Tami's Way

[RobertJasiek]

This people who focused on this have very good fuseki intuition.

I have a terrible subconscious fuseki move generation (and, as discussed elsewhere, no intuition) and "focused on this" because of, you guess, understanding and reasoning. To start with, only in that area there are unsettled important groups with too restricted numbers of development directions.

[Bonobo]

John,

Spoiler used in order not to further disrupt Tami’s Way (but I’m sure you, Tami, are just now reading it, right? )
________________________________________________

John,

among a few other “things” I also am a print/typesetting geek. I know about typography and how to create files for printing press and screen. Readable stuff. I certainly don’t know not all, and while I wish I were a style guru I must humbly admit that I am just a small prepress guy (among other things, as said), but I’m … well, good enough, and perhaps most important, I love that kind of work: I love working with language, I love editing texts to make them readable, I love supporting communication and information transfer. I have professional software and can create “clean” PDF files. (I know Adobe InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator enough to have taught their use to design and prepress prefessionals for ten years.)

What if we could find enough people here to co-operate on a book of yours, to co-produce it?

I’m sure somebody could create great diagrams. If not, then I’d know how to create these in Adobe Illustrator (I know it would be hard work but they’d look fine). I’ve also worked as a proofreader, albeit in German and not in English, but I think I could do quite fine in English as well. I learnt this wonderful language at age of four in three variants: Indian English, British English and American English. I know the difference between dialog and dialogue, and I never stopped reading and writing in English since that time. And I’m also sure we’d find a nice person here with marketing skills and such.

I’ve already offered my skill for free to another Go author, only to get replies whining about good professional typesetting software they apparently didn't know to use and about bugs in some software they did use that certainly is not fit for the job so I did not insist <shrug> well, one can always find brillant excuses to evade excellence

I wouldn’t want any money, I’d be in it just for the love, and I’d be happy—and honoured—to participate in a group project with you as the leading mind. Synergy, sharing of skills, can be such a wonderful thing (as we can continuously see in this forum, for example, or on Sensei’s Library).

Greetings, Tom

edited a hundred times, and if you find mistakes this just proves that it’s not good to proofread one’s own texts

Okay folks, move on, nothing to see here

[Tami]

If you sit down to play a few games, you begin to realise how impractical it is attempting to use any sort of "Order" as a move generator.

Again, I made that list and looked up Yang Yilun because I`m seeking to get a better sense of structure for all the bits of advice and ideas that I have learned in recent times. However, practically speaking, such lists seem most useful for consulting away from the game (to prompt your subconscious to get busy organising), and for guidance when intuition and reading fail in a live game.

So, being a practically minded person, I will concentrate on

* getting as much experience as possible
* really getting a handle on L&D
* other forms of study, but emphasising the concrete (i.e., shapes and tactics you can use)

With respect to L&D, I used to try to learn it in a "principles and terms" fashion, but could never recall the shapes, no matter how descriptive the phrases I used. If my experience of learning kanji is a guide, then the breakthrough comes when you understand the structure of a shape, and after that the labelling becomes helpful. My Nihon Kiin L&D "bible" is very structured and comprehensive, starting with each shape, then adding one leg, one hane etc. If you learn to solve the shape, then recalling it by name is easy; but if you try to make a short cut by learning the name and the killing/living move, then it is not easy to remember.

It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels. The real problem seems to be enforcement. The better you are at L&D and tactics, and the better you are at shape, the more easily you can get your way strategically. Conversely, there`s not much good in building a beautiful moyo if you don`t know how to convert it into real points.

It`s a similar phenemenon in chess - weaker players get all worked up over complex systems and positional theories, but then go and hang a knight. First you need to see what`s going on, and then you can play positionally. (BTW, when I last took chess seriously, in 1999 my rating got close to 2000.)

There may also be an interesting illusion going on. Learning strategy may seem harder and more "advanced" because it involves abstract ideas, rather than concrete things. So, many of us study strategy because it is fun to do so, and because it feels like we`re starting to really understand go (or chess!). However, in reality, it takes a fair bit of effort properly to learn a L&D shape (i.e., to spot it anywhere, to know the possible attacks and defences, to know why they work or fail, etc. as opposed to just being content with "yeah, L+1 is unsettled"). Not only does it take a lot of effort, but the gain seems small compared with "learning" a large-scale strategic concept. But, every L&D shape is something that crops up over and over and over again, if not on the board, then in the background. So, I think it`s worth doing all the labour, because in the end you build up knowledge that you can apply, even if each item seems small and mean at the time.

