Terms

[Kirby]

From them, around 5k I got about this far: walls are strong. This is also called thickness, which is somehow related to influence and expects an extension n+1 afar. When I became 3d, my knowledge amounted to: an extension must be shorter if the wall has defects (my theory being that 1 defect reduces the gap 1 line); influence is something (unknown, not understood, similar to light radiated from a wall) in front of a wall or in a moyo; thickness and influence allow to attack; it is better not to run towards an opposing wall. IOW, I still had no clear idea what thickness and influence are.

Did you get more out of the then usual books?

Sometimes it's less effective to define terms precisely than to simply learn what concepts mean by experience. To give an example, how would you precisely define the color "red" to somebody that doesn't know? You could try to come up with some sort of characteristics or rules that make something "red" vs. "not being red". But an easy and fast way to learn what "red" is is to learn by seeing examples.

This is red:


This is not red:


The difference is obvious when you see these examples.

Ideas like "influence" and "thickness" are more complex, but in the same way, are difficult to define precisely and accurately in a way that is always true. Even if you attempt to come up with a precise definition, there could be exceptions you hadn't thought about. And if there aren't, then perhaps you considered examples in the first place to even construct the definition. These examples are more efficient for understanding, IMO.

See examples of thickness, and see examples of influence. Eventually you start to get a feeling for what they mean. You might not be able to verbally express this in a way independent from these examples, but you gain understanding.

[RobertJasiek]

The difference is that, with exact terms, planning can be deeper more easily.

What do you base your conclusion on?

My own strategic and tactical planning as a player.

the same understanding can also be reached in other ways,

Great. Please explain in general 'ko threat'; it can save me maybe 5000 hours of research. (Don't forget to consider negative threats, virtual ko fights, pass fights, threats for approach kos and the game aim.)

many people seem to be doing well without the precision you advocate for.

It is not necessary that everybody shares the same precision. Top precision is needed for the researcher. Everybody else can afford the luxury to offer a rough explanation that is 1 point off;)

there is very little difference for me in knowing your stuff and not knowing your stuff.

But what do you actually know of it? At other times, you repeat saying that you will read most of it later. So no surprise if you use too little now.

Precise definition is fine, but I fail to see what it has to do with deeper planning.

Either you already avoid topazg's oversights or my draft of a definition reminds you to consider, e.g., multiple connection options and the other aspects of influence, and to appreciate the power of 1-connections and 1-alive or better, i.e. to play such moves.

I would probably not have changed my mind and played differently if I knew ahead of time that according to some specific definition this move was called this or that.

Namen sind Schall und Rauch. What matters is contents.

the traditional vagueness

Identification of a good move candidate (such as a honte) does not void the vagueness of also considering other candidates (e.g., alternatives of a local move selection).

possibly even see a value in this vagueness.

Bad excuse.

I am not sure you can understand mine.

The problem is rather: you cannot teach me relevant go theory, because you cannot grasp it for yourself, while it is lost in the fog of vagueness.

[RobertJasiek]

The game of Go is no exact science, so

At the momennt, parts of go are exact science.

the more exact terms are defined, the more they act as limitations -- but not as support -- for development.

Development of what? When go will have been solved weakly, development of a strong solution becomes possible. Until then, term definitions and other go theory develop the level of playing for those who apply the theory. Their limitations are their lost freedom to continue making mistakes that would be overlooked as such.

In order to get the full benefit of an "exact" term, there is the precondition that you share 100 per cent the construct of ideas of the person that provided you with the "exact" definition. But then you are not longer you mentally, but someone else. How could this help your own development ?

Ugh. A stone is a lense shaped playing device. Now you have lost your freedom;)

Your own freedom exists above the known go theory (with its terms). Like your freedom to think exists above the known language (with its words). You would not claim to lose the more development potential the more words of a language you know, wouldn't you?

If you leave no free room, there is no space for learning, neither for development.

This is so, when the game will be strongly solved. Until then, go theory is for go planning like a natural language is for thinking and communicating.

[Kirby]

Your own freedom exists above the known go theory (with its terms). Like your freedom to think exists above the known language (with its words). You would not claim to lose the more development potential the more words of a language you know, wouldn't you?

...

This is a great analogy, and is a good point. Knowing more words, in itself, does not necessarily limit potential.

The danger arises when you encounter a complicated thought for which you have no suitable word, and try to encapsulate its complexity into that which is insufficient to express the idea.

Coming back to go, it may be nice to try to define influence or to say that you can extend n+1 intersections for some wall size n.

But my fear is that the definition, if relied upon, is insufficient to encapsulate the complexity of that which is reality.

And, in some cases, intuition may be more powerful than definitions that are too simplistic, since intuition makes no attempt to squeeze the complexity into an oversimplified definition.

