Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 31, 2014 12:07 am

Suggestion for improvement:

He introduces and defines the terms string connection, direction connection, and indirect connection,
and gives the following three examples (page 8):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Example 3: string connection $$ ------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . O . . $$ | . . 1 X X X O . . $$ | . . X O O O O . . $$ | . . X O . . . . . $$ | . . O O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Example 4: direct connection $$ ----------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . O . X . . X . . $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Example 5: indirect connection $$ ----------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . O . X . . . X . $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I find these terms a little strange and unnatural.
I am used to the terms "solid connection" or "direct connection" for the type shown in Example 3.
To me, Example 4 is not a direct connection; it is an indirect connection -- both examples 4 and 5 are indirect connections.

When I see the term "solid connection" or "direct connection," it means to me
that the defender can tenuki infinitely and the opponent still cannot cut apart the stones --
it is impossible to split the stones.
In contrast, for Examples 4 and 5, W can make two successive moves (i.e. B tenuki once) and split the two B stones.

For me, a fundamental property of a "solid" or "direct" connection is that it is impossible to split the stones.
Therefore, all other connections are indirect.

Note that this is merely my preference and suggestion.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 31, 2014 12:20 am

Suggestion for improvement: he defines "aji" with a negative sense ("latent, bad possibilities", page 26).

I am used to "aji" being neutral -- thus, I'm used to reading about "good aji" and "bad aji".

I don't know how the original 味 (aji) is used in Go literature in Japanese.
Maybe others more fluent in Japanese can shed some light.
I seem to recall the phrase 味が悪い (the aji is bad).
I also seem to recall they say "good aji" and "bad aji" in Chinese Go literature.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat May 31, 2014 12:53 am

Phrases of the kind solid, direct, indirect connection were used ambiguously and with varying meanings in the literature, but never in the sense of classifying the three types of connections I use. In particular, my "indirect connection" was missing entirely. Of course, other names would have worked, too. E.g., connection types I, II, III or "one-string-connection", "cannot be cut multiple strings connection", "connection that can be cut without gained advantage". Regardless of the chosen names for the three terms, exactly this classification is essential because it is frequently applied in my go theory and books, especially in principles. See also http://senseis.xmp.net/?RobertJasiek%2FSolidConnection

In the English literature, aji has sometimes been used in a neutral meaning, sometimes in a negative sense. I call the neutral / unspecific meaning "possibilities" and the negative meaning "aji" and use these phrases consistently with these meanings. I consider it easier to write "aji" than "negative / bad aji" all the time.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:15 am

I am used to "aji" being neutral -- thus, I'm used to reading about "good aji" and "bad aji".

Ed, you are right. Aji can be good or bad, and even "latent" can be questioned - it is the noticeable after-taste (i.e. it means "atoaji") that is being emphasised rather than what is hidden. Strictly it is misused in several ways in English. One is to use it where Japanese would say "te ga aru" - there is a move, i.e. something concrete is already achievable - at one end of the scale, or where, at the other end of the scale, they would use words like "aya" or "fukumi" to say there is a wisp of an idea there, or a hint of something. And "nerai" takes us also into more strategic territory. They also have an array of compounds such as ajitsuki and ajibaru, so an English equivalent is always going to be a fuzzy match at best.

But we are capable, I think, of sensing what a Japanese senses even in a fuzzy situation, as is illustrated by a famous senryu (jokey mini-poem)- famous enough to appear in more than one version.

この味がと、ﾍﾀがｼﾞｮｳｽﾞの口を真似

"With this aji blah, blah, blah." Thus the weakie imitates stronger guys.

I'm sure we all recognise that scenario!

On the "connection" angle, I also agree with your remarks. Japanese offers a similar distinction by using e.g. "tsugu" and "renraku". It's an interesting debate: is it good to define terms your own way to ensure accurate conveyance of your ideas, while risking confusion the ideas of others in 99% of the existing literature (or native intuitions). I can sympathise with both sides, but if you are innovating I really do think you need to stress any aberrant usages to your readers.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Sat May 31, 2014 5:25 am

Last time I checked Go was a zero-sum, competition between two players. Could you, Ed or JF, post a couple of examples of 'good' aji for White that is not equally 'bad' aji for Black?

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat May 31, 2014 6:01 am

There is no "99%" agreement on the precise meanings of informally used "terms". Rather, precise usage by some authors or precise translations by translators can lead to discussions and so a broader awareness of prior ambiguity and better understanding of possible modern options of precise meanings.

