How to think about joseki

crux · Post by **crux** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:25 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Mihori specifically referred to "top pros".

So, what is that? A 9d? A title holder? Only Go Seigen?

But even then, there are constant new creations - and if you look at who invents new lines that become popular, it is rarely some low dan but a top pro like Go Seigen.

So, after Go discovers a move, do other top pros also start playing it? If so, how is this possible, if they have no joseki knowledge?

Taken to its logical conclusion, the statement also means that if top pros plays something like the large avalanche, they read it out from scratch every time. Somehow, in doing this, they manage to avoid "old" sequences such as the play at the 2-2 point, without knowing the joseki.

In "The 1971 Honinbo Tournament" there's an instance where it says Ishida had a joseki in mind, but accidentally deviated from the correct order.

Don't get me wrong: I accept Mihori's statement as good advice for us amateurs not to get too hung up on joseki patterns. But I think it's very much exaggerated for effect and rather absurd if interpreted as a literal claim.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:43 am

From an ancient (19th century, I am pretty sure) joseki collection in four volumes. the first three diagrams.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . 2 3 . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 3 2 . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 5 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 2 3 . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . 7 . . , 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 5 , 8 . 9 . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 3 2 . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the bottom left corner I used :b1:

and

for

and

. Which plays they are should be obvious.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 3 . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 5 . 7 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 5 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 7 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . 8 3 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This one I broke up into two diagrams.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm11 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 5 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 4 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | 6 1 O X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:12 am

Not sure what you are implying, Bill - always best to spell it out for us bears of little brain - but if you are trying to adduce an early use of the term joseki, I'll trump that with the first go book printed in Japan, the 1607 Honinbo Joseki Tsukurimono by Sansa. The issue in this thread seems to me not to be about existence but usage, and the differences between (and for) pros and amateurs in their understanding of or their need for the term joseki. But then I think I already said that. Why do I have to repeat it? Is it really so unclear?

Post by **Solomon** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:36 am

John Fairbairn wrote:The issue in this thread seems to me not to be about existence but usage, and the differences between (and for) pros and amateurs in their understanding of or their need for the term joseki. But then I think I already said that. Why do I have to repeat it? Is it really so unclear?

I don't think it's a matter of clarity; rather, some people don't fully agree with this perspective on joseki.

For instance, a few years ago when Cho Seokbin 7d came from Europe to the US to provide workshops and lessons near my area, one of the exercises he had everyone do was to learn a few joseki sequences he put up on the board and have us play that sequence 10 times, over and over again on our boards. He explained that through this methodology, he would remember joseki sequences he played since his pro training in Korea (which implies this is something that is or was once done in baduk academies in Korea for those training to be professionals). Such a teaching method would clearly be considered wrong based on what you wrote, so for someone like me it leaves me in a bit of a conflict on what to think.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:55 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Not sure what you are implying, Bill - always best to spell it out for us bears of little brain - but if you are trying to adduce an early use of the term joseki, I'll trump that with the first go book printed in Japan, the 1607 Honinbo Joseki Tsukurimono by Sansa. The issue in this thread seems to me not to be about existence but usage, and the differences between (and for) pros and amateurs in their understanding of or their need for the term joseki. But then I think I already said that. Why do I have to repeat it? Is it really so unclear?

The antiquity of the term, joseki, is a minor point.

John Fairbairn wrote:The whole business of joseki books is mainly a late 20th century phenomenon tied in with the popularisation of go among the amateur world. Writing in the 1960s, Hayashi Yutaka said that joseki was not really a technical word in go at all, but a word that had recently become popular (this was when go books had just become common).

On the surface, you do seem to be contradicting yourself. There are enough qualifications so you are not, but I do think that you are being unclear.

As for joseki books being aimed at amateurs, has it not always been so? (At least for published books. Surely there were books kept secret within the different houses.)

