Cassandra wrote:"Defining something" is your main line of argumentation, and of working.
No. It is one of my main lines. Other main lines include principles, concepts and their application.
This is the same with Go and with your hunt for the "definition of terms". Your hunt does not benefit the "usual" player,
Not the hunt lets players benefit, but the results of the hunt.
It is not the same as language dictionary, because
a) a language dictionary is too big to be learnt by heart,
b) definitions of go terms are not supposed to be applied alone, but together with other forms of go theory, such as principles and concepts,
c) go theory is supposed to be learnt (but a player can choose whether he learns a precise wording or the rough, basic idea of, e.g., a term).
nor touches "hidden corners" that Go experts are interested in,
It depends on what you mean.
nor can I see that the results of your researches currently become valuable input for computer programming.
Your limited imagination does not restrict CG application. E.g., recently a professor praised and asked me to help with such input.
the net effect will be very small, for several reasons:
-- I simply do not know, when I am mistaken (i.e. when to look into the dictionaries).
Whenever(!) you do not recall a needed dictionary entry well enough.
-- If I am in doubt, studying the dictionaries is a very time-consuming task.
Therefore, know the relevant theory by heart!
-- Neither dictionary may provide me with a distinct answer.
-- If I receive a distinct answer, this may not be what I wanted to express.
Apply more generally applicable go theory, when more specific go theory does not provide a solution.
-- If the answer matches what I wanted to express, it still might be not correct in the given context.
Good go theory allows you to identify whether its application is likely correct in a given context.
