Life In 19x19

1) The other black corner stones have the major purpose of protecting territory.

2) Their outside influence is dominated by the outer black influence stone and the white influence stones.

3) Therefore they are not significant as outside influence stones.

RobertJasiek wrote:1) The other black corner stones have the major purpose of protecting territory.

2) Their outside influence is dominated by the outer black influence stone and the white influence stones.

3) Therefore they are not significant as outside influence stones.

Sorry to harp on this like that, but I honestly do not see a difference in this respect between, say, White 4 or 6 and Black Q16. None of these stones exert direct influence, but all of them certainly contribute to the stones which do excert influence (and the overall structure) to be stronger. So if White 4 and 6 are counted, why not Black Q16? Is that because, as you say, it secures territory and therefore cannot be counted towards influence? But can't a stone fulfill two functions equally well?

From what you say, this is what I understand:
Black Q16 has the major purpose to secure territory, and the influence is dominated by Black O17 anyways, thus Q16 is not counted.
White 4 has the major purpose to make the White group strong, and in spite of influence being dominated by other White stones, White 4 is counted.

So the main difference is that Black Q16 secures territory while also strengthening the group, and White 4 strengthens the group while also securing territory (although less than Q16).

So where is the line that separates what you count and what you do not count as "influence stone"? Is it "more territory" vs "more strength? Or "mostly territory" vs "mostly strength"?

Or is there another metric, which you did not provide, which makes the support stone on White 4 count as "influence stone" while Black support stone at Q16 not count?
__________
PS>
As a matter of fact, from my intuitive perspective, I would see that Black Q16 does exert some small measure of influence, while White 4 does not. Both stones strengthen the groups they belong to. What's more - again, from my intuitive perspective - I would say that White group exerts exactly the same influence with or without White 4, while Black's influence is slightly lower without Black Q16.

In my intuitive approach, White 4 contributes not to what I would call "influence" but to "strength" - as in "projecting strength" - by making the White group stronger. The concepts are related, but not the same. I am not sure if this is also part of your theory, but I found such distinction useful in the past - between "influence" and "projecting strength", and how the stones contribute to each of those concepts.

In my mind, if you assume that White 4 contributes directly to influence, then is that safe to assume that you consider those two concepts one and the same? Or do you make other distinctions which I do not see here? Or are these concepts in this form meaningless to you and your theory?

A stone can fulfil multiple functions but, for the concept of influence stones, I define them to be counted only if outside influence rather than inside territory is their major purpose.

It helps you to recall how (active) influence is generated: as degrees of connection, life and potential for making additional terriory later.

The influence of one particular white stone is not dominated by the influence of the other white stones, but each white stone is essential for constituting the white group of thickness with its effect of generating influence.

You ask for a line exactly where influence stones are distinguished from non-influence stones, i.e., a set of criteria exactly which are versus are not fulfilled in combination. I cannot provide this exactness of algorithmic quality. All I have is ca. a dozen principles with which the distinction can be made in most practical cases.

The stone White 4 on the board or not makes this difference to the white group: without the stone, the white group does not have two eyes and can be attacked. With the stone, the white group has two eyes and (apart from minor aji) cannot be attacked. This difference has a great impact on the degrees of influence the white group represents on the outside.

I have defined thickness and I have defined influence. Simply speaking, thickness (or, in a weaker form, "a group of influence [generating] stones") is the property of stones. Influence is the property of other intersections affected by such stones.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Thickness
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Influence

RobertJasiek wrote:You ask for a line exactly where influence stones are distinguished from non-influence stones, i.e., a set of criteria exactly which are versus are not fulfilled in combination. I cannot provide this exactness of algorithmic quality. All I have is ca. a dozen principles with which the distinction can be made in most practical cases.

Could you teach this to others to a level that they can apply it and reach the same verdicts as you on novel positions, or have you?

hyperpape wrote:Could you teach this to others to a level that they can apply it and reach the same verdicts as you on novel positions, or have you?

Answer: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 17&t=12402

RobertJasiek wrote:

hyperpape wrote:Could you teach this to others to a level that they can apply it and reach the same verdicts as you on novel positions, or have you?

Answer: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 17&t=12402

Well, for this kind of thing, and in particular for the claim that your interpretation/theory goes beyond standard ideas of strong player, the difference between esoteric and exoteric is key. In other words something teachable is what is wanted.

Something teachable is nice, of course.

