Life In 19x19

Such shape analysis is possible, but is not what I teach in this book, which concentrates on techniques, reading correctly and reading reasonably "completely". Shape analysis must not replace reading; usually, it can be only a preliminary helping step. I want to motivate the reader to read sequences and perceive application of techniques to guide reading; shape analysis would distract from the essential aim. There are, depending on how one counts, between 35 and 75 techniques in the book. This is enough; I would not want to overload the reader with further techniques from another class. Instead, techniques occurring in one chapter must be applied also elsewhere in the book; for readers to whom quite a few of the techniques are new, this already is a task keeping their minds busy.

IOW, the book is not a comprehensive dictionary of all possible techniques and methods. Instead, it is a careful selection of basic techniques, so that all together are a sufficient set of tools for all basic problems without special kos etc.

The book could have been overloaded also in other ways. E.g., it could have included many more reading principles. I have postponed them for later volumes, so that Volume 1 is what its subtitle says: about the basics.

RobertJasiek wrote:Ok, then I'd say Speed Baduk is more useful than I thought, but the problems tended towards the easy end.

If you want the harder end of series like Speed Baduk, you can try the ones below from the same publisher (Oromedia) which are similar but aimed at higher level players:
Top 1%
Train Like a Pro
Inspiration of Pro

RobertJasiek wrote:The book could have been overloaded also in other ways. E.g., it could have included many more reading principles. I have postponed them for later volumes, so that Volume 1 is what its subtitle says: about the basics.

We can stop it here, Robert.

It is as I already said before: In principle, you are following the same road that many, many authors before you have already walked on. Additinally claiming that your walking-style is the "ideal" one.

I assume that you know the saying "Even a journey of 1.000 miles begins with the first step." What should it help you to know 100 walking-styles, if you had absolutely no idea, where to place your first step ?

"Basic" is "This is a false eye." or "This is the vital point of gomuku-nakade.", not "This is the correct order of moves how I should fill gomuku-nakade.".

A small error:

On page 148, last paragraph, the phrase "which lets C be eyeless" should be something like "after which C is a false eye".

Cassandra wrote:In principle, you are following the same road that many, many authors before you have already walked on. Additinally claiming that your walking-style is the "ideal" one.

I assume that you know the saying "Even a journey of 1.000 miles begins with the first step." What should it help you to know 100 walking-styles, if you had absolutely no idea, where to place your first step ?

And this you write just after having shown lines of three marked intersections? Your technique requires three times as much effort as recognising the only one intersection that provides a single liberty in a snapback. Basic!

"Basic" is "This is a false eye." or "This is the vital point of gomuku-nakade.", not "This is the correct order of moves how I should fill gomuku-nakade.".

'Basic' for absolute beginners is something else than 'basic' for beginners and intermediate players. Let me repeat: the book is NOT for absolute beginners. A related comment on p. 48: "Surely, the reader has seen countless [such] examples in beginners' books or rules commentaries, so we do not need to repeat them here."

HermanHiddema wrote: On page 148, last paragraph, the phrase "which lets C be eyeless" should be something like "after which C is a false eye".

The book avoids the phrase 'false eye', therefore I do not consider your suggestion an improvement for this book. In general, I prefer to avoid the term, because it only creates problems, when living with what, by shape, looks like false eyes.

RobertJasiek wrote:And this you write just after having shown lines of three marked intersections? Your technique requires three times as much effort as recognising the only one intersection that provides a single liberty in a snapback. Basic!

Dear Robert,

Sorry for the question, but do you always read 50 per cent of a text only ?

One "SHAPE characteristic" shown is one group with two liberties only.

Another "SHAPE characteristic" is a line of points that is typical for false eyes.

The co-incidence of both (which have their value in general, with other types of problems, too) makes a technique suitable that is known as "Snap-back". Seen literally, the technique that is known as "Atari" is applied here, too, but you have to make sure that you do not choose the wrong one (i.e. the move on the point that is not marked with "X").

