Life In 19x19

A term means what its definition says that it means. If you need a reminder whenever you use a term, use a less compressed form, such as "n-step ko".

tapir, what problem do you have with "n-connection"? This is a "connection of degree n". The definition tells you what the degree is all about: http://senseis.xmp.net/?NConnection
A connection is not necessarily the same as another connection, but one connection can be safer (and therefore better) than the other; a connection with a higher degree is safer. Simple. Oh, maybe you do not know why it is important to know about degrees of connection at all? Think, and you will find examples by yourself.

daal wrote:"Her eyes were like limpid pools"

"Lime and limpid green were second scene to the fight between the blue you one knew" Syd Barrett

As a programmer, I feel like I have a larger than normal "Personal Vocabulary", which is an artifact of having to name a large number of variables in programs, occasionally I put some effort into giving them some convenient meaning, so I am not sitting there thinking assign temp189 to tmpcrud1, which is actually difficult to keep straight, though I have to use a variable very often for their to be any payoff for putting effort into naming it, sometimes I slip up and use the terminology at meetings, it gets really weird when others start using the terms, though in general no one cares what you name your variables, and the compiler strips the names away anyway. I do despise database programmers that insist on using cardinal numbers for ID's, so that everyone has to keep looking up the names in the database, I call that the cardinal sin.

RobertJasiek wrote:tapir, one can write "n-step approach-move ko" or "n-ko".

I think you mean a n-move approach ko. An n-step approach ko is something else. You can in theory have a 2 step 3 move approach ko, but I have never heard of one occurring in a real game. Besides, it is better to avoid "step" with regard to ko because it is ambiguous, thanks to "2-step ko" referring in the English literature to both a one move approach ko and a two stage direct ko. And why shouldn't n-ko refer to the latter?

I take back everything about lakes and eyes... I admittedly wasn't in a poetic mood when reading the thread. It doesn't need to be the same word, but the specialist meaning should be supported by something which already exists in the common word. If not, we could as well make up completely new words (if we would manage to isolate the concepts without the terminology )

There is indeed nothing exactly wrong with n-connection. It is however dry, you need a definition to use it and I am not sure it is used often enough to make it a worthwhile term. (I doubt you would write in a review "This is a 1-connection so Black should answer." but simply "This move threatens to cut, so Black should answer." It is not even longer.) Compare to my favourite german go term "Mausefalle" (for snapback), where the fact that you need to sacrifice some bait to catch the mouse is comprehensible at once.

x-Ko: In this particular case, I don't like the fact that it makes the difference between approach moves and multi-stage ko invisible. If anyone would use this is practice the time necessary to refamiliarise myself with the term (is it two stages or two approach moves?) would defeat the economy of cutting down "2-move approach ko" to 2-ko. And it isn't like multi-stage kos are very rare and approach kos very common. (I am also surprised it is x not n. )

@daal: Maybe there are "personal terms" that nobody uses or understands, but they are outside of language. Just like playing against yourself isn't a game of Go.

Redundancy (in Robert's opinion = "overloaded with too many words") supports understanding, and so learning.

Above, I understood "n-step approach-move ko" as

-- a Ko
-- of the "approach-move" type (seemingly also named with "approach" alone, with "-move" again being redundant)
-- that needs n moves (to approach), before the Ko becomes of the "direct" type.

I assumed that Robert chose "step" to avoid the doubled usage of "move".

+ + + + + + +

On the contrary, I never dreamt of a Ko of the "n-stage" type here, just because this is a quite different type.

We are talking of a type of Ko here that is e.g. named ni-dan-kô (二段コウ) in Japanese.
"ni" is "two", "kô" is "ko", but common translations of "dan" are "stage", as well as "step". Perhaps the mismatch between "stage", and "step", originates herefrom ?

Bill, what is the difference between "n-move approach ko" and "n-step approach ko"? None is an "n-stage ko". "n-move ko" does not work well as an abbreviation of "n-move approach ko"; "n-step ko" works better, but, as you indicate, careless use in the past created confusion with "stage". Why not "n-play approach ko"? "n-ko" avoids these problems (and any ambiguity of "direct" and "indirect") and leaves a reminder that (n>0) an approach ko is meant as the only problem.

tapir, n-ko does not hide the difference between approach ko and stage ko, because the latter should still be called "stage ko".

A "typical" use of 1-connected: "The group is very thick, because it is 1-connected and 1-alive."

Cassandra, one needs to learn only once what are approach kos or stage kos. Afterwards, redundancy is not needed.

RobertJasiek wrote:Cassandra, one needs to learn only once what are approach kos or stage kos. Afterwards, redundancy is not needed.

"Redundancy" is always about something "superfluous" (in a certain sense), i.e. something that is not "really" needed. But that is not the vital point !

The equivalent of "wasting paper" with redundancy is "better understanding" / "better learning".
This is also true for comments of the type "After Black played Hane with 1, the Oki of Black 3 hit the vital point of White's shape.", which you do not appreciate.

We did just experience here in this thread that "no redundancy" usually runs into "misunderstanding".

Avoiding redundancy allows to concentrate on more relevant contents.

RobertJasiek wrote:Avoiding redundancy allows to concentrate on more relevant contents.

You are talking about the author, but not the reader !

The reader of what? If he reads something with given context, such as having an explanation of the used terms, he can follow the contents well. Contrarily, a thread like this requires effort to seek contexts.

A rare beast.



Maybe not quite so rare.

When some of my friends and I play informally we chat, and I have been known to refer to questionable plays as interesting. As in rather than defend an obvious corner break in someone tenukis weakly, and I say "that is an interesting move."

I have also been known to say with affection "you bastard" in response to my opponent capturing my interesting formation.

I do not believe these terms are used in formal or tournament play.

Anthony

tapir wrote:@daal: Maybe there are "personal terms" that nobody uses or understands, but they are outside of language. Just like playing against yourself isn't a game of Go.

Seems to me a big part of language is naming things that one observes in the real world. If one is not aware of a name, and one wants to refer to it, one gives it a name. I started saying - albiet to myself - "getting in his face" because it was something I had observed professionals doing to put pressure on their opponent's positions, and I didn't know a name for it. If this is outside of language, it's because it's knocking on the door saying "I'm important enough not to be called a thingamabob!" By disqualifying personal terms, you seem to miss the point, which is to explore possible deficiencies in our shared terminology by sharing the terms we've made up ourselves.

I'm partial to "armpit hit" as the reverse of a shoulder hit:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . 1 . .
$$ . . X . . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

i.e. a move on the third line, diagonally under an opposing fourth line stone. Usually a bad move.

I coined "grappling hook"

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . 1
$$ . a O
$$ X . .[/go]

a tesuji where you make an elephant jump to attach behind an opponent's stone. Often it serves as a sort of driving tesuji, inviting the opponent to play a.