Do the standard ideas of strong players offer anything teachable that relates stone difference, territory and influence so that two different, abitrary corner positions can be compared? It is rare that the stone difference and amount of territory are mentioned at all. What is not even mentioned cannot be related to influence. If a degree of (source of) influence is stated at all, it almost always is very rough, as in "the group is thickness". One cannot decide which position has the stronger group if each is called (e.g. ordinary) "thickness" indifferently. Without measuring group strength or influence, they cannot be related well to stone difference and territory.

Even if your assessment of influence stone difference is imprecise (because so far I have taught it only as "significant" and by ca. 500 value-asssigned examples), it IS a measurement of influence at least. This is much more useful, quickly applicable, accurate and teachable than anything I have seen from professionals or other amateurs. Of course, you can and should criticise me for not having provided a mathematical definition of 'influence stone' (and the mentioned principles also do not offer it yet - and I have not solved the game...) but you should also recognise that what I offer has a much greater precision than what the "strong players" offer.

Achieving teachability does not have to mean dumbing down. The Japanese, for example, have covered Robert's elements in ways that demand a little more from the reader. I'm from a generation that was used to that way of being taught and it was sometimes frustrating, but I'm still inclined to believe it's the best way.

It's interesting to compare the approaches in some detail for the present case. The elements Robert seems to emphasise most in the current context are stone count, influence stones, current territory, and he restricts his domain mostly to josekis. Let us look at the different approaches.

Stone difference
In his dictionary, Robert specifically mentions the difference in number of White and Black stones in each position. The Japanese only very occasionally do this, rather more often hint at it (e.g. by saying one side gets sente can tenuki), but usually assume the reader can and will count. Of course some of us are too lazy to count...

Current territory
The Japanese call this 確定地 - settled or confirmed territory, and define it in terms such as "points a player can expect to belong to his own final territory." Here is a very simple example from O Rissei, but this concept is in very widespread use in Japan.



I think Robert would demarcate the same area but as I understand it he would say White's current territory is 12 points. O Rissei puts it at "a little above 10 points". This vaguer way of expressing it is typical in Japan. It could be argued it's a cultural thing, as people go out of their way in ordinary conversation to avoid directness, but since the verdicts on confirmed territory are very often accompanied by phrases such as "Black is slightly thicker overall" I think it is safe to assume that the go usage is merely expressing a pro's feeling for future probabilities. It's probably also a matter of personal taste as to whether you prefer more precise numbers are whether you regard precision in such cases as spurious (noto to the mention the important difference between precision and accuracy).

Influence stones
For grammatical and reasons the Japanese are disinclined to use such terms themselves (e.g. singular and plural are not distinguished and 'stone' can also mean 'group'). The term they use in this case is atsumi, which is often rendered as 'thickness' in English, but that loses the important contrast with atsusa, which is also usually rendered as 'thickness'. However, diagrams take most of the burden and here is an example that shows a couple of the problems Robert likewise faced in the "joseki" above.



Sticking with Robert's term for convenience, O Rissei says the triangled stones are 'influence stones' but the squared stone is not (the reason being that: "If it can be cut off it cannot be deemed strong, and so it is not [atsumi] thickness").

I don't think many of us would have any problem with that particular point, but of more interest here is the situation with the white stone on C16. This does not face the outside but if we look at reasons why it might be counted as an influence stone (Charles's 'reverse engineering', perhaps) we might deduce that it helps with a potential squeeze against Black's pyramid hat group, which would extend White's influence.

A more prosaic hypothesis might be that it's solidly connected to the other stones designated as influence stones. But that's unlikely. For one thing, O also gives the following position:



The stone on R4 is not counted as an influence stone (triangled).

Going back to the previous diagram, the connected-stone hypothesis would mean that if White adds a stone at 'A' he would be adding two influence stones. Actually, Abe Yoshiteru discusses this point in his book on how to count thickness. He says that stones on the second line are not usually counted as part of a thickness wall, but can be in some situations (he gives examples). We see an example also from O Rissei, in the position above (Q2).

Abe and O talk about influence stones for reasons somewhat different from Robert's. O is talking about the "pitfalls of thickness [te-atsusa]" and his more general topic is atsumi thickness and moyos. Abe is using walls as a way of counting thickness (the formula is n * n-1 / 2 where n is the number of discrete stones in the wall, usually on the third line up, but the wall can also bend round). There are other aspects of go covered by other people writing in similar vein. The aspect that interests Robert, josekis, is usually covered in joseki books - obviously - but most often in sections/books/articles on tewari. But where numbers are used, e.g. to compare thickness vs territory in a joseki, it is again the case that the Japanese will reduce these to "about n", "a little over n," etc. One reason for delegating the 'theory' part to tewari discussions and the like is that the Japanese approach is most often to reach techniques that are applicable to all phases of the game. Again it is a matter of taste whether you try to build your Lego model by following the instruction book or by just looking at the picture on the box.

