Life In 19x19

For what it's worth, I had been basically stuck at 6k for over a year and had begun to consider the situation permanent before reading Robert's book. 6 weeks later, my rank has jumped at least one stone in all of my KGS accounts, and I have won about 65% of my ranked games as a 5k. While this does not directly relate to my use of influence, my better understanding of urgency as outlined on pages 99 - 102 (and summarized by me here) has had the general result that I find more fights taking place on my turf where it's easier to get some value out of the influential stones. Hence, daal's 1st principle of influence: The more the better.

There are people who became professional strenth and never read any go books.
i will admit that it will help but nothing will be better than actual game with stronger players.
you dont need to study off books to understand go.

Magicwand wrote:There are people who became professional strenth and never read any go books.

Presumably they exist. Which are they?

you dont need to study off books to understand go.

You belong to the only two players I have heard of for whom that might be (more or less) true. The other, according to a rumour, is Gilles van Eden, 6d.

Since you are a proponent of a (rather) book-less approach, can you also tell us how to use "playing only" or something like that for reaching amateur high dan or more?

RobertJasiek wrote:Presumably they exist. Which are they?

Professional Seo bong-soo is one of them. during that time go books are not easy to get to.

RobertJasiek wrote:You belong to the only two players I have heard of for whom that might be (more or less) true. The other, according to a rumour, is Gilles van Eden, 6d.

Since you are a proponent of a (rather) book-less approach, can you also tell us how to use "playing only" or something like that for reaching amateur high dan or more?

actual game is always a better way to learn.
learning definitons of each term is not mandatory for you to get strong.

i always try to refrain myself from making comments on other people's game because i feel i am not qualified to do such.
but it seems that you feel you have a knowledge of go that far surpass other professionals and strong players and write a book about many useless definitons and telling them it is an essential knowledge.
i am trying to understand where you got that arogance.

I'm not a fan of precise definitions for improvement purposes either, but I can definitely believe that for some players those are helpful.

There are probably many many different ways to improve, and if Robert's definition help players I don't see a problem. After all, while he's advocating his definitions and interpretations rather enthusiastically, it's not like he's forcing players to learn them :p

Magicwand wrote:actual game is always a better way to learn.

Playing alone not.

learning definitons of each term is not mandatory for you to get strong.

Who says "mandatory" or "definitions only"? :)

i always try to refrain myself from making comments on other people's game because i feel i am not qualified to do such.
but it seems that you feel you have a knowledge of go that

That is a difference between our two approaches: My knowledge enables me to teach while players with your approach never give really useful general advice and when asked for specifically that insist that they can't.

far surpass other professionals and strong players

That I have a lot of superior methodical knowledge does not mean that they would not have other superior skills (such as reading life and death or endgame fast).

many useless definitons

They are useful because they actually do explain things.

and telling them it is an essential knowledge.

It is. It is because it enables teaching based on correct reasoning.

i am trying to understand where you got that arogance.

Better try to understand why it is not arrogance.

RobertJasiek wrote:
That I have a lot of superior methodical knowledge does not mean that they would not have other superior skills (such as reading life and death or endgame fast).

...

Better try to understand why it is not arrogance.

Out of curiosity, how can you be sure that you have "superior methodical knowledge" if you lose against your opponent?

Kirby,

Kirby wrote:Out of curiosity, how can you be sure that you have "superior methodical knowledge" if you lose against your opponent?

Having a lot of superior methodical knowledge (related to my published research, books etc.) does not mean 1) others cannot have a lot of other superior methodical knowledge, 2) others cannot have a lot of other superior unmethodical knowledge, 3) superior methodical knowledge about quite some topics would suffice for always winning and beating everybody, 4) finding superior methodical knowledge would enable me to have time for improving my go playing weaknesses simultaneously. In particular, so far my research has been about the weakest in my weakest go playing strength topics; I have plans to attack those topics but they are complicated because they (e.g., life and death problem solving in the general case and given short thinking time) involve a high density and number of decisions.

To answer your question more specifically, knowledge about my superior methodical knowledge being superior where it is comes from comparison with conveyed knowledge by everybody else incl. those that (can) beat me in playing go. For example:

- Prior vicious circle of rules and life / death: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.
- Distinction of ko versus non-ko stones: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.
- Capturing races: The best I have heard from stronger players ("one eye beats no eye", as has been regularly used by professionals in public teaching and in a frequently applied semeai proverb) is 1) a falsehood and 2) a tiny fraction of what my book explains.
- Influence / thickness (in their most frequent conceptual meanings of these words): It was very ambiguous what these concepts actually meant. I have provided an unambiguous explanation.
- Efficiency: For what was a mystery, I have shown a measure to calculate and compare it.
- Playing elsewhere: AFAIK, there is no second discussion with such a general scope of explanation for the middle game.
- Unsettled group average: What was possible only for the endgame or only for special case application like a basic ko, I have made more general for the middle game. As an approximation, it is not the final solution but you don't find something equally mighty, in particular also not players who can beat me in playing.
- Etc. (See my research papers and books).

RobertJasiek, once again being cajoled into defending himself in a thread about another topic wrote:- Influence / thickness (in their most frequent conceptual meanings of these words): It was very ambiguous what these concepts actually meant. I have provided an unambiguous explanation.

