Life In 19x19

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.

RJ will always be right, as long as everybody is using his definition of "right".

Again - allow me to just cherry-pick two of your statements.
I really have no time to deal with what you say word-by-word at the moment.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Batari wrote: your wild claims that things (like playing Ko or understanding what a Ko threat is) is impossible without 5000 hours of prior research.

I do not make such claims. You make the claim that I would make such claims.

This might not be exactly what you mean - but this is how you come across, as I have said.
And this is one of the reasons why so often what you say makes you appear so controversial, even if it is technically correct.

My claim is that I have a good chance of defining ko threat within 5000 hours of research. It is a difficult research topic with almost no immediate use for playing strength. Such is called fundamental research.

Right.
And as I said - research for the sake of research is great, but then - why talk about your (or anybody else's) playing strength progress?
As you say - you conduct two different types of research, one for its own sake, and one for improving strength. You seem to be mixing them in and out constantly.

For example:

• For the purpose of this conversation, my point ist hat:
  An everyday guy - me - can improve, enjoy and talk about Go just fine using terms which have some level of ambiguity in them. What's more - I don't think precise definitions of the form you create will add anything to my play, enjoyment or communication. As a matter of fact - I like some of this ambiguity, and I think it is very useful at times. This is pretty much the *only* point I was making. Again - for everyday guy in non-formal setting. And its not really an opinion - its a fact! I know its a fact because *I* do it. Might not apply to everybody, but it sure applies to some people (the vast majority, I would say.)

Now - why would you bring 5000 hours of formal research about formal definition of Ko Threat if this is not relevant to what I was saying?!?

This is partially what I was talking about when I said 'your framework' in the other thread. It seems to me that you try to force any conversation into what interests you rather than trying to understand what the other person is saying, and you are unable to step out of your preconceived notion of what is important to you.

Bantari wrote:You seem to be mixing them in and out constantly.

I mention both, because this thread is about terms in general, not about only one type of terms.

if this is not relevant to what I was saying?!?

Now you have clarified that your earlier statement "the same understanding can also be reached in other ways, possibly even faster" does not enable you to achieve the same understanding in other ways faster, but it appears that you mean only a restricted understanding.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:You seem to be mixing them in and out constantly.

I mention both, because this thread is about terms in general, not about only one type of terms.

if this is not relevant to what I was saying?!?

Now you have clarified that your earlier statement "the same understanding can also be reached in other ways, possibly even faster" does not enable you to achieve the same understanding in other ways faster, but it appears that you mean only a restricted understanding.

yes, this is correct. Maybe I should have made it more clear on my end.
What I mean is - the same 'practical' understanding, i.e. the same understanding with respect to how strong you play.

I agree that in the context of pure research there is a huge difference. Was not talking about that.

Bantari wrote:the same 'practical' understanding, i.e. the same understanding with respect to how strong you play.

Thanks for the clarification.

This raises another question: you might be, e.g., very strong at reading and not so strong at understanding terminology, or vice versa. I.e., the same playing strength can mean very different things WRT to understanding terms.

RobertJasiek wrote: This raises another question: you might be, e.g., very strong at reading and not so strong at understanding terminology, or vice versa. I.e., the same playing strength can mean very different things WRT to understanding terms.

Understanding "Jasiek" terminology?

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:the same 'practical' understanding, i.e. the same understanding with respect to how strong you play.

Thanks for the clarification.

This raises another question: you might be, e.g., very strong at reading and not so strong at understanding terminology, or vice versa. I.e., the same playing strength can mean very different things WRT to understanding terms.

This might be true.
I can say even more - some people might not even know (m)any Go terms and still play much better than some people who do. Or some people can call the same things by completely different names, and still be able to play and communicate. Terms are just terms, and for practical purposes - they are exactly what they need to be, no more and no less, sufficient and appropriate, or they would have been something else. Think about it. You come and impose different purpose on the terms, and so you need to define and re-define everything, but that's just you and your purpose, not the world in general.

However - this is not very pertinent to what we are discussing here.

In practical sense, I do not feel that your definitions (Ko, nakade, etc) contributed anything to my playing strength nor to my understanding of Go in context of playing strength. Form what others are saying, it seems they think so as well. Thus my conclusion that in practical context the precision you advocate for is not required and possibly not even welcome. I also assume that I have a rather strong understanding of what Ko is, or Ko Threat, or Nakade, even though I cannot write a formal paper on it.