Thank you for throwing some light on Japanese pro contibutions! Which are the sources (books)?

I do not restrict the concepts to joseki study, but, when I speak of my joseki evaluation method, it applies only to joseki-related study. The concepts are very useful also for other purposes.

I agree that professionals are aware of stone difference and expect (too much) of every amateur to determine it without saying. It is nice to hear that Cho Chikun has not been the only Japanese pro to consider settled / confirmed / current territory, but I wonder how clearly aware they are of a maintained sente condition.

Being imprecise about numbers of points etc. can be excused in verbal talk. In writing, it shows a lack of courage for the fear of being criticised for possibly stating an amount of territory that is 1 point off from others' consensus. It is (attempted) precision that has enabled me to find my joseki evaluation method at all, because I noticed consistent value relations at all when writing down the values for hundreds of example positions.

I agree with O's markings of influence stones, except where his different purpose of application lets him make a distinction about a stone that can be cut. In particular, a stone behind the outside front line but contributing much to eyespace of thick shape must be counted. I am glad that O gets this right. (EDIT: due to different application purpose, I would nevertheless count differently, when such a stone has the major purpose of making territory.) Also it is right not to count every string-connected stone.

IMO, the Japanese pro emphasis of tewari has historic reasons: it is an old Japanese concept having some useful applications. My mind is more detached from traditional impact of earlier go theory:)

John Fairbairn wrote:

Sticking with Robert's term for convenience, O Rissei says the triangled stones are 'influence stones' but the squared stone is not

O seems to study something different here: 'thickness-constituting stones' rather than 'influence stones'. The three inner white triangled stones have several purposes: protect territory, protect eyespace, contribute to forming thick shape, contribute to forming thickness, increase the value of outside influence by increasing the life and (less so) connection degrees of the thick shape / thickness stones. The three inner white triangled stones are thickness-constituting but, as potentially counted influence stones, are dominated by the outer triangled stones. Therefore, I do not count the inner triangled stones as significant outside influence stones. I count the three outer triangled and the squared stones as significant outside influence stones.

The maybe more interesting question is: why don't I count any black stones as influence stones? White has the forcing exchange F17 - E18, after which none of the black stones is on the outside (and F17 itself is too weak to count as a significant influence stone).

Note that the cut is White's disadvantage compensating is advantageous values.

O seems to study something different here: 'thickness-constituting stones' rather than 'influence stones'.

No, not really, because he actually defines his particular use of atsumi by using the word 'influence' (seiryoku). It's more that his purpose that is different from yours (moyos rather than josekis).

Your question about counting territory: "I wonder how clearly aware they are of a maintained sente condition." I don't realy understand what you are talking about, but if you mean that the boundaries are marked about by assuming that the outside player plays everywhere in sente (except for the usual gote-gote exchanges on the edges), then that is standard. There are, however, other elements, the most important of which is that areas with aji are not counted. The White area above would not be counted for territory for that reason. In the diagram below, for example, Black's corners are not counted (by a pro) as confirmed territory because of the aji at A and B which results from the nearby White stones. Without nearby White stones the shimari in the upper right would be marked up with 11 points but counted as "approximately 10". The lower left in isolation would be marked up with 17 points but counted as "approximately 15".

Being imprecise about numbers of points etc. can be excused in verbal talk. In writing, it shows a lack of courage for the fear of being criticised for possibly stating an amount of territory that is 1 point off from others' consensus.

You are reverting to the sort of language that has weakened your case immeasurably before. 'Lack of courage' is a silly phrase to use. It is not even accurate. In the examples above (due to O Rissei) he (courageously?) marks up a precise number of points in a diagram. He just counts them as an approximation, and this is in line with countless pros who advise that approximations are all that are needed (and also that even such approximations are not needed if you can use the method of offsets). Precise counts are, of course, used at the endgame stage, but even there an adjustment will always be made for thckness.

Cho Chikun has not been the only Japanese pro to consider settled / confirmed / current territory

For you to make this remark, I have to assume that you have only ever seen the method once, in a book in English by Cho. I feel sure it's been used in several other English texts, but in Japan it's mainstream, and goes back a long way. I think I first saw it used systematically by Kato Shin, Kubomatsu and Iwamoto in the 1920s with sporadic uses before then. Neither of the terms 'confirmed' or 'current' is ideal in English but in Japanese, incidentally, where there is no tense in the verb, the phrase appears as 'confirm territory'. The phrase can thus be interpreted as e.g. 'territory that can be regarded as settled' or 'will be settled', etc. This flexibility is a characteristic of the language and has been missed, for example, by those who pore over Japanese rules.