So these terms, like words, can aid in describing aspects of the game. But I feel they are too simplistic to encapsulate the more complex ideas of go at this time. Perhaps one can compare this to trying to describe complex emotions with the vocabulary of a 4-year-old - sometimes there are more effective means of understanding than words or terms when the subject matter is sufficiently complex.

[RobertJasiek]

than to simply learn what concepts mean by experience.

During my 15 hours per day go activity, I used about half of it for experience, but there was no "simple learning" of thickness and influence.

Ideas like "influence" and "thickness" [...] are difficult to define precisely and accurately in a way that is always true.

It was difficult, but the result is easier than earlier descriptions were.

Even if you attempt to come up with a precise definition,

Done.

perhaps you considered examples in the first place to even construct the definition.

I considered everything, because any information could possibly provide the missing links.

These examples are more efficient for understanding

The most efficient aspects leading me towards the definitions were a) an understanding of the 'can force' concept and b) the idea of achieving some particular action after n successive plays. (a) was 8 years before, (b) was 14 years before the definitions. For 19 years, I considered every related example, whether it would improve my understanding towards finding the definitions. IOW, for finding them, examples were by far the least useful. I don't recall now why, after 19 years, I suddenly had the insight to reduce to connection, life and territory.

Efficient understanding needs good explanations (strictly or roughly) according to the found definitions, whether with or without examples.

Traditional examples suffice only for showing a) "this shape is thickness", but do not provide general understanding about which shapes are thicker than similar shapes, b) "there is a player's influence", but not for how great the influence is or much greater it is at different intersections, c) "how to use thickness or influence", ALA degrees are ignored. The missing aspects can now be explained also by examples applying the definitions.

[RobertJasiek]

But my fear is that the definition, if relied upon, is insufficient to encapsulate the complexity of that which is reality.

And, in some cases, intuition may be more powerful than definitions that are too simplistic, since intuition makes no attempt to squeeze the complexity into an oversimplified definition.

A definition of one thing does not prevent other definitions or thinking beyond definitions to cope with complexity above them.

So these terms, like words, can aid in describing aspects of the game. But I feel they are too simplistic to encapsulate the more complex ideas of go at this time.

Of course. There is more than terms. E.g., there is planning.

[Bantari]

from 30.17k to around 5.12d

Why so much fun with fractions? Because I wrote 14.5k? There is a reason for that.

Yup. I have a reason too.

[asura]

from 30.17k to around 5.12d

Why so much fun with fractions? Because I wrote 14.5k? There is a reason for that.

Yup. I have a reason too.

14.5 seems choosed a bit randomly. Bantari's values look more accurate.

[Bantari]

I heard this term today: invincible ignorance. It relies on a person denying one thing after another over and over.

Well, I will not deal with your post word by word and sentence by sentence. Might as well take your top two statements and deal with that. You can probably imagine what I would say to the rest of your 'arguments' - it would be highly repetitive, since most of what you say has the same flaw.

The difference is that, with exact terms, planning can be deeper more easily.

What do you base your conclusion on?

My own strategic and tactical planning as a player.

As I hinted at before - as have some/many others in the past - you just might be very special in this respect. The simple truth is that many many others can plan deeper and faster and easier than you without precise definitions - so obviously such precision in defining Go terms is not necessary. It might be helpful, for some more than for the others, but it is not necessary. For some (maybe for many or even for most) - its not even helpful. For now... but, as you say, the research is still in its infancy, so I wait and see and keep an open mind. There might well be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But for now - it hasn't even started to rain.

the same understanding can also be reached in other ways,

Great. Please explain in general 'ko threat'; it can save me maybe 5000 hours of research. (Don't forget to consider negative threats, virtual ko fights, pass fights, threats for approach kos and the game aim.)

The underlying implication being that it was not possible for you to play Ko before you completed the 5000 hours of research, and certainly not possible to make any Ko threats. What's more, it is impossible for anybody else to play Ko without either duplicating this research or at least delving into your papers and assimilating the wholeness of the knowledge.

Guess what? I bet I can play Ko every bit as well as you do, or almost so, with no research at all. And Guess what else? There are plenty of people out there who can play Ko much better than either of us, also without the 5000 hours of research. So this takes care of this point you are trying to make - and pretty much all other points of yours. Dealing with all that is highly repetitive, so I will stop here.

The bottom line is:
I can play Ko, and I can talk about it. I can even talk about Ko threats to others, and even without the 5000 hours and precise definitions, we seem to understand each other very well in most cases. And in the cases we do not, the issues are other than vagueness of our terminology. Precision might be helpful, to some, sometimes... or not. I personally like a certain amount of vagueness, and I feel I would be completely put off of Go if I was required to have a handy precise definition for each word I use. It is very comfortable for me to have vagueness, and I can learn very well this way, it does not disturb me or slow me down at all.

