Jasiek Study Journal

[wineandgolover]

1. Why do you refer to yourself as third person. It does sound a bit strange.
2. You seem to always stick with the set of 'in the corner', 'on the side', and 'in the center'. Why 'on the side' and not 'in the side'?
3. In page 16 example 23, you wrote 'Black A can take up an even higher position'. I was confused about the meaning of 'take up' so looked up the dictionary, and there was, among the three pages for 'take', a small section as below.

take sth ↔ up 6. to move into a particular position
I took up my position by the door.

Is this what you meant? Or could you explain the meaning of your sentence?

2. Prepositions are funny things. Robert has used them correctly though. I think the reasons for "in" are easy. Imagine that you put a piece of art in a room. You can put it IN the center, or IN the corner, but can you put it IN the side? Not really. You'd probably put it ON the side (if you hung it). I suspect that is why we use the words we do.

3. I believe you chose the correct definition. This is also standard English.

[RobertJasiek]

[Note to administrators: I hope that my participation in this thread about my books is considered ok. If not, I can move my answers to the Books forum.]

1. Why do you refer to yourself as third person. It does sound a bit strange.

I prefer to avoid the first person in books, which IMO sounds strange. Surely it is a matter of preference.

2. You seem to always stick with the set of 'in the corner', 'on the side', and 'in the center'. Why 'on the side' and not 'in the side'?

I hope it is correct use of prepostitions in English.

3. In page 16 example 23, you wrote 'Black A can take up an even higher position'. I was confused about the meaning of 'take up'

The intended meaning is "take (play on) the intersection A to develop the currently low position (of the black stone 11), so that it becomes a higher position (for the black group at its outside end around the stone 11)".

[Boidhre]

"on the side" is correct. "In the side" would be used like "I hit him in the side," "The car was hit in the side" and so on.

"take up" is a bit strange here. I would say "take a higher position." It's not ambiguous though, it's clear what you meant.

[skydyr]

"on the side" is correct. "In the side" would be used like "I hit him in the side," "The car was hit in the side" and so on.

"take up" is a bit strange here. I would say "take a higher position." It's not ambiguous though, it's clear what you meant.

Without the context, "take up" can also be used in a phrase like "take up go", meaning that someone starts playing or learning to play go.

[wineandgolover]

I love bonobo because bonobo likes everybody!

[MJK]

Unit 1 - Choose the Big and Valuable

I have read unit 1 and shall write a summary. It consists of 4 subunits which each are a principle itself and all together forming the main principle to 'Choose the Big and Valuable'. The principles are summerizedly explained below.

1. Avoid premature endgame.
Do not play too early local endgame moves. View the whole board and find the big, important, or urgent areas; play there.

2. Choose the bigger space.
A bigger gap or space is more valuable than a smaller one. Identify what is bigger as you know which 'A' on the right is bigger (A A); again, play there.

3. Move to the wider direction.
Move to the wider, more valuable direction when developing territory or moyo, securing life, strengthening a weak group, or when attempting to achive multiple intentions stated.

4. Attack or defend the bigger group.
When confronted with a choice of attacking or defending different groups, invest your stone in the bigger group. Never overlook or ignore the important weak group.


A Question

In page 25 Dia. 1.2, you wrote 'Black got carried away. Once he started to make a mistake, he continued with the same kind of mistake, trying to make two eyes where there is space for at most one eye' with a diagram partly as below.

$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

My dictionary (the 'Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary' otherwise it would be specified) defines your use of 'carry' as below.

be/get carried away
to get very excited or lose control of your feelings
I got carried away and started shouting at the television.

I'm not sure whether it makes sense in your context.

[Kirby]

@MJK: Are you saying that the scenario described is not one in which it's possible that black lost control of his feelings?

Eg. "Black got carried away lost control of his feelings. Once he started to make a mistake, he continued with the same kind of mistake, trying to make two eyes where there is space for at most one eye' with a diagram partly as below."

[Bantari]

@MJK: Are you saying that the scenario described is not one in which it's possible that black lost control of his feelings?

Eg. "Black got carried away lost control of his feelings. Once he started to make a mistake, he continued with the same kind of mistake, trying to make two eyes where there is space for at most one eye' with a diagram partly as below."