Another way to look at the last of my examples given:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Bulky shape
$$ -------------------
$$ | . Y Y T . O X . .
$$ | O O O O . O X . .
$$ | X X X X O O X . .
$$ | . . . , X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote: On page 148, last paragraph, the phrase "which lets C be eyeless" should be something like "after which C is a false eye".

The book avoids the phrase 'false eye', therefore I do not consider your suggestion an improvement for this book. In general, I prefer to avoid the term, because it only creates problems, when living with what, by shape, looks like false eyes.

Ok, if you want to avoid the term "false eye", then it could be something like "after which C is not an eye" or "after which there is no eye at C"

Herman, ok, thank you for suggesting to improve the English style.

Cassandra, I do not doubt that shape analysis of your kind is possible, but from my POV it is entirely superfluous. It is optional, and those wishing to use such can do so. However, my book is about relevant techniques, not about optional techniques.

I have never used your kind of shape analysis, and I do not intend to use it, because I consider it entirely superfluous.

As something superfluous and at best optional, it may fit into a detailed theory or theory-heavy book (series) that shall be as complete as possible, but I do not want to use it in a problem-heavy book series. There are more than enough relevant and important techniques to be taught - there is no need to teach also optional techniques as if they were important.

RobertJasiek wrote:Cassandra, I do not doubt that shape analysis of your kind is possible, but from my POV it is entirely superfluous. It is optional, and those wishing to use such can do so. However, my book is about relevant techniques, not about optional techniques.

I have never used your kind of shape analysis, and I do not intend to use it, because I consider it entirely superfluous.

Dear Robert,

We should really stop here.

-- Your ambition is to teach in detail every kind of tool suitable for chopping a tree down.
-- In my opinion, it is also important to teach how to identify the trees that could be chopped down.

Let me put it this way:
20k problems are about "SHAPE" / "VITAL POINTS", 7d problems are about "READING" / "TECHNIQUE".

In general, the more high-level a problem is, the more "open" is its position, and the longer is its solution sequence (; it follows that it has the more variations).

With a high-level problem several, in some way preparatory, moves of the solution sequence are necessary to "reduce" the position given to a lower-level position of an already known kind. This also means that the problem's "SHAPE characteristics" are hidden below the surface, the deeper the more high-level the problem is.

+ + + + + + + + +

There are already many books about chopping-down-tools, and you want to write the ultimate one.
My suggestion: Think about

"Do not go where the path may lead, but go where there is no path and leave a trail."

In this book, I teach every technique above absolute beginner level that is RELEVANT and IMPORTANT and BASIC. Therefore I share your opinion that it is also important to teach how to reduce the reading complexity.

I do not share the view that 20k problems are about shape per se, but 20k must learn to identify lakes, nakades, eyes and eyespaces so that the taught techniques (from sacrifice, via atari to liberty shortage and double purpose) can be applied to them by READING.

Apart from the mentioned objects, shapes are a weak guideline, because ONE EXTRA STONE CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE. Status assessment by shapes is unsecure, but status assessment by (correct and reasonably complete) reading is secure. This must be learnt as early as possible, even by a 20k.

The "trail of where there is no prior path" includes the systematic coverage of techniques hardly found explicitly elsewhere: threatening to cut, threatening to give an atari, protecting the boundary of a lake as a single function regardless of a move's shape, threatening to create a lake, attacking a lake as a single function regardless of a move's shape, threatening to create a nakade, threatening to create a partition, threatening a reduction, big reduction as a technique with a suggestive name and as a single function regardless of a move's shape, threatening a throw-in, an explicit name for 'threatening to make an eye by removing a throw-in', threatening a snapback, suggestive names for aproach blocks and its finer techniques, threatening to create an external liberty shortage, a suggestive name for internal liberty shortage, threatening to create an internal liberty shortage. In general, threats were represented badly in the literature, as far as I have seen it. (Threats were mostly hidden as moves in variations, when other topics were being discussed.) I do not know if other beginner problem books explain multiple threats well. New basic reading principles, which I do not recall to have seen written elsewhere. Enough answer variations. A clear structure for the techniques. Prior study of many moves in problems and beginner games, to verify frequency and relevance of the included techniques and principles.