PS>
And before you get your panties up in a bunch, let me assure you that I understand the value of precision and the research you are conducting in terms of furthering the research itself. As I said in my last post - what you do is necessary to push the research you do yet another step. I don't dispute the value of your work in this context. You picked a path you want to thread - which is that of a formal research - and to make the next step you need to precisely define where you are. And from the perspective of what you do and what you try to accomplish - this makes good sense.

But... for an average player, what you have right now is not very useful, I think. The fact that you spend 5000 hours researching it does not mean that I can benefit from it - by either playing better or communicating better. And you don't seem to understand this. This is one reason why you get so much opposition - its not all just to your tone, but also to your wild claims that things (like playing Ko or understanding what a Ko threat is) is impossible without 5000 hours of prior research. And yes - this is how what you claim sounds to people.

Having said the above - you have a different personal perception of this because you think a little differently than most. Its not a judgement, we are all different, you just happen to be in the minority on this, for now. You need to do much more to convince people and move to the mainstream with your ideas. Maybe the world is not ready, or maybe I am not ready. From what I see people saying - its not just me who thinks like that, though.

[Kirby]

It's difficult to discuss things with you, Robert, because when I write a paragraph intended to convey a meaning, you dissect it into sentences, or even parts of sentences for response.

It gives me the impression that you don't try to see the big picture behind what I'm saying. Oh well. It's still interesting to discuss.

Probably you will say that a big picture composed of "wrong" smaller parts has no merit, or something along those lines. But I guess that's OK for you to think that way, too (because I don't really think the smaller parts are wrong, anyway)!

[snorri]

$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . , 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . , 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I am indebted to you, snorri. Surely this terminology will allow me to overcome my greatest hurdle in becoming stronger.

You are welcome. I'll be soliciting for donations to complete my opera omnia.

Of course, this is a joke. But the more I think about it, the more I think it's not a joke. One should sometimes think deeply about "simple" shapes. Here are some things to notice.

$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X b . . . .
$$ | . . . a 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X b . . . .
$$ | . . . a 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

1. 'a' and 'b' are miai. (Maybe.)
2. By playing black prevents white from playing there. This is not a useless observation, as the shoulder hit against a 3-4 point is possible in some positions.
3. Is now less attractive for white to play at 'a' or 'b', because white would then be short of liberties and has no good continuation.
4. My 4 year-old daughter is just learning basic rules and would definitely not rule out white 'a' or 'b' out of hand. What is the reason that this is not innate knowledge, and how does it come to be that we eliminate these options as we get stronger? Does it get filtered out because we really understand, or does it get filtered out because we blindly copy stronger players and notice that kind of move is not frequently played?
5. White 'a' or 'b' right now would rarely be used as ko threats, whereas if were not there, what 'a' or 'b' are used as ko threats. Why? Think about it. This is not a garbage question. The ability to compare two bad results is important.
6. The fact that 'a' and 'b' appear to be miai is not complete, as white 'a' might be not answered by 'b'. Black may prefer to atari instead. Under which circumstances would an atari be better than connecting? Which atari is better if atari is better? Why?
7. What is the difference between playing first and then the other black stone later versus the order shown if they both end up with same shape. What does that mean about the value of tewari for the simplest questions?
8. If this move takes two moves by the opponent to cut, what if you have two of them and the opponent can threaten both? How is this related to why the following peep would frequently be answered?

$$W peep
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W peep
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

$$W 2 hanes and the head of 2 stones?
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B b . . .
$$ | . . 1 3 X . . .
$$ | . . . B a . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W 2 hanes and the head of 2 stones?
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B b . . .
$$ | . . 1 3 X . . .
$$ | . . . B a . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

9. In the above diagram, it appears that the miai to cut works against black. What does this mean? Who does miai really protect? Why do we feel that this is somehow a worse result than if only one of the marked black stones was in place? Is there a generalization to other classes of moves?

10. In the end, if we call a 'hane at the head of 0 stones' instead of giving its own, separate name like diagonal or kosumi, is there more insight or not?

Bruce Wilcox called the one-point jump a "sacrifice jump" because willingness to give up one of those stones is implicit in playing a one-point jump rather than a nobi. What a difference in mindset!

Maybe we can become stronger players if we think of things more elastically and sometimes try out new names. This may be more useful than trying to find a single, perfect name.

Korean haengma books will show this shape in many contexts, and there are so many functions. Getting hung up on 1 or 2 common functions of a shape may be limiting.

And thinking about stones in relation to opponent's stones that aren't there yet is not baloney, either. There's a kind of aji keshi that is basically no more than playing an a way that hurts your unborn groups...

Am I still joking? Yeah, sure. Or maybe not. You decide. Back to tesuji problems...