Lol...
If a non-native-english-speaker reader can be confused by the english of a non-native-english-speaker writer, maybe a non-native-english-speaker observer can chime in...

So my verdict is: Robert's usage of 'carried away' is perfectly correct in this case, I think.

[Bonobo]

OT stuff

I love bonobo because bonobo likes everybody!

Thanks but … not sure whether you meant this in an ironical way (which I could actually understand).

Yes, I may like many ppl, or, to be exact: I may like many of their posts, but I do distinguish. Nevertheless sometimes it happens that I “like” several posts in a row, for me it’s like saying “thanks for being friendly/supportive/informative”. Sometimes just for being funny.

Positive feedback is one of the nicest things to give, IMO, and it costs nothing than a little time and thought.

Anyway: I have an endless supply of love in me so I can let it flow freely w/o having to fear that I’d run empty


Love and Peace,

Tom

[Bantari]

Yes, I may like many ppl, or, to be exact: I may like many of their posts, but I do distinguish. Nevertheless sometimes it happens that I “like” several posts in a row, for me it’s like saying “thanks for being friendly/supportive/informative”. Sometimes just for being funny.

True, but by giving it too much, by showing too little discrimination, you are devaluing the meaning of the 'like' functionality for everybody.

Consider:
If every other person got a gold medal, what would the value of gold medal be?
Or from reality: if every moron football player scoring an extra point is called a 'hero', how do the people who actually deserve this description feel? What is the value of calling somebody a 'hero' if you use the term for the guy brining hot coffee for the whole office in the morning, just because you happen to like hot coffee? What does it say about the meaning of the word 'hero'?

The bottom line:
Something like the 'Like' functionality has more value when you apply stricter guidelines of when you use it. If people just 'like' everything they consider slightly funny, or whatever - half the posts or more will get the 'like' label, and nobody will pay any attention to what is 'liked' and what is not. And 'Like' will become meaningless.

Well... you do what you do, no problem, I just think that this is what the guy meant. At least - this is how I have read it.

[wineandgolover]

I love bonobo because bonobo likes everybody!

Thanks but … not sure whether you meant this in an ironical way (which I could actually understand).

Yes, I may like many ppl, or, to be exact: I may like many of their posts, but I do distinguish. Nevertheless sometimes it happens that I “like” several posts in a row, for me it’s like saying “thanks for being friendly/supportive/informative”. Sometimes just for being funny.

Positive feedback is one of the nicest things to give, IMO, and it costs nothing than a little time and thought.

Anyway: I have an endless supply of love in me so I can let it flow freely w/o having to fear that I’d run empty


Love and Peace,

Tom

No irony or sarcasm intended. It's nice to get a thumbs up. I took the time to answer a language question, and you showed appreciation. It makes me more likely to do so again.

Bantari and I are often on the same page. Just not this time.

[Bantari]

I love bonobo because bonobo likes everybody!

Thanks but … not sure whether you meant this in an ironical way (which I could actually understand).

Yes, I may like many ppl, or, to be exact: I may like many of their posts, but I do distinguish. Nevertheless sometimes it happens that I “like” several posts in a row, for me it’s like saying “thanks for being friendly/supportive/informative”. Sometimes just for being funny.

Positive feedback is one of the nicest things to give, IMO, and it costs nothing than a little time and thought.

Anyway: I have an endless supply of love in me so I can let it flow freely w/o having to fear that I’d run empty


Love and Peace,

Tom

No irony or sarcasm intended. It's nice to get a thumbs up. I took the time to answer a language question, and you showed appreciation. It makes me more likely to do so again.

Bantari and I are often on the same page. Just not this time.

Dang... oh well, I am not perfect, no matter what people say.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I was projecting slightly, for which I apologize.

[Bonobo]

Pls forgive me, Robert, this will be my last [OT] deviation (at least in this direction )

[..] but by giving it too much, by showing too little discrimination[..]

I accept that it may be “too much” for your taste. For me, it’s just “more than usual”

If every other person got a gold medal, what would the value of gold medal be?

This is not about Olympic collecting of “likes”. This is NOT about competing for the “likes” of people.