To Bonobo

I like your idea. If you are able to get something rolling, please feel free to count me in. I`ve been looking for an alternative job for some time.

[RobertJasiek]

Yang Yilun because I`m seeking to get a better sense of structure

Of what I have seen so far, he does not offer enough detail to support well a better sense of structure. For structure, one needs a reasonably exhaustive treatise of generally applicable information. Just a few principles don't suffice.

such lists seem most useful for consulting away from the game

This is a premature conclusion based on insufficient sources for the intended purpose of seeking understanding of structure.

With respect to L&D, I used to try to learn it in a "principles and terms" fashion, but could never recall the shapes, no matter how descriptive the phrases I used.
[...]
Not only does it take a lot of effort, but the gain seems small compared with "learning" a large-scale strategic concept.

Principles and terms for shapes for LD are still weak. Principles and terms for functional aspects of LD are still hopelessly under-developed. So, at the moment for LD, your failure of learning by that approach is expected.

structure of a shape,

Oh, you already speak of structure when considering only one shape? I prefer to see structure in dozens of thousands of shapes:)

My Nihon Kiin L&D "bible" is very structured

The thick encyclopedia? It has only a bit of basic structure; I would not call that "very" structured. However, maybe you could tell me which structure the many index diagrams use? I am still trying to figure out that.

It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels.

I think the contrary.

[John Fairbairn]

I’ve already offered my skill for free to another Go author, only to get replies whining about good professional typesetting software they apparently didn't know to use and about bugs in some software they did use that certainly is not fit for the job

Bonobo: I don't know who you are referring to, of course, but he is a fellow author and I empathise with his frustrations. For you to describe his attitude as "whining" tells me any relationship with you could easily start off on the wrong foot. Obviously, I understand that your offer is basically a very kind one, but I've been down the path before of being told before that I need to buy very expensive hardware or software (or download it illegally), and spend weeks learning to use it, probably screwing up my existing set-up in the process, just to produce a book for a tiny number of people. I would start to believe that the whole business is becoming more worthwhile only when more go players start buying existing books again.

However, if you have an itch you really want to scratch, there is a person who wants to typeset the complete Shuei trilogy as a book, and he would certainly need help with diagrams. His idea is to produce three presentation copies (me, Mark and him). He may be willing to add a fourth, but he awaits the final volume (soon) before really getting down to work.

[Tami]

Robert, you`re misquoting me and selectively quoting me. I can`t get into discussions like that.

BTW, I think your Nihon Kiin L&D must be a different one from mine. Mine is only a small pocket book. I gave the ISBN number so anybody can check it out if they wish. It may be small, but it contains everything I need for the time being.

[RobertJasiek]

Robert, you`re misquoting me and selectively quoting me.

The purpose of selective quoting is to keep the length short instead of twice or thrice as long. If this happens to lead to misquotation, then by accident.

[Tami]

Robert, you`re misquoting me and selectively quoting me.

The purpose of selective quoting is to keep the length short instead of twice or thrice as long. If this happens to lead to misquotation, then by accident.

I know. I believe you are a good person and that you have positive intentions, so I would never for a moment think you misquoted me maliciously.

[thirdfogie]

It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels. The real problem seems to be enforcement. The better you are at L&D and tactics, and the better you are at shape, the more easily you can get your way strategically. Conversely, there`s not much good in building a beautiful moyo if you don`t know how to convert it into real points.

Good point, well made. The quote also captures the feeling one has when playing a significantly stronger opponent, that greater force or power resides in his or her stones.

[Splatted]

It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels.

I feel the same way, but I wonder if it might be more accurate to say that just reading strategy books isn't as useful as it feels. I'm currently working my way through attack and defense, and I've had almost no luck applying what I've "learned", but there definitely is a lot of very useful information in there.

I don't know how you try and make use of the books you read, but my impression is that like me you've been reading/solving sections and then trying to keep that in mind when playing. This may not have worked, but that could just mean we need to find better ways of engaging with the material. Here are some ideas:

1) Go through the book multiple times: Try and drill it in to your subconscious.
1b) You could also treat books you've worked through like problem books and solve them repeatedly. With multiple books on the same subject I imagine it would be like having a collection of targeted problems with detailed explanations.
2) Go through pro games and look for situations that seem relevant to what you're studying.
2b) Guess how they will apply the concepts described in the book.
2c) Try and work out how/if the moves the actually play relate to those concepts.
3) Review a bunch of your games looking only for positions relevant to what you are studying.

Maybe none of this will help either, but I feel like there is so much good information locked away in these books that learning how to use them would be a huge asset to improvement, and well worth the time invested.

[Bonobo]

John,

I’ve already offered my skill for free to another Go author, only to get replies whining about good professional typesetting software they apparently didn't know to use and about bugs in some software they did use that certainly is not fit for the job

Bonobo: I don't know who you are referring to, of course, but he is a fellow author and I empathise with his frustrations.

I cannot empathise when somebody criticises a software they don’t know how to use. That’s what I meant. Kind of related to “a bad worker blames his tools”. And then there are those who want to repair a Ferrari with a can opener (or something like that).

For you to describe his attitude as "whining" tells me any relationship with you could easily start off on the wrong foot.

I’m sorry you got this perception, guess I should’ve been more clear.

Obviously, I understand that your offer is basically a very kind one, but I've been down the path before of being told before that I need to buy very expensive hardware or software (or download it illegally), and spend weeks learning to use it, probably screwing up my existing set-up in the process, just to produce a book for a tiny number of people. I would start to believe that the whole business is becoming more worthwhile only when more go players start buying existing books again.

No, no, no. All you would need is any text editor you feel comfortable with. If it need be, use MS Word, OpenOffice (which is not being developed anymore) or LibreOffice, its successor. I can import or convert/import all standard (TXT, RTF) or semi-standard (DOC, OpenOffice or Libreoffice formats) formats for further processing. You know about the information, the content you want to convey, so you just take care of that and leave the rest (the form) to somebody who knows how to further process it for press and/or screen output.

That’s the proper way to do it: everybody does exactly what they know to do. Everything else is like … for example those customers from hell who give me their “layout” in Powerpoint, tell me to make it printable (for press!) and then later get mad when they can’t edit the InDesign files in Powerpoint. Yes, that friggin’ Ferrari doesn’t run on Diesel. And you can’t build the Eiffel Tower with only a screwdriver.

Just edit your text, put in “XXX Diag. 42” where you want your diagram, write a caption like “(Caption for Diag. 42) blah blah blah” after “XXX Diag. 42”, and leave the rest to your typesetter. Any typesetter with just a bit of experience would know how to import the text into (for example) Adobe InDesign (which is my tool of choice). You could even just use "" (inch marks) instead of typographic quote marks; the typesetter would either know how to set the software to automatically convert them to correct typographic quote marks (“curly quotes”) or they’d do it by hand.

However, if you have an itch you really want to scratch, there is a person who wants to typeset the complete Shuei trilogy as a book, and he would certainly need help with diagrams. His idea is to produce three presentation copies (me, Mark and him). He may be willing to add a fourth, but he awaits the final volume (soon) before really getting down to work.

Well … I have no idea how large that opus is. I have a new job (typesetting technical documentations) that’s eating me up; but, well, I’m willing to look into it if the people involved are patient. If you contact me here via PM I’ll give you my mail address and phone number, or we could videochat with Skype or whatever to get acquainted.

But I’d rather have somebody else set the diagrams with some other special Go diagram software they know since I have no experience with Go diagram software and I don’t own one. Still, if there’s nobody who’d create those diagrams, I’d be willing to look into that (I’ve learnt to use a huge number of softwares, so why not learn another one) and then decide whether it’s usable, i.e. if it creates prepress quality diagrams, how much work it is, whether it’s better and less work than creating diagrams in a dedicated graphics program (for me that would be Adobe Illustrator) or even in InDesign itself whose graphic capabilities are quite good, in some areas even better (i.e. more intuitive to use) than Illustrator’s.

Have I explained a bit better this time?

Greetings, Tom

p.s.: Please forgive the length of some of my sentences, cf. Mark Twain, “The Awful German Language”

[Tami]

2) Go through pro games and look for situations that seem relevant to what you're studying.
2b) Guess how they will apply the concepts described in the book.
2c) Try and work out how/if the moves the actually play relate to those concepts.

Yes, I do try this, but I`m beginning to feel that one tends to bend concepts to the moves, i.e., you tend to see what you think you`ll see. In other words, I`m beginning to think that the "do L&D school" were right all along - it`s reading that makes you strong.

Try making a leaning attack on a stronger player - he`ll thwart you through reading.

Try making a splitting attack on a stronger player - he`ll thwart you through reading.

Try making sabaki against a stronger player - he`ll outread and make you heavy.

Try making shinogi against a stroner player - you`ll be resigning with a big dead group.

Maybe you could think of it as being like a swan on the water. What you see on the surface is an elegant gliding motion, but underneath, out of sight, the legs are working furiously. Similarly, when you look at some pro games, say one of Shuei`s masterpieces, it might look like pure strategy, but what you`re not noticing is all the tactics that the master was reading and controlling.

[RobertJasiek]

I'm currently working my way through attack and defense, and I've had almost no luck applying what I've "learned", but there definitely is a lot of very useful information in there.

Even just the limited amount of knowledge in Attack and Defense can be good for about two ranks (if the contents is new to you), but you must be patient and try to apply the knowledge during the next three months.

I don't know how you try and make use of the books you read,

Surely it depends on the contents presentation of the books! If the contents is hidden in the text, then you must find and transform it to forms you can understand and recall. If the contents is explicit in the text, then you only need to understand and recall. (And apply.)

Maybe none of this will help

You missed the most important kind of learning: learn the relevant contents consciously.

[RobertJasiek]

I cannot empathise when somebody criticises a software they don’t know how to use.

I cannot share the idea of buying an expensive software just to find out whether it is good or bad.

those who want to repair a Ferrari with a can opener

Big software bugs must be repaired with rough tools - or a difference software must be used.

All you would need is any text editor you feel comfortable with. If it need be, use MS Word, OpenOffice (which is not being developed anymore) or LibreOffice, its successor. I can import or convert/import all standard (TXT, RTF) or semi-standard (DOC, OpenOffice or Libreoffice formats) formats for further processing. You know about the information, the content you want to convey, so you just take care of that and leave the rest (the form) to somebody who knows how to further process it for press and/or screen output.

Do you? IMX, fighting the software's bugs is the by far greatest help. However, submitting a document to somebody else so that he can then fight the bugs SLOWS down the process for the author. (Can you bring OpenOffice to be updated more frequently again? Can you reduce the bugs of LibreOffice (incl. its database software!) so that it becomes better than OpenOffice?)

everybody does exactly what they know to do.

Right.

Just edit your text, put in “XXX Diag. 42”

This is exactly how I do NOT work. (Scribus is inapplicable for me because of that.) I do not know if other authors work like that. If I tried to write a book while not already seeing the diagrams in the text roughly inserted, it would not work. We are not speaking of a narrative with one colour plate but of factual texts with 1000+ diagrams (each updated once on average during the writing process), where the text contents is written around the diagrams and vice versa.

typesetter.

Extra processing of typesetting is not a problem, except that the go book market is too small to justify much publication delay for the sake of getting perfect typesetting.

You could even just use "" (inch marks) instead of typographic quote marks; the typesetter would either know

You can't. A go book author does not have the time for inserting such marks.

whether it’s better and less work than creating diagrams in a dedicated graphics program (for me that would be Adobe Illustrator)

Cry. Go diagram editing programs cannot be beaten by generic graphics software.

[RobertJasiek]

one tends to bend concepts to the moves

Imprecise concepts must be bent - precise concepts must not.

the "do L&D school" were right all along - it`s reading that makes you strong.

Strategy without reading is nothing. Reading without strategy is nothing. Strategy informs about what and how to read. Reading verifies whether particular strategy is good.