim it because I reached an appreciable level (and was rather intuitive).

I can't claim it for go, because I'm still weak, and I'll probably never be strong enough to be able one day. But I'm sure it stands, similarities between go and mathematics being too important, and I'm glad that a high dan player did (Takeyama claims a simlar idea between the lines).

I'll buy immediately the 2 volumes, even if I'm afraid to face the Bourbaki's "Éléments de go"