I’d perhaps compare it to … adding some neurotransmitters to a nervous system many things will then be raised above the perception threshold. And don’t forget: there still are more posts where I do NOT click “like”. So … I’m perhaps just adding my own “layer” of “likes” on this landscape.

BTW I also click “like” for post where forum newbies introduce themselves—because 1) it’s a nice thing to say “hi” and to introduce oneself, and because 2) so they immediately see how they can give a quick positive feedback for a post.

For any deeper discussion of this we should move into another thread.

Thanks, Tom

[Splatted]

Yes, I may like many ppl, or, to be exact: I may like many of their posts, but I do distinguish. Nevertheless sometimes it happens that I “like” several posts in a row, for me it’s like saying “thanks for being friendly/supportive/informative”. Sometimes just for being funny.

True, but by giving it too much, by showing too little discrimination, you are devaluing the meaning of the 'like' functionality for everybody.

Consider:
If every other person got a gold medal, what would the value of gold medal be?
Or from reality: if every moron football player scoring an extra point is called a 'hero', how do the people who actually deserve this description feel? What is the value of calling somebody a 'hero' if you use the term for the guy brining hot coffee for the whole office in the morning, just because you happen to like hot coffee? What does it say about the meaning of the word 'hero'?

The bottom line:
Something like the 'Like' functionality has more value when you apply stricter guidelines of when you use it. If people just 'like' everything they consider slightly funny, or whatever - half the posts or more will get the 'like' label, and nobody will pay any attention to what is 'liked' and what is not. And 'Like' will become meaningless.

Well... you do what you do, no problem, I just think that this is what the guy meant. At least - this is how I have read it.

I have to say I'm with Wineandgolover on this one

Consider:

What if everyone thanked you every time you did something for them? Being thanked would lose all... actually that would be pretty nice.

I much prefer to think that the likes I recieve are from people like Bonobo who seem to just be saying "I enjoyed your post and wanted to let you know".

Edit: This was written before the suggestion to move to another thread.

[Bantari]

Yes, I may like many ppl, or, to be exact: I may like many of their posts, but I do distinguish. Nevertheless sometimes it happens that I “like” several posts in a row, for me it’s like saying “thanks for being friendly/supportive/informative”. Sometimes just for being funny.

True, but by giving it too much, by showing too little discrimination, you are devaluing the meaning of the 'like' functionality for everybody.

Consider:
If every other person got a gold medal, what would the value of gold medal be?
Or from reality: if every moron football player scoring an extra point is called a 'hero', how do the people who actually deserve this description feel? What is the value of calling somebody a 'hero' if you use the term for the guy brining hot coffee for the whole office in the morning, just because you happen to like hot coffee? What does it say about the meaning of the word 'hero'?

The bottom line:
Something like the 'Like' functionality has more value when you apply stricter guidelines of when you use it. If people just 'like' everything they consider slightly funny, or whatever - half the posts or more will get the 'like' label, and nobody will pay any attention to what is 'liked' and what is not. And 'Like' will become meaningless.

Well... you do what you do, no problem, I just think that this is what the guy meant. At least - this is how I have read it.

I have to say I'm with Wineandgolover on this one

Consider:

What if everyone thanked you every time you did something for them? Being thanked would lose all... actually that would be pretty nice.

I understand your point. But I disagree.

There are cultures out there which stress excessive politeness. People say 'thank you' and 'please' all the time... is it nice? I don't know. How do I tell when somebody is really grateful and when he simply follows convention? So in such cases - other indicators are needed... a deeper bow, a warmer smile... and then *this* becomes what makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, what makes you feel appreciated. Somebody saying 'thank you' for everything you do becomes meaningless or even a nuisance.

Same here. I think that the 'Like' functionality is there to denote posts which are somehow 'special' to you... and then it means something. If every other post is marked as 'special', then what is special and what is ordinary? The meaning and value gets diluted.

Bottom line:
If we all did 'Like' every other posts we run across, for whatever reason, each post would have been liked by 50 people or so. And then I ask you - would anybody care if a post was 'Liked' or not? It would be meaningless. Right now, only one person is so generous, and so it is no big deal. In theory, however, if you do not place strict and narrow guidelines on how you evaluate things, your evaluation becomes less meaningful.

Praise is a gift not to be withheld, but not to be given lightly neither.
That's all I am saying.