Before it gets lost, I think that your main point is what a pro told a class I went to in Kyoto: "If I play it, it's joseki." Amateurs, particularly in the West, perhaps because of the influence of chess, make too much of joseki.

I also expect that you are right about the relative importance of fuseki for pros.

But I do not think for a moment that pros do not go to the woodshed to work on joseki. Certainly Kajiwara, Kitani, and Go Seigen did. Go Seigen's influence on both fuseki and joseki has been enormous. Many of the ideas of modern pro play can be traced back to him.

The diagrams from the old book now seem decidedly strange. My own impression is that more progress has been made in the past couple of centuries in joseki than in fuseki. (Perhaps that is because joseki are more concrete.) For instance, sanrensei now seems to be inferior to nirensei, but I can easily imagine that it would make a comeback some day. OTOH, the extension, :w8:

, in the first diagram from the old book is now considered to be too low, and I can only see it being played under special circumstances. It will not come back as joseki.

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:04 am

We humans don't have control/introspection of our brains at the lowest level (neurons). Consequently, the rules and heuristics pros verbally tell us they use are very likely NOT what their brain actually implements to make their moves. So, when a strong player says, do X because of Y and Z, X is probably very good advice, but Y and Z may not be the reasons the strong player's brain actually chose X. Pros are experts at go, and probably experts at learning to be experts at go-- but they are not necessarily experts at communicating exactly what they do or how they became experts.

Pros have vast amounts of corner knowledge at their fingertips. It may not feel to the pro like they use joseki knowledge--and I'd even agree that they don't use it consciously--but any move they make in a corner is powered by that vast amount of unconscious knowledge. I personally would call that knowledge joseki knowledge. But it's knowledge that's baked into the neural circuits that they use to choose their moves; it's not knowledge that they're storing verbally as sentences. So it's not fair to expect them to be able to verbalize it on command, and it may even not feel to the pro like they are doing anything of the sort.

TL;DR: I don't think what actually happens in the pro's brain is what the pro thinks is happening in their brain. Of course pros "know joseki", for reasonable values of "know" and "joseki". (But, thank you, John, for the post, I really do appreciate your summaries of the literature.)

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:29 pm

The impression coming over to me is that rather many people are seeing joseki like chess openings. There may be some similarities, but it also misses some important nuances.

Joseki is a term that is part of everyday Japanese. The implication is usually "routine", not "correct" or "even". Taking the dog for a walk at 3 pm every day can be called a joseki. The rookie cop who wants to solve a case with his scintillating intellect might be told to do the joseki work first: knock on doors and take statements. When Mihori refers to "Mr Joseki" he is not praising him.

So when Mihori says pros don't know josekis, he is saying (and Japanese people would understand this) that they are untrammelled by the routine or the obvious. He is praising them for that. He is not saying they do not know any corner variations, and frankly I thought we'd discussed the term joseki often enough in the past for this to be almost as obvious here. The term joseki also exists in shogi BTW, but despite the the closer similarity and chess and shogi, it is not used even there in quite the same way as "openings" in chess.

Neither is Mihori (qua Go) saying that josekis don't exist. The book is called "How to think about josekis", for heaven's sake. But he does tries to explain why what is obvious or acceptable to us about a joseki may not be obvious or acceptable to a pro. They see more subtle shades. This is the point of the title.

No-one is saying either that pros don't study corner openings or josekis. Nevertheless, it does seem true that budding pros study them in different ways, and that may be part of their talent. In short, it seems they rely little on books. Through constant practice at thinking for themselves about corner openings they appear to end up with the different perspective Mihori describes. They certainly do not ever appear to study a corner opening and decide that a line is joseki and must be learnt, which is what most amateurs seem to do (except that for them the process is often reversed).

On a wider theme, it seems common sense to me that when new ideas are put forward for discussion, the intention is to open doors and windows in the mind - to stimulate. Let a hundred flowers bloom. I'm disappointed to see so many people take the polemical tack and try to apply what they see as killer logic. I would have thought they'd have enough experience of go to have been through the humbling experience of playing what they thought was a killer move only to find out many moves later that they'd had their window blinds drawn. Catalin Taranu's experiences with overcoming this constant urge to contradict or provide the counterexample with his teacher Saito are worth re-reading, I suggest.