In purely formal-theoretical-research context, if I was inclined and had time to delve into that, it would probably have contributed a whole bit, but this I cannot really say for certain. You have much more expertise in this field than I do, so I assume it is priceless since you put so much emphasis on it.

But this is not what discussion here is all about, I assume. Most people posting in this thread(s) are not formal researchers, nor do they pretend to be, nor do they have much interest in that, it seems... So for you to successfully discuss things in such setting, you need to take off your researcher hat and try to understand what people are trying to tell you - without constantly sidelining to your research and theory, as impressive as it might be.

Kirby wrote:It's difficult to discuss things with you, Robert, because when I write a paragraph intended to convey a meaning, you dissect it into sentences, or even parts of sentences for response.

This reminds me of an episode. When I was a TA, in the good old days, one Technical Writing prof for whatever brainless reason requested me as his little 'helper'. Part of that was marking and grading papers of other students. I remember when I got the stack of papers, I was terrified. But when I went to work, I found glaring mistakes in every other sentence. I was amazed that I, a non-native speaker of english language, could find so many mistakes in writings of others. I took my trusty red pen and went to work. When I was done, there was more red on the paper than blue.

The prof, when he saw it - was furious. But for some reason he liked me, so instead of asking for another TA, he sat with me a showed me how he wants it done. He said: do not concentrate on every single mistake and each little thing you disagree with. Pick the main point or two, what the student was trying to say, what's important, and work with that, comment on that.

I tried to do as he told, found it harder than going nuts with the red, but it seemed to have worked better - as the semester progressed, the students wrote more thought-out and interesting papers, even their grammar was getting better (as far as I could tell.) Only their spelling still sucked. But that made me think: what is really important?

Its easy to miss the forrest for all the trees.

Bantari wrote: Its

Wrong. Used to show possession. Irrelevant here.

Bantari wrote: easy

Wrong. Things are rarely easy.

Bantari wrote: to miss

No. We are not talking about nostalgia here.

Bantari wrote: the forrest

Wrong. Should have only one "r".

Bantari wrote: for all

Wrong. Nothing is "for all", because of conflicting desires.

Bantari wrote:the trees.

Interesting topic, but maybe OT in this thread.















-----------------------------------------------

Bantari wrote: Its easy to miss the forrest for all the trees.

Oh, is this what you meant to say? Yes, I totally agree!

Robert, I recall prior discussions where you wanted to carefully distinguish your work on Ko from the work that you thought actually mattered for play, and that one could not judge the practical merits of your research based on your work on Ko.

Bantari wrote:You come and impose different purpose on the terms, and so you need to define and re-define everything,

For many superfluous terms, I suggest to drop their use. For most of those terms I have treated so far, my definitions are meant to be or contribute to clarifications. A few terms I redefine. A few terms without prior definition I define. A few, previously missing terms I invent.

In practical sense, I do not feel that your definitions (Ko, nakade, etc) contributed anything to my playing strength nor to my understanding of Go in context of playing strength.

Not surprisingly, because you mention only terms that a) can contribute only very litte to playing strength because the precise definitions affect only rare cases or b) are about so fundamental aspects that your playing strength can easily compensate for using imprecise understanding of related terms.

Form what others are saying, it seems they think so as well.

What others (the same few in all threads) are saying here? They don't know or don't want to use those terms, and principles using them, with significant protential for becoming stronger. ALA as they don't seriously learn and apply those terms, of course they do not profit from them.

Thus my conclusion that in practical context the precision you advocate for is not required and possibly not even welcome.

Let me repeat: precision is optional. Those preferring less precision can easily use less precision. E.g., for n-connected, it is not necessary to know the exact value of n. For thickness, my informal definition ("...connected easily...") can be used instead of the formal definition and its n-connected. Etc.

But the following I buy from nobody: that he would want to always ignore and overlook the connection of the stones forming thickness. (Same for the life of the stones.)

Connection is required, and nobody rejects connection of thickness as unwelcome.

Admit it: in the practical context, I am right that connection is a key aspect of thickness.

hyperpape wrote:that one could not judge the practical merits of your research based on your work on Ko.

Uh, but you do know that the Ko definition paper has relatively little practical merit, while the Ko and Dame Endgames paper has also intermediate practical merit (up to 4 points per game)?

RobertJasiek wrote:Let me repeat: precision is optional. Those preferring less precision can easily use less precision. E.g., for n-connected, it is not necessary to know the exact value of n. For thickness, my informal definition ("...connected easily...") can be used instead of the formal definition and its n-connected. Etc.

The idea of n-connectedness is an example of speaking precisely about a fuzzy concept.