Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:The text is, first of all, meant for expert readers

Fair enough. Just a passing question: Are there experts working on this topic other than yourself?

hyperpape wrote:write "this paper contains

The paper starts with an abstract.

As it stands, I am reduced to searching for ko on your website and clicking random links to find what I am interested in.

To start parsing a website, use its index page:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/

There you find links to

GO ( books - teaching - rules - study )

Study

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/study.html

gives you the easiest access to also non-pure-rules research texts.

I know, I could also improve my webpage, my local file database and, as a result, again my webpage (with more research results). Make a sufficient donation and I do it next week instead of writing the next go book. Otherwise, please understand that my time is limited. E.g., I am already too busy with translating

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/windows_sec ... ncept.html

into German, for which I need another four hours.

Magicwand wrote:Robert: people who write book are professionals. They are much stronger than you.

Many Go books are written by ghost writers, not by the professional whose name is on the cover.

Mivo wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Robert: people who write book are professionals. They are much stronger than you.

Many Go books are written by ghost writers, not by the professional whose name is on the cover.

From what I read around, the professional usually makes the diagrams. I don't know how much of the rest of the output comes from the ghost writer or the pro.

tundra wrote:http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoTermsByRobertJasiek

This page is so sparse that it is more misleading than helpful. It lists only a very small percentage of go terms invented by me.

John Fairbairn wrote:"Thinking techniques of professional go players" (Seeing the overall position and the ability to evaluate) by Yoda Norimoto. Over 200 pages of solid text (three diagrams).

It still remains unclear whether the book is as good as one wishes due to the title and should be translated immediately, or whether its title is euphemistic.

RobertJasiek wrote:It still remains unclear whether the book is as good as one wishes due to the title and should be translated immediately, or whether its title is euphemistic.

Just as in Japan, they may wonder whether First Fundamentals is worth translating.

Hi Robert.
Sorry - I was distracted with non-go stuff for the past few days, thus the late response.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:only a fool expects to win every argument or be always right

Sure. There is, however, a strategy for winning a good number of heavy discussions: participate only in those that one, from the start, is confident to win. It is like attacking only when having the knowledge of a stronger board position.

This forum is not a war, unless you choose to see it as such. For me - I express my opinion when I have them, and if others convince me my opinion is wrong, so be it. No hard feelings, I am actually glad. I am actually a little sorry you see it differently.

I am not strategizing before opening my mouth to see how likely I am to 'win' a particular case. I leave that for lawyers.

RobertJasiek wrote:It is hard for me (and for many others) to accept someone's different view as objectively true if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons.

Problem is - a lot of the things we/you argue about is subjective - and there is very little, if any, 'objective' reasons. Take, for example, the recent discussion about 'brilliancy' of Go books. You have your criteria, but they are not really any better 'objectively' than, for example, 'it makes a good bathroom reader.' This is what I mean when I say you are having a hard time seeing things from other perspectives. You assume there actually an objective definition of 'brilliant' and what's more - its YOUR definition, the one you chose to use. The only way people can argue with you is to do so on YOUR ground, or you seem incapable of understanding.

In other words - you try to force people into your way of thinking while at the same time making no apparent effort to try to understand how they see things.

This is why arguing with you can be so frustrating - to the point that I call it 'pointless'.

But understand - and all others please understand it as well - this is only my personal opinion, derived from the fact that we (you and I) often see things from such an extremely different angle. Others might well find discussions with you very fulfilling and satisfying. I don't - because every time I try I feel like you try to bully me into accepting your criteria while making no effort to even understanding mine. Its like you have a blind spot, and no matter how many time people point it out to you, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

I am not really sure what else to say to you.
I respect the work you do, but personally, I see no point in much discussions.

My opinion only.

Bantari wrote:This forum is not a war [...] I am actually a little sorry you see it differently.

JRTR, I do not see this forum as a war.

You have your criteria, but they are not really any better 'objectively' than, for example, 'it makes a good bathroom reader.'

Everybody considering his opinion on go books to comply with "it makes a good bathroom reader" should say so. I don't use such a criterion.

You assume there actually an objective definition of 'brilliant' and what's more - its YOUR definition, the one you chose to use. The only way people can argue with you is to do so on YOUR ground, or you seem incapable of understanding.

As long as alternative definitions do not become more impressive than "it makes a good bathroom reader", I prefer my definition as a candidate for an objective definition of 'brilliant'. Not the final conclusion - a candidate.

In other words - you try to force people into your way of thinking

I try to encourage (not: force) people to apply my thinking OR to provide better arguments and reasons.

while at the same time making no apparent effort to try to understand how they see things.

Wrong. - I do not appreciate weak or missing alternatives as well as good alternatives.

This is why arguing with you can be so frustrating - to the point that I call it 'pointless'.

Provide better arguments than "bathroom" and you make more points.

while making no effort to even understanding mine.

Bathroom? My attempt in understanding this as the one and only brilliancy criterion: "Go books should be light to understand short bits within seconds. They are not worth reading more than during a few minutes per day."

Its like you have a blind spot,

I am glad indeed that you will not succeed in convincing me that go books should have bathroom quality.

and no matter how many time people point it out to you, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

Bathroom quality I refuse because 1) go books can offer much more than reading for only a few minutes per day, 2) go books must also encourage effort because playing go better requires effort, 3) there is much more go theory (necessary for improving) than can be consumed in a light "bathroom" style.

I am not really sure what else to say to you.

Suggest possibly better alternative criteria and provide reasons for them!

Uhm <cough> forgive me for going slightly astray with this less than brillant comment … but actually the recently purchased “First Fundamentals” is one of perhaps half a dozen Go books (together with about a dozen others) in my bathroom (and please don’t chide me for this, Robert ) since that’s the only place where I have time for reading a few pages every day

For defining quality of go book contents, it is immaterial where you choose to read.

RobertJasiek wrote:For defining quality of go book contents, it is immaterial where you choose to read.

LOL -- of course it doesn't matter where. Idioms aren't meant to be taken literally.

In case you're not already aware, "It makes a good bathroom reader", is an idiom that means its either a favorite or high quality book because one leaves it in their most frequented reading place -- the bathroom.

I like to avoid the kitchen when I'm reading tsumego books. It just seems best to read in locations where sharp objects aren't around to vent my frustration when I get a problem wrong.

JRTR: http://www.acronymfinder.com/Japan-Railway-and-Transport-Review-%28JRTR%29.html

OR Jasiek's rather terse rhetorics