Life In 19x19

Quick comparison, ordered not in terms of correctness, which I cannot judge, but in terms of clarity:

Milton Bradley in his glossary to Improve Fast in Go wrote:NAKADE (nah-kah-day): The placement of stones inside an opposing group to reduce the shape to one eye.

Cassandra in her glossary to Igo Hatsuyôron 120 wrote:"dead bulky shape" / "move that occupies this shape's vital point".

Robert Jasiek here wrote:"Simply speaking, a NAKADE is a lake, so that
1. the defender can fill all but one of its intersections,
2. the defender cannot partition it and
3. there cannot be a seki or ko in it."

Robert Jasiek elsewhere wrote:A _nakade_ is a region of connected intersections so that

* if each intersection adjacent to the region is occupied by the defender's stone with an outside liberty and the players play only within the region, the defender moving first can necessarily fill all but one of the intersections of the region,

* if each intersection adjacent to the region is occupied by the defender's stone with an outside liberty and the players play only within the region, the defender moving first cannot necessarily permanently partition it into at least two regions,

* if the initial position is the starting position, the players may play anywhere and either player tries to prevent the other's new independent life, neither player can force occurrence of a seki or ko ban involving the region, and

* if each intersection adjacent to the region is occupied by the defender's stone without any outside liberty, the players play only within the region, and either player tries to prevent the other's new independent life, neither player can force occurrence of a seki or ko ban involving the region.

I personally am more willing to forgive less than accurate definitions than I am to forgive less than comprehensible formulations. To some extent, this is a reflection of my go understanding, but the more linguistic clarity, the more likely I am to mentally make note of a concept.

Above, Cassandra asks what problems are created by her own admittedly inconsistent use of the word in her book. I say: fewer than caused by a precise definition that is so formulated that one opts out of trying to figure out it's meaning.

Herman, ok, approaching the approach liberties is not such a good idea:) Liberties are filled / occupied in order to approach a string / group.

daal, what you cite about nakade was written as a draft for the researcher, not for application as a player. Not surprisingly, you find it difficult to read. It is. (Actually, for the researcher, getting the seki and ko conditions right is a nightmare.) For the less than accurate version, see the OP:
viewtopic.php?p=152336#p152336

RobertJasiek wrote:Maybe your book does not need to make such distinctions.

This is not the essential point.

It is much easier to be in accordance with the common reader's understanding to name something "Nakade" that -- on first, and even on second, sight -- looks like a "Nakade" and possesses it's typical characteristics than to make the reader believe, and to "verify" in detail, that this -- in principle -- is something else, just because there is only one of two main variations of the solution (the branching point is move 162 of 180), wherein this "Nakade" becomes the single eye of a dead group.

RobertJasiek wrote:In particular, there is a difference between the move creating the follow-up position and the follow-up position itself. From multiple meanings of 'nakade' in the same text, problems arise when the meanings need to be distinguished. E.g., one can say that the attacker need not attack the stable follow-up position and so can tenuki, but one cannot easily give a tenuki advice when a nakade move (creating the stable follow-up position) is still available.

Dear Robert,

It is pity that you do not have access to original Japanese sources. Japanese do not have the problem described by you.

In Japanese, a "Nakade-move" (= "nakade-te") simply does not exist !

If "nakade" is used in Japanese to name a MOVE, this move is the one that occupies the vital point of the eyeshape. Thereafter, moves ("te") are used to occupy further points of the eyeshape.

If "nakade" is used in Japanese to name a SHAPE, this always happens in conjunction with "xx moku" (= xx points), and names the EMPTY area of the board. E.g. "gomoku nakade" is "five-points Nakade". This means that the Japanese do not have the opponent's stones in mind that occupy parts of the eyeshape, but always the resulting (empty / unoccupied) shape after capturing these stones.

This is another reasoning why you should refrain from using the original Japanese term "nakade" for your purposes.

If you wanted to overcome a historically grown, and possibly unclear / bewildering, usage of "Nakade" in English, you simply should choose another (own) technical term.

As you might know, I have got rid of most Japanese words and prefer to use only the very few, for which there is no good English alternative: ko, gote... For nakade (stable position), I have not found a suitable English replacement yet. The closest candidate at the moment is: stable lake. However, since I do not share the view of the Japanese fans and have seen the stable position meaning more frequently used than the nakade move meaning, I have felt no need to abandon using nakade.

