Life In 19x19

John, from your own irritation concerning language use or preference for something else, you make the wrong implication that everybody would share your view.

'Approach liberties' are considered when some physical liberties cannot be filled immediately, but one must approach them by first filling non-physical liberties.

John, from your own irritation concerning language use or preference for something else, you make the wrong implication that everybody would share your view.

Not really, because it's based on a lifetime of experience with the native language, and also digging into it deeper as a writer, journalist, teacher and linguist. Of course I may be wrong, but as a German would you want to bet your house on it?

'Approach liberties' are considered when some physical liberties cannot be filled immediately, but one must approach them by first filling non-physical liberties.

Ah, you are using approach as a noun, is that it? I can accept that, though I'd prefer approach-move liberties. However, I'd expect these points to be points not immediately adjacent to the group being captured. Your definition does not seem to say that, so I infer your real distinction is between physical liberties and non-physical liberties. Those two phrases seem perfectly clear, unambiguous, not pre-empted for other uses, and good English. Why not use them instead? They are so clear you don't even have to define them.

Just a short note: 'physical liberties', 'approach liberties' and 'fighting liberties' are basic concepts of assessing capturing races. Speaking of 'sum of numbers of physical and non-physical liberties' would be clumsy; 'approach liberties' is convenient.

RobertJasiek wrote:Just a short note: 'physical liberties', 'approach liberties' and 'fighting liberties' are basic concepts of assessing capturing races. Speaking of 'sum of numbers of physical and non-physical liberties' would be clumsy; 'approach liberties' is convenient.

But one of the main problems remains:

"Common understanding" decodes "approach liberty" to be an abbriviation of "approach-move liberty". And -- as John has pointed out -- "approach-move liberty" is the more common term.

"Common understanding" assumes "approach-move liberty" to be an equivalent of "non-physical liberty".

But what are you doing ? You use "approach liberty" as superordinate concept !

It should be evident that your audience will have difficulties in following you, if you use the term "Orange" to name what is generally understood as "Tropical Fruits".

RobertJasiek wrote:John, from your own irritation concerning language use or preference for something else, you make the wrong implication that everybody would share your view.

'Approach liberties' are considered when some physical liberties cannot be filled immediately, but one must approach them by first filling non-physical liberties.

Robert, I have read your book "Joseki - Volume 2 - Strategy"and I learned a lot from it. The substance is ok but the language not. Reading it was like digesting sandpaper. Clumsy english vocabulary and style, clumsy definitions and clumsy explanations. The length of the sentences was German style as was the tempo. It makes me hesitate to buy your other books. Not sure I am motivated enough to finish them. Maybe it is tougher for me as a non native. Also I am sure my english would be as clumsy as yours, probably in other respects. I think you should be grateful to John and all other "natives" giving you free advice about how to improve your english. Part of the joy I have from reading John Powers or James Davies books comes from the superb english.

RobertJasiek wrote:cyclops, because it was hidden in ordinary text. I see. He writes:

"Fundamentals of Life and Death

Life

1. Get more room (widen your eye space).
2. Occupy a central eye-making point (vital point).

Death

1. Reduce the enemy's room (narrow his eye space).
2. Occupy a central eye-making point (vital point).

[...]

Are the parentheses in the original text? I kind of like room, instead of eye space, which is ambiguous. Besides which, one can live without eyes, but not without room.

I tend to cite properly: [...] is used to indicate my omissions from or additions to the citation.

I think this whole discussion is missing the point.
And the point is - we are talking about a 'proverb' not a 'fixed universal rule'.

I think the proverb (any proverb) should be applied thusly:
You see a weak group and you suspect you might do some damage, maybe even kill it. You read read read... but you see no good way to kill. Then you remember the proverb - 'first reduce, then vital point' or whatever - and this might, just might, give you an idea for an approach you have not tried yet. Like try to play from the outside first, to reduce eye space, before you pounce. This is not obvious to many beginners, and something they often miss - thus the proverb to remind them of this approach. You don't need proverbs for obvious things.

With more skill, this idea becomes more obvious, and so the proverb becomes less useful.

Bottom line:
A proverb is *never* something to follow blindly.
Nor is it something to understand unconditionally.
If it were - most/all proverbs would be very very bad, to the point of being unusable!

To me, to argue that a proverb is bad because it does not cover all possibilities, or cannot be allied blindly - it is an oxymoron.

Bantari, right. Everybody should teach it like you do, and not pretend it to be the complete, universal truth.

RobertJasiek wrote:Bantari, right. Everybody should teach it like you do, and not pretend it to be the complete, universal truth.

Offhand, I can't think of very many who would be so bold as to claim that their teachings contained the complete, universal truth...

In fairness, it seems to me that your claim in general is to be closer to the truth than your predecessors. While my understanding does not allow me to pass judgement on the veracity of such claims, I think it is an interesting question whether we prefer a simple proverb with questionable accuracy or an accurate proverb with questionable succinctness, and whether one or the other is more valuable and to whom.

For my part, I find a succinct statement such as "there is death in the hane" particularly useful because I tend to remember it at an appropriate time. Nobody considers this a universal truth and hanes in every life and death situation, but it has often caused me to consider a hane where without the proverb I might have not.

It is a more useful proverb than play at the obvious point which seemed to be your earlier suggestion...

Bantari wrote:I think this whole discussion is missing the point.
And the point is - we are talking about a 'proverb' not a 'fixed universal rule'.

The discussion is about two things: first, whether there actually is a proverb; second, if so, what it actually says.

I think it is clear that what there is is a prioritized list of things to consider, not a sequence of steps to take. Whether you call it a proverb or not is another question.

oren wrote:It is a more useful proverb than play at the obvious point which seemed to be your earlier suggestion...

1) The obvious point condition is more specific than playing at the obvious point.

2) It is a principle, i.e., something that can always be applied if the conditions are fulfilled and paramater obvious assumes clarity.

3) "More useful" depends on which aspect one considers. "Yes" for "more frequently both applicable and leading to success". "No" for "being applicable with a higher priority".

Bill Spight wrote:

Bantari wrote:I think this whole discussion is missing the point.
And the point is - we are talking about a 'proverb' not a 'fixed universal rule'.

The discussion is about two things: first, whether there actually is a proverb; second, if so, what it actually says.

I think it is clear that what there is is a prioritized list of things to consider, not a sequence of steps to take. Whether you call it a proverb or not is another question.

Oh yeah... there is no spoon...

RobertJasiek wrote:

oren wrote:It is a more useful proverb than play at the obvious point which seemed to be your earlier suggestion...

1) The obvious point condition is more specific than playing at the obvious point.

2) It is a principle, i.e., something that can always be applied if the conditions are fulfilled and paramater obvious assumes clarity.

3) "More useful" depends on which aspect one considers. "Yes" for "more frequently both applicable and leading to success". "No" for "being applicable with a higher priority".

I think all three point away from obvious point.