In brief: by all means reject any new idea - but suck the juice out of it first.

Bill, as an aside, the low move 8 is still being played, and seems never to have gone away really. Look at Kombilo.

p2501 · Post by **p2501** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:21 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:Catalin Taranu's experiences with overcoming this constant urge to contradict or provide the counterexample with his teacher Saito are worth re-reading, I suggest.

I'd love to - where can I find that?

crux · Post by **crux** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:38 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:So when Mihori says pros don't know josekis, he is saying (and Japanese people would understand this) that they are untrammelled by the routine or the obvious.

If the word has different meanings in Japanese and in English, maybe it's best to use this translation when writing for a non-Japanese audience? It may not sound as cool as "top pros know no joseki", but it would lead to fewer misunderstandings. I think it would be unfortunate if the sentence as quoted were to enter western go folklore (and it sounds like the kind of thing that could easily become a meme).

I guess this just pushed a button for me; it sounded like an attempt imbue pros with rather more mystique than warranted (while also overgeneralizing and disparaging the approach amateurs take). I guess my point was: they're only human; but it seems it was only a language problem after all.

In brief: by all means reject any new idea - but suck the juice out of it first.

What exactly is the new idea though? Professionals practice a lot more and are good enough at reading and positional judgment that they don't have to rely on books for a lot of things that don't come as easy to amateurs? Or simply the advice not to play a sequence just because it's from a book?

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:39 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:The issue in this thread seems to me not to be about existence but usage, and the differences between (and for) pros and amateurs in their understanding of or their need for the term joseki. But then I think I already said that. Why do I have to repeat it? Is it really so unclear?

John, from other things you have written about the language used in the original edition of Igo Daijiten,I am pretty sure that you have a copy. Would it be possible for you to comment on the concept of joseki as expressed by Suzuki in the intro there versus what Mihori wrote here? I do not have direct access to a copy and would not be able to appreciate the nuances of the language anyway. :blackeye:

daal · Post by **daal** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:16 am

After all this clarification, my impression is that pros know the routine plays in a corner and use them as handy reference points. Their way of thinking about corners is to view them as part of the board. My question is: how does this way of thinking apply to amateurs, and what role should the study of joseki play in our regimens.

While pros perhaps do not learn their joseki from books, their understanding of the logic of such routines is to some extent reflected in joseki books. I am sure that I am nowhere near able to reproduce this logic on my own, therefore, when the ins and outs of a certain joseki are explained to me, it is somewhat similar to getting a fantastically detailed commentary of a sequence from a pro game. It shows lines of thought that are determined by reading farther than I am able to. The difference however, is that this corner pattern is significantly more compact and easier to remember and recreate than some sequence from the middle game.

The danger of using this as a crutch is obvious, and the comment about studying joseki and losing two stones is also regularly replied to with the caveat that there is however a right and a wrong way, and the above applies to the wrong way. So what is the right way? At the end of his essay, John points out that understanding the moves simply in the context of the joseki is inadequate. For a pro, certainly. A sequence does not truly end until the game is over. Yet even Go Seigen who envisions sequences well beyond what is generally considered the outcome of a joseki does not bother - or is not able - to draw a final conclusion. He simply stops later than the joseki dictionaries.

In our games we are implored to "look to left and right and decide which MOVE to play. " We are told to attempt to achieve a specific purpose and not lose sight of it. But when we study it makes sense to abbreviate these purposes as joseki dictionaries often do with statements such as "white is thick" or black is settled. Whether not the dictionary declares the result "even, " it is obviously also our intention to use this result in some way to gain the upper hand. John says that this sort of thinking doesn't go far, but for crying out loud, that's already beyond my abilities if I can't even remember how the routine sequence goes.