Actually, I also feel no need for others to write one of 'nakade move', 'nakade shape' etc., because it is very easy to adapt to such another, consistently used meaning when reading a text of another author. Quite like it is very easy to understand 'tree' used for 'game variations tree', and not the tree used for the board's wood.

RobertJasiek wrote:I have not found a suitable English replacement yet.

How about "big eye?" (Cho Chikun)

Big eye is an established term for eyes of size 4+.

German "Klumpen" =

English
http://dict.leo.org/#/search=Klumpen&se ... wSingle=on

German "Klotz" =

English
http://dict.leo.org/#/search=Klotz&sear ... wSingle=on


choose one ...

Sorry, but I am NOT searching a word for the attacker's single inside string.

RobertJasiek wrote:Sorry, but I am NOT searching a word for the attacker's single inside string.

but ... ?

Perhaps "meteorite" might be more appropriate ?

Let it have the "right" size, plunge into the lake, and all the water will boil away ...

Cassandra wrote:If "nakade" is used in Japanese to name a MOVE, this move is the one that occupies the vital point of the eyeshape. Thereafter, moves ("te") are used to occupy further points of the eyeshape.

If "nakade" is used in Japanese to name a SHAPE, this always happens in conjunction with "xx moku" (= xx points), and names the EMPTY area of the board. E.g. "gomoku nakade" is "five-points Nakade". This means that the Japanese do not have the opponent's stones in mind that occupy parts of the eyeshape, but always the resulting (empty / unoccupied) shape after capturing these stones.

Actually, five point nakade is used to refer to certain groups of five stones within an opponent's eye such that it can be prevented from becoming two eyes. See John Fairbairn's comment at http://senseis.xmp.net/?NakadeExample2%2FDiscussion and the definition (in Japanese) here: http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/中手/m0u/ .

Cassandra wrote:If you wanted to overcome a historically grown, and possibly unclear / bewildering, usage of "Nakade" in English, you simply should choose another (own) technical term.

Second the motion.

RobertJasiek wrote:As you might know, I have got rid of most Japanese words and prefer to use only the very few, for which there is no good English alternative: ko, gote... For nakade (stable position), I have not found a suitable English replacement yet. The closest candidate at the moment is: stable lake.

Hmmm. How about something like single eye? If it is really stable.

Single eye does not fit into my terminology with its tendency to see eyes in life rather than in death. The searched metaphor must express the almost-fillable indivisble. In go terms related to eyes and nakade, 'stable' is the correct adjective, but I do not see a single-word metaphor.

Bill Spight wrote:Actually, five point nakade is used to refer to certain groups of five stones within an opponent's eye such that it can be prevented from becoming two eyes. See John Fairbairn's comment at http://senseis.xmp.net/?NakadeExample2%2FDiscussion and the definition (in Japanese) here: http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/中手/m0u/ .

This is another valid point of view.
Just a matter of presentation, in my eyes. Usually, it is much easier to visualize something really visible (here: stones) than something invisible (here: empty points). Therefore, it seems natural to find the "group-kind" of presentation in many books. I am sure that you, too, will remember examples of a "combined" visualisation of all the "usual" Nakade-shapes on one 19 x 19 Go board, showing Black's groups only, neither one enclosed by any white stones.

The Nihon Kiin's "Small Dictionary of Go Terms" refers to the empty shape (after capturing Black's group). May be that this kind makes is easier to also access the move on the vital spot.

The most important point -- in my opinion -- is that "Nakade" (used as mentioned above) always refers to the ENTIRE SHAPE of stones / empty points, not to single STONES.

I am well aware that -- if we are talking about MOVES -- "Nakade" is used to name "moves inside", in the majority of cases (thus in "general usage") the move that takes the Nakade's vital point. As a matter of course, you will also be able to find "Nakade" within texts that describe the process of filling-in the inside liberties (in my experience mainly in dictionary-like texts, less in popular-written texts). And John mentioned an even more general usage of this term.

+ + + + + + + +

I am also well aware that my opinion is not based on a solid knowledge of Japanese, but only on what I am able to "view" in Japanese Go books, interpreted with the help of some Japanese-English dictionaries.