Which would be the topic at hand.

If anything is unambiguous in go, it is secure territory. Go is won on points, and making territory secures points. Almost invariably, when securing territory, we do so at the cost of giving our opponent something on the outside, be it thickness or influential stones. In contrast to the stones forming territory, the outside stones provide only potential points which may or may not be realized. It would seem only natural for this to be harder to "get," but experience shows us again and again that this is the case. Putting all ones eggs in the territorial basket is a sure-lose strategy.

In Robert's unambiguous explanation of influence, he points out that the greater the proximity to influential stones, the more potent they are. I think that this is one of the reasons that influence is hard to "get." In the opening, when we play a 4th line stone, it tends not to be close to anything. Thus when played it often is doing next to nothing. It only becomes useful when the action starts moving in its direction. Influential stones are not child prodigies, but rather late bloomers who don't discover their purpose until they've become adults. Can be stressful for parents.

daal wrote:If anything is unambiguous in go, it is secure territory.

What about exchanges? :)

the greater the proximity to influential stones, the more potent they are.

This is only a guideline though.

don't discover their purpose until

I prefer to use a positive approach and assign purposes or a "game decision tree" of purposes before playing an influence stone. Such purposes can involved options, strategic offers and exchanges. Only when something happens I did not predict I need to correct and update associated purposes.

Magicwand wrote:i am trying to understand where you got that arogance.

RobertJasiek wrote:- Prior vicious circle of rules and life / death: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.
- Distinction of ko versus non-ko stones: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.
- Capturing races: The best I have heard from stronger players ("one eye beats no eye", as has been regularly used by professionals in public teaching and in a frequently applied semeai proverb) is 1) a falsehood and 2) a tiny fraction of what my book explains.
- Influence / thickness (in their most frequent conceptual meanings of these words): It was very ambiguous what these concepts actually meant. I have provided an unambiguous explanation.
- Efficiency: For what was a mystery, I have shown a measure to calculate and compare it.
- Playing elsewhere: AFAIK, there is no second discussion with such a general scope of explanation for the middle game.
- Unsettled group average: What was possible only for the endgame or only for special case application like a basic ko, I have made more general for the middle game. As an approximation, it is not the final solution but you don't find something equally mighty, in particular also not players who can beat me in playing.
- Etc. (See my research papers and books).

If I said that I solved all these problems/ambiguities/puzzles of my field (whether go or particle physics), it is arrogance.
If 1000 of my colleagues said I solved all these problems/ambiguities/puzzles of my field (whether go or particle physics), it is genius.
There are thousands of people out there saying that they have solved a bunch of problems and learned the mystery to this and that. I believe none of them unless I can find a bunch of people who agree with the assessment.
In my field, the smartest people who solve largest problems are the first to point out the flaws of their approach.
Thank you daal for pointing out how the book was useful to you.

Go_Japan wrote:If I said that I solved all these problems/ambiguities/puzzles of my field (whether go or particle physics), it is arrogance.
If 1000 of my colleagues said I solved all these problems/ambiguities/puzzles of my field (whether go or particle physics), it is genius.

Not who assesses findings matters but whether the findings and the assessment are correct. Genius is not void by means of the silence of the masses. When someone is asked to explain why his findings are superior (if they are) then that is not arrogance but revealing the truth. Am I proud of having created some superior knowledge? Yes. Does pride equal arrogance? No.

Instead of starting a meta-discussion about what arrogance or genius are, discuss the topics themselves, reveal the knowledge of others and compare it to my findings! The purpose of superior knowledge is not being buried in meta-discussion but revealed for the sake of application.

There are thousands of people out there saying that they have solved a bunch of problems and learned the mystery to this and that. I believe none of them unless I can find a bunch of people who agree with the assessment.

Why don't you assess truth or falsehood of such claims by yourself but rely on third persons, who might or might not be able to make good judgements? I can understand that for advanced research in science where you might miss the relevant education. Much of my go findings is suitable for an average player's understanding provided he invests some effort on the contents rather than on meta-discussion. Make that investment!

In my field, the smartest people who solve largest problems are the first to point out the flaws of their approach.

1) This requires the existence of flaws at all!

2) Since my research start in about 1996, I have shared much while doing research and pointed out many side conditions that might pose problems. When I noticed mistakes, usually I have pointed them out quickly or invited others to find and point out mistakes.

RobertJasiek wrote:I prefer to use a positive approach and assign purposes or a "game decision tree" of purposes before playing an influence stone. Such purposes can involved options, strategic offers and exchanges. Only when something happens I did not predict I need to correct and update associated purposes.

Aren't you the guy who sometimes starts the game with two random moves?

P.S. If anyone responds to 1)... I will personally bite off their head.

daal wrote:Aren't you the guy who sometimes starts the game with two random moves?

Usually my center moves (9-7 and such) are intentional. On rare occasions, I did play (almost) randomly though. I even didn't look directly at the board so that the only things I knew was 1) somewhere on the left / right half of the board, 2) neither first nor second line, 3) the second move is neither nobi or kosumi, 4) the opponent did not play close to the first move and 5) my second move is not close to the opposing move. With these conditions, any black opening is almost equally possible.