Yes, I did read this:

Does all this mean abandoning joseki dictionaries and the like? No. It just means using them properly. The most obvious use is to get a sense of how to evaluate a position. That is a truly vital skill, and it is far, far more important to be able to look at a small handful of positions and to know how to evaluate them than to memorize lots of long lines. Note the distinction: how to evaluate them, not what the evaluation is.

In order to evaluate a position, whether it is a joseki or not, one must be able to visualize it, and for me personally, memorization seems not a bad way of practicing this skill. The concept of a joseki "outcome" may be nonsense in a game situation, but as an aid to both memorizing and learning to evaluate, it is a crutch that serves a purpose.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:30 am

John, from other things you have written about the language used in the original edition of Igo Daijiten,I am pretty sure that you have a copy. Would it be possible for you to comment on the concept of joseki as expressed by Suzuki in the intro there versus what Mihori wrote here?

I have already written at some length about the evaluation criteria in Big Joseki Dictionary so I have no inclination to repeat that, but it's a slippery slope anyway to compare one writer's definition with another's. Even though there is this strong overtone of routine in Japanese usages of joseki, it is a case of usages plural even there. Just as here, we get writers who just mean any corner opening, others who insist on a definition such as equal division of the spoils, and yet others who insist it has to be a well established line. Maybe the majority use a mixture of all meanings, and routinely (to coin a word) there are uncomfortable blips when the discussion turns to a "new joseki" (how can it be both new and well established?) or "old joseki" (how can it still be called a joseki when modern pros think it's unequal?). Japanese people seem less bothered by fuzziness in language than we are. Indeed, if you follow Roy Miller, professor of Japanese, you can even say they exalt and cultivate fuzziness. All we can do, I think, is try to treat each individual writer on his own terms.

tchan001 · Post by **tchan001** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:46 am

One Japanese go book which might be useful for this discussion is Quickly Understand! Encyclopedia of Joseki Formation (明快!定石誕生事典). This book talks about the evolution of joseki over time.

mw42 · Post by **mw42** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:56 am

daal wrote:After all this clarification, my impression is that pros know the routine plays in a corner and use them as handy reference points. Their way of thinking about corners is to view them as part of the board. My question is: how does this way of thinking apply to amateurs, and what role should the study of joseki play in our regimens.

I think about joseki in the following way: I 1-space pincer, he jumps, I jump, he shoulder hits...

How I imagine professionals think about joseki: if I 1-space pincer these are the results (projects numerous end-results he has memorized onto the board), if I 2-space pincer...

My way is a lot less efficient and tiring, and I usually end up just "playing" a joseki. The professional, thinking about joseki in a super-efficient way from tireless study, is then able to customize the moves to better fit the global position.

logan · Post by **logan** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:49 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:[...] they haven't memorised anything but because the concept is irrelevant to them. They are judging each move, move by move, and - as already said - whether or not that process leads to a known joseki is immaterial. [...]

In fact, it appears that ultimately pros don't accept the concept of josekis because there is, in practice, no such thing as an even split. Every so-called joseki, to a pro's eye, actually favours one side or the other, and since the pro is always manoeuvering so that he ends up on the right side he will never accept a move just because it has been played before. [...]

One marked difference (according to the book) is that amateurs feel the job is done once they've achieved the joseki pattern. For a pro, the pattern is never complete.

I'm not quite sure where to begin... But I found these sections, and especially the bolded concepts, the parts which spoke the most to me. Because, these are ways of viewing the game that I've come to value as very important. I'm not certain that the traits outlined are unique to top professionals, but I think that they are unique to anyone wanting to create fresh and interesting games (because even professionals can create boring games). And I also think that only players of a certain strength can begin to develop and cherish a deep appreciation for these concepts. Though I could go into more depth, I just wanted to share these thoughts at this time. Thank-you.

Life In 19x19

How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki

Re: How to think about joseki