[RobertJasiek]

The underlying implication being that it was not possible for you to play Ko before you completed the 5000 hours of research, and certainly not possible to make any Ko threats. [...]
I bet I can play Ko every bit as well as you do, or almost so, with no research at all.

This is not what definitions of ko and ko threat are needed for. Ko and ko threat are 99% quantum mechanics: not needed to breathe.

for an average player, what you have right now is not very useful,

For an average player, a definition of ko is not very useful, but a definition of influence stone difference is very useful. I produce both research for the sake of research and other research for the sake of improving playing strength.

The fact that you spend 5000 hours researching it does not mean that I can benefit from it - by either playing better or communicating better.

I have not claimed a precise definition of ko threat to be found to be (very) useful for playing better.

And you don't seem to understand this.
This is one reason why you get so much opposition

You don't understand that that there is research not useful and other research useful for many players' playing strength.

your wild claims that things (like playing Ko or understanding what a Ko threat is) is impossible without 5000 hours of prior research.

I do not make such claims. You make the claim that I would make such claims. My claim is that I have a good chance of defining ko threat within 5000 hours of research. It is a difficult research topic with almost no immediate use for playing strength. Such is called fundamental research.

You need to do much more to convince people and move to the mainstream with your ideas.

Right.

It gives me the impression that you don't try to see the big picture behind what I'm saying

You do not get a big picture ALA you throw in statements such as "it may be nice to try [...] to say that you can extend n+1 intersections for some wall size n." that are almost the opposite of what I say. If you want to have a big picture, then stop confusing traditional go theory with my go theory. Then you can appreciate the big picture: my go theory, as far as it is developed and applied, raises the percentage of correct decisions.

[Cassandra]

A stone is a lense shaped playing device.

This is absolutely not the kind of definition you prefer to phrase. It is more like the cloudy conception of terms that you battle against.

This means that you did not get the main point here.

Your kind of definition would include height, diameter, material, colour, surface condition, etc., etc.
This means that the player would have to put energy unnecessarily into checking his playing material. And he might be in danger that the material he used over time does not fit your definition.

And additionally, there would be further definitions of "stone", e.g. for the usage on computer screens.

On the other hand, you have given an example (unintentionally, I suppose) that shows the virtue of "cloudy" definitions.
If we limit the consideration on "usual" implementations of Go boards on computer screens, e.g. the diagrams in this forum, these are "usually" shown from above.

Nearly everybody will realize in no time that the circles, which they see on the screens, are images of the 3D-objects that they are used to play with in "reality".

With your kind of definition (and assuming the one for on-screen-usage still missing) they would be unable to play Go on virtual boards.

[RobertJasiek]

Cassandra, WRT to 'stone', I have not meant to provide a precise, complete definition.

[Cassandra]

Your own freedom exists above the known go theory (with its terms). Like your freedom to think exists above the known language (with its words). You would not claim to lose the more development potential the more words of a language you know, wouldn't you?

Dear Robert, you missed the decisive point again !!!

What you said above seems to be no basis of your work, neither of your argumentation.

I am afraid that you are unable to grasp the difference between "knowing something" and "knowing the definition of something".

My English has a very special German touch (and it may occasionally be difficult to understand) just because I did not practice English over decades.

As a matter of course, I am able to develop ideas above what I am able to express in English. Knowing more words in English would support the communication with others, especially with native English speakers. This means that the gap between what I am able to think, and what I am able to express, would narrow a bit with the growing knowledge of more words.

But practice will be still missing, so knowing more words alone is not sufficient at all.

On the other hand, just because language is so "cloudy", native speakers will refer mostly to the context of my texts, and successfully assume what I wanted to express (in the majority of cases).

+ + + + + + + + + +

In contrary to the written above, "Knowing the definition of something" would require to intensely study a "Reader's Dictionary" / "Learner's Dictionary" of the English language (maybe in conjunction with a German-English dictionary as well). But the net effect will be very small, for several reasons:

-- I simply do not know, when I am mistaken (i.e. when to look into the dictionaries).
-- If I am in doubt, studying the dictionaries is a very time-consuming task.
-- Neither dictionary may provide me with a distinct answer.
-- If I receive a distinct answer, this may not be what I wanted to express.
-- If the answer matches what I wanted to express, it still might be not correct in the given context.

"Defining something" is your main line of argumentation, and of working. This is like writing a Reader's Dictionary for a non-native speaker of English.

It will be self-evident that a work like a Reader's Dictionary is of maximum use for someone, who already is an expert in English, and wants to explore the last hidden corners.
For anyone else who wanted to become better in English, the best way was to go to the United Kingdom, and practice, practice, practice.

This is the same with Go and with your hunt for the "definition of terms". Your hunt does not benefit the "usual" player, nor touches "hidden corners" that Go experts are interested in, nor can I see that the results of your researches currently become valuable input for computer programming.