Life In 19x19

Ed, do you think that what you're saying fits with the way the term is used? I recall hearing that Otake was famous for good shape (but all pros play moves that work), and also claims that modern Korean players are less likely to worry about shape (An Younggil said this about Lee Sedol in the quadruple ko game).

To me, it seems like shape is a lot more specific than "empty triangle bad, table shape good". It seems like strong players and pros have a database of literally hundreds, if not thousands of patterns, and what is good shape in each of those patterns. But I've always thought it was about those patterns, and there could still be surprising bad shape that works in a particular circumstance.

hyperpape wrote:Ed, do you think that what you're saying fits with the way the term is used?

hyperpape, actually I'm not even sure how the term is used, not even in English, let alone other languages.
But what I do know is this topic/question of "good shape"/"bad shape" keeps coming up in threads,
and I don't seem to recall any definitive answers.
So my own take is: look at the result. One can talk about "good shape" and "bad shape" too,
but only in the context of a specific situation.

My questions remain: "OK, this shape LOOKS good/pretty, but FAILS in this situation -- what do you call it then?"
Conversely, "This is a super ugly dumpling shape of the century, but it KILLS here and wins the game -- what do you call it then?"

A good argument may not always be very convincing, or thorough, or pithy. A good shoe may make a terrible hammer. A good go player may be a horrible human being.

There is nothing disturbing or confusing about a good X not always being a perfect embodiment of The Good (tm). But if you are trying to learn why good shapes are good, you'll probably get a better sense of it from focusing on examples where good shapes are good.

I take pleasure in playing ugly moves that happen to be good, particularly the poor old empty triangle which gets such a hard time from everyone.

Uberdude wrote:I take pleasure in playing ugly moves that happen to be good, particularly the poor old empty triangle which gets such a hard time from everyone.

Yes.

cyclops wrote:For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.

OC, just looking at the go board, the shapes appear to be the same. (They won't be the same when we look at the whole board, though. ) You can tell by looking only at the local region if you see the ghost of the captured stone.

You are correct that efficiency is the key. Usually you can tell the local efficiency of a shape by looking at other stones in the neighborhood. You cannot do that, however, if stones have been captured. You have to take those stones into account, as well.

There is a saying that ponnuki is worth 30 points. That is not meant to be taken literally, but it is fairly close. How was that number derived? Not by averaging over many go positions, was it?

Here is what I think. There is a traditional estimate in the early part of the game that a well placed stone is worth 10 points. But, you may say, there are 4 stones, so the estimate should be 40 points. The thing is, there are only 3 stones net, because of the captured stone. That yields the estimate of 30 points.

Ponnuki indicates the capture of the single stone. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?APonnukiIsWorthThirtyPoints

jts wrote:

EdLee wrote: PS. Is "efficiënt" more ëfficiënt than mere "efficient" ?

If he has a Dutch auto spell, I'm sure it is.

jts got it right. The Dutch like guessing pronounciation less than the English. ië in dutch is pronounced as a diphthong as in siege. ie as a digraph as in sieve. We think that is more ëffïcïënt for the reader.

tour tower, flour flower ; sigh; nevermind

edit: I had my example wrong. The ie Siege is pronounced as the ee in sheep. The ie in sieve as the i in ship.
The correct sentence is:
ië in dutch is pronounced as a diphthong as in siesta. ie as a digraph as in belief.

cyclops wrote: jts got it right. The Dutch like guessing pronounciation less than the English. ië in dutch is pronounced as a diphthong as in siege. ie as a digraph as in sieve. We think that is more ëffïcïënt for the reader.

I'm not sure what you mean by this... everyone I know pronounces the vowels in siege and sieve the same. Perhaps they're pronounced differently in the UK?

Huh. I pronounce "siege" as "seedge" and "sieve" as "civ" and had always assumed that was standard (sorry, I can't do proper phonetic spelling, I hope that's clear). I'm native to North Carolina.

I guess that means I'm treating "ie" as a digraph in sieve, but I've never understood diphthongs.

hyperpape wrote:Huh. I pronounce "siege" as "seedge" and "sieve" as "civ" and had always assumed that was standard (sorry, I can't do proper phonetic spelling, I hope that's clear). I'm native to North Carolina.

I guess that means I'm treating "ie" as a digraph in sieve, but I've never understood diphthongs.

You know, now that you mention it I have heard that pronunciation for sieve. Now I'm starting to wonder if I have the weird pronunciation . I suppose it's not a word that comes up often.

I say those words the same way as hyperpape. I don't think either of those are a dipthong. I think dipthong has two different vowel sounds that squish together, like boy or lair.

I edited my initial post. it was wrong I thought the english would pronounce siege the same as the french. Which is not the case.

emeraldemon wrote:I say those words the same way as hyperpape. I don't think either of those are a dipthong. I think dipthong has two different vowel sounds that squish together, like boy or lair.

I'm not sure what a dipthong is, but diphthong is used differently in different fields... At any rate, cyclops probably meant diaresis, not diphthong.