Aji / possibilities is not always used in a perfect information meaning, but we often need to assess possibilites as options when we still do not know which option will be good or bad for a particular player. Then calling a particular option "bad" for a player might be premature judgement.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 31, 2014 8:57 am

John and Robert, thanks for the replies.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:19 am

RobertJasiek wrote:...and use these phrases consistently with these meanings.
I consider it easier to write "aji" than "negative / bad aji" all the time.

Hi Robert, how do you deal with the meaning and usage of "good aji" ?

John Fairbairn wrote:It's an interesting debate: is it good to define terms your own way to ensure accurate conveyance of your ideas, while risking confusion the ideas of others in 99% of the existing literature (or native intuitions). I can sympathise with both sides, but if you are innovating I really do think you need to stress any aberrant usages to your readers

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:42 am

ez4u wrote:Last time I checked Go was a zero-sum, competition between two players. Could you, Ed or JF, post a couple of examples of 'good' aji for White that is not equally 'bad' aji for Black?

Hi Dave, if I imagine two opponents in a physical fight, then in some sense,
yes, fighter A's "good health" or "good condition"
may mean "bad news" for fighter B,
but it does not mean fighter B must result in "bad health":
both fighters can be in excellent condition (in particular, before the actual fight).
Similarly, even during the physical fight,
fighter A can deliver a good punch (tesuji)
that is neutralized by an equally good block (counter tesuji?)
or evasive action (tai sabaki ).

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:43 am

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W “Aji is bad” $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 1 X O O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W “Aji is good” $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . 2 X . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 1 X O O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat May 31, 2014 10:39 am

Ed, "good aji": Informally used when applying my meaning of "aji", this can be an abbreviation for "the aji is good for the player". If, however, a few others should use aji in a neutral meaning and write "good aji" to indicate the positive meaning for the given player, I guess I would understand their intention, too.

Cassandra, your use of aji shows the term used in contexts of additional attributes. In both cases, there is aji (in my meaning of the term) in the black moyo. In what you call “Aji is bad” the aji in the black moyo is more severe than in the less severe "Aji is good" case. IOW, your attributes "is good" or "is bad" want to express degrees of how severe the (negative) aji in the black moyo is.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat May 31, 2014 10:56 am

RobertJasiek wrote:Cassandra, your use of aji shows the term used in contexts of additional attributes. In both cases, there is aji (in my meaning of the term) in the black moyo. In what you call “Aji is bad” the aji in the black moyo is more severe than in the less severe "Aji is good" case. IOW, your attributes "is good" or "is bad" want to express degrees of how severe the (negative) aji in the black moyo is.

I suppose that this example has more to do with White's group on the right than with what could be called Black's Moyo.

Bonobo · Post by **Bonobo** » Sat May 31, 2014 11:33 am

lemmata wrote:RJ's books always seem interesting. I just haven't worked up the courage to buy one because I know that it will require active participation.

Well, for me “active participation” is … having my mind as clear as can be while reading in the bathtub or on the toilet :twisted:

Ed, is it possible to edit your later posts into the OP? That might make it easier to read later.

Mh… problem with this is that Ed would also have to add a comment at the end of the thread everytime he’d update the opening post, otherwise the thread wouldn’t turn up in the “unread posts”.

Grtz, Tom

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:12 pm

Last time I checked Go was a zero-sum, competition between two players. Could you, Ed or JF, post a couple of examples of 'good' aji for White that is not equally 'bad' aji for Black?

I'm curious why you have to keep checking up on go. Short-term memory problem (know all about that!) or is go a cover for a commie terrorist group that needs constant surveillance?

Simple examples from Japanese texts of aji with good and bad specified:
味のいい手だ。
一手打ってもまだ味が悪い。

Examples of neutral usage:
この隅には味がある。
ここはまだあじが残る。

An example where a "good aji" move refers to a move such as a honte by you where you are either eliminating aji against yourself, or not creating fresh aji which a greedier alternative move might do (i.e. there is no complementary bad aji):

形は悪いがｲのﾂｷﾞが味がよい。(It's bad shape but the solid connection has better aji.

This latter (native) usage is rather common and so must have appeared umpteen million times in translated texts. This therefore on its own puts a huge question mark over RJ's usage. As I said earlier, it is immaterial whether he defines and/or is consistent with his own usage if he does not also do his reader the courtesy of explaining that his usage is non-standard.

cyclops · Post by **cyclops** » Sat May 31, 2014 3:15 pm

Ed, you might as well proceed with your review. We all know by now that RJ redefines some/many/all (Japanese) go concepts. We can all decide by ourselves if we are willing to accept that. If you buy the book you buy his definitions ( at least ) during the reading. As you buy his English and typography. Long discussions about the pros and cons of these aspects derail the review. Better in another thread. IMHO.

Life In 19x19

Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions

Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions