Life In 19x19

iazzi wrote:I am just a new comer to this forum, but from what I see (and if the same rules apply to you both) he can just keep claiming that his definition is the most precise and perfect without ever telling anyone what the definition is (unless they buy his book, of course)!

I jest, I jest...

But the question is real. Can you provide this definitions so that we can judge by ourselves? Given such serious results why don't you publish them in a journal? Or just on the arXiv?

if you mean Robert Jasiek, i am sure he would gladly provide his definitions, but i suppose that each is at least paragraph long and written in very precise but not very readable form, so i don't know how many people would actually want to read them

no critics involved, Robert's style is probably perfect in its way, just not very accessible to most readers.

this reminds me question i want to ask some time:

- Robert: do you have a student or just feedback from readers of your books that would qualitatively compare your methods of training and explaining terms with more traditional ones? you seem very confident that your style is superior, but i haven't tried so i can't really judge and i am not sure just from outside observation

by the way i don't think either Robert Jasiek or Magicwand is really wrong in this discussion - Robert's definitions and numerical evaluations are most likely more precise and more general than ones that pros could offer us. on the other hand, pros are superior in applications of their not so exact knowledge, based on their experience and intuition

open question is which approach is better to become strong player, though both history and current situation suggest that the traditional methods win

Laman wrote: Robert's style is probably perfect in its way, just not very accessible to most readers.

Most readers of my books like it. (If you don't know, it differs very much from my rules definitions.)

- Robert: do you have a student or just feedback from readers of your books that would qualitatively compare your methods of training and explaining terms with more traditional ones?

There is no such comparison yet (except for saying "different", "filling a gap" or the like). If you like, I can provide some.

both history and current situation suggest that the traditional methods win

Because the alternative has not been promoted sufficiently yet.

Helel wrote:Such a simple thing as seeing a door, opening it and walking through it has as an example quite challenging components in everything from pattern recognition to classical mechanics. It is my conviction that few people actually understand how to walk through a door. That they have the "working knowledge" to do so is a completely different matter.

You just think you have a working knowledge of it. In reality, I suspect your door opening technique is severely lacking. One day I intend to start a door-opening dojo - by analogy with iaido - so people can learn how to open doors properly, or at least learn to appreciate the depth and beauty of this gentle art.

Needless to say, true mastery of opening doors takes a lifetime to achieve.