I'm not going to hunt through my library for old references I've gven before, I'm afraid, but the O Rissei book is on my desk at the moment so I can give you the ISBN of that: 978-4-8399-5590-8. There's not a lot of text, but in this case do note that the words are crucial and very interesting (e.g. new terminology: 'adding pith' (芯を入れる) to a moyo as being the correct way to create the right rhythm for building the moyo - and no, reduction is not taking the pith).

RobertJasiek wrote:Something teachable is nice, of course.

Do the standard ideas of strong players offer anything teachable that relates stone difference, territory and influence so that two different, abitrary corner positions can be compared? It is rare that the stone difference and amount of territory are mentioned at all.

Lack of awareness of "stone difference", even in the elementary form of who will end a joseki in sente, seems to be a weakness even at shodan level. So you have a point here.

<snip>

RobertJasiek wrote:Even if your assessment of influence stone difference is imprecise (because so far I have taught it only as "significant" and by ca. 500 value-asssigned examples), it IS a measurement of influence at least. This is much more useful, quickly applicable, accurate and teachable than anything I have seen from professionals or other amateurs.

From a pedagogic point of view, I'm always looking for both halves of "what to teach", and "at what level", in order to help players improve.

RobertJasiek wrote:Of course, you can and should criticise me for not having provided a mathematical definition of 'influence stone' (and the mentioned principles also do not offer it yet - and I have not solved the game...) but you should also recognise that what I offer has a much greater precision than what the "strong players" offer.

Precision is a 5 dan ama concept, really, so unfortunately "over my head". Mathematics I can handle, generally speaking. Those ideas are in tension, clearly.

That is intended as a helpful remark. Being strong is apparently about being fuzzy about the right things.

For example, for joseki in practical play, "context" is extremely important but fuzzy, while local analysis can be pushed to precision, probably, in counting territory. The general value of influence may have to be proved in fighting, as well as in framework terms. We know there are verbal confusions prevalent in this area.

I don't dispute that you have some heuristics here. The next (Asian) step is probably examplars from which to extrapolate.

Sente condition: Current territory is the territory remaining after the opponent's SENTE reductions. Sente enables successive reductions from all sides and in all parts of the board when determining the player's current territory. Without maintained sente, different parts of a territory region and different territory regions do not add up because they may not add up because the reductions would give the opponent rights to more plays than he may have according to the alternation of moves implied by the rules. Therefore, I ask whether the professionals marking or counting current territory have been well aware of maintained sente. Sente must be maintained both within a local region and when switching from region to region.

Not counting regions with aji has some relevance. When assessing current territory, I am more tolerant to allow counting of regions with minor aji or determining a global territory count when the position has minor ajis but is reasonably quiet. When aji is great, I agree, that current territory yields too optimistic values. Therefore, I am working out theory of judgement when exploiting aji has a great effect on territory counts. This also applies to options, big reductions, invasions, exchanges and relevant uses of influence.

If the exact territory count of a region is known and stated or marked by a pro, then OC I do not criticise him for being imprecise. If, for a global positional judgement, the exact territory count of a region is known and rounded for this region by a pro, then I criticise him very strongly for making this mistake of a) needlessly replacing more meaningful information by less meaningful information and b) creating possibly great rounding errors when rounding the values of several regions separately instead of rounding the total value for the whole board. Rounding can sometimes be good enough (such as rounding the total value of endgame kos during the middle game to the nearest 0.5 multiple, or when "This variation leads to a clear loss." is good enough for a decision-making that should offer some winning variation). Unless a game simply depends on a huge life and death fight, rounding territory values for a global positional judgement is always inferior to having not rounded values. It is not asked too much for any intermediate to strong player to recall one reasonably precise value (say, rounded to the nearest integer) of a global territory count. Replacing an already calcuated precise value by rounding to the next multiple of 5 or 10 is what double digit kyus should overcome on their way to single digit kyus.

Replacing an already calcuated precise value by rounding to the next multiple of 5 or 10 is what double digit kyus should overcome on their way to single digit kyus.

No, because you are confusing precision and accuracy. Just because a calculation can be made repeatedly to reach a value predicted by your theory - that's only precision - does not make it accurate. The theory has to be proven to be accurate first. You have not done that yet. Nor have pros. Their workaround is to use fuzzy approximations. They appear then to get better results than you do.