Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:Kirby, I am speaking about a 100% theory (reading determines whether an invasion group lives, except for the sacrifice of non-essential stones etc.) versus a ca. 50% or 60% proverb ("exactly if the space is at least L intersections, the invasion group lives") advertised as "formula" or "theory".

What differentiates theory from proverb? The level of detail? Let's make sure we are using the same terminology here.

daal wrote: I won't quote Yang's formula, but of it he writes: "This guarantees that you can either escape into the center or live inside if your opponent cuts off your escape route."

RobertJasiek wrote:Kirby, I am speaking about a 100% theory (reading determines whether an invasion group lives, except for the sacrifice of non-essential stones etc.) versus a ca. 50% or 60% proverb ("exactly if the space is at least L intersections, the invasion group lives") advertised as "formula" or "theory".

How do you get from "guarantees" to "50% or 60%?"

Boidhre, thanks. Since the "x empty spaces" thing has pretty well defined, specialising border conditions, it is possible that Yang's formula works for these conditions better than the average proverb. Regardless, I would not want to apply it, because the much more generally applicable "verify by reading" method is more successful.

Kirby, a proverb is designed to be flawed. Depending on the proverb, its success rate is somewhere between 50% ("Black | White | a player having four corners loses / wins the game.") and infrequently ca. 90% ("Avoid empty triangles."). Theory is designed to be correct as often as possible (ca. 90% to 100%) and supposed to be complemented by other theory or exceptions for the remaining 10% - 0% of the cases, where a theory is meant not to apply. (E.g., "Do not self-atari your two-eye-formation." is almost 100% correct theory, with the exception of a superko threat in very rare beast positions.)

daal wrote:How do you get from "guarantees" to "50% or 60%?"

That was, when I had only Kirby's description, which seemed to apply for all invasions. Now that I have also Boidhre's description, see my other reply.

It seems to me that if we supplement any 'proverb' by the obviously implied (we are go players after all, this is what we do) 'verify by reading' - it will also apply to 90%-100% of the cases, no?

It keeps brining me to the same question over and over - what *is* go theory you speak of?
Its not just an idle question to get you into predicament, Robert - I really think people are talking about different things here. And I would not be surprised that to most of us here, go theory *is* just a series of more-or-less generalized 'principles', sort-of like more formally stated proverbs. But this is not what you are talking about when you say 'go theory', is it?

Bantari wrote:And I would not be surprised that to most of us here, go theory *is* just a series of more-or-less generalized 'principles', sort-of like more formally stated proverbs.

This is what I assume it is. I also throw in discussions of specific lines of play that have been studied extensively by professionals and presented to less strong players. It's a shortcut to shapes in specific positions.

Bantari wrote:It seems to me that if we supplement any 'proverb' by the obviously implied (we are go players after all, this is what we do) 'verify by reading' - it will also apply to 90%-100% of the cases, no?

No. Proverbs tend to need more than reading. Firstly, throw away the joke proverbs, such as "Black | White | a player having four corners loses / wins the game.", which exist in every of these variants. Secondly, many proverbs need suitable contexts to be meaningful at all. E.g., "Play away from thickness." applies during opening and early middle game, but not any longer during the endgame. For the late middle game, it depends.

go theory *is* just a series of more-or-less generalized 'principles', sort-of like more formally stated proverbs.

Principle <> proverb.

(No time for the fundamental discussion of defining go theory, because, you know, I need to proofread some more go theory of some book.)

RobertJasiek wrote:Secondly, many proverbs need suitable contexts to be meaningful at all. E.g., "Play away from thickness." applies during opening and early middle game, but not any longer during the endgame. For the late middle game, it depends.

I think it always 'depends' on some conditions or other. Doesn't everything? It is hard for me to imagine very many meaningful statements about Go and move choice without some conditionals in there somewhere. Even your definitions are mostly of the form "if (it looks like this, or has this properties, or whatever) then (its called thusly)."

I have not read your theory books (yet! and I will, I promise) but it is hard to imagine you not having a whole bunch of explicit or implicit 'ifs' peppered within the text.

As for defining 'go theory' - I know you are busy, and not trying to get you away from whatever important stuff you do.
Just pointing out that this whole discussion (and others like it) might be pointless because we are all talking about different things and so we are all right in our personal context. Unless we get some common ground going, it might all lead nowhere, with nobody understanding nobody, and nobody getting convinced of anything.

IIUC, I think that Robert is saying that a proverb can be called "theory" if it is correct more than 90% of the time. This seems like a bit of an arbitrary classification to me, but whatever the case, I think that many would agree that the more often a proverb is correct, the more useful it is.

The tricky part is in accurately identifying how often a proverb/set of guidelines is actually true.

I think this comes back to thinking for yourself, and analytically evaluating whether or not a particular word of advice is applicable in a given situation.

Kirby wrote:IIUC, I think that Robert is saying that a proverb can be called "theory" if it is correct more than 90% of the time. This seems like a bit of an arbitrary classification to me, but whatever the case, I think that many would agree that the more often a proverb is correct, the more useful it is.

The tricky part is in accurately identifying how often a proverb/set of guidelines is actually true.

I think this comes back to thinking for yourself, and analytically evaluating whether or not a particular word of advice is applicable in a given situation.

Great. So any general statement which is correct 90% or more of the time is called 'go theory'?
Any yays? Any nays? Any avs? Lets play congress.

Bantari wrote: Great. So any general statement which is correct 90% or more of the time is called 'go theory'?
Any yays? Any nays? Any avs? Lets play congress.

Personally, the precise classification does not matter to me.

Bantari wrote:Great. So any general statement which is correct 90% or more of the time is called 'go theory'?
Any yays? Any nays? Any avs? Lets play congress.

Related note -- something I've been wondering for some time:
does anyone have the stats on when the proverb "hane head of two stones" applies (what % of the time)
and when it fails (what % of the time) ?

Bantari wrote:So any general statement which is correct 90% or more of the time is called 'go theory'?

It can be called 'good go theory', if there is also a good (often implicit) handling for the remaining 10%.

EdLee wrote:

Bantari wrote:Great. So any general statement which is correct 90% or more of the time is called 'go theory'?
Any yays? Any nays? Any avs? Lets play congress.

Related note -- something I've been wondering for some time:
does anyone have the stats on when the proverb "hane head of two stones" applies (what % of the time)
and when it fails (what % of the time) ?

Not sure, but at a guess - maybe 50% of the time? Just taking the number out of my hat, so it can be totally wrong. Might be actually less than that. Or more.

Bantari wrote:

EdLee wrote:

Bantari wrote:Great. So any general statement which is correct 90% or more of the time is called 'go theory'?
Any yays? Any nays? Any avs? Lets play congress.

Related note -- something I've been wondering for some time:
does anyone have the stats on when the proverb "hane head of two stones" applies (what % of the time)
and when it fails (what % of the time) ?

Not sure, but at a guess - maybe 50% of the time? Just taking the number out of my hat, so it can be totally wrong. Might be actually less than that. Or more.

Well, since the original proverb is Don't look. Hane at the head of two stones, or Without looking, hane at the head of two stones, my guess is that it applies a lot of the time.

Maybe Dave Sigaty will do a database search for us.