Terms

[Boidhre]

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

In the practical context placing a stone after your opponent places a stone is a key aspect to becoming a pro player.

Maybe I should write a book.

[Bill Spight]

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

In the practical context placing a stone after your opponent places a stone is a key aspect to becoming a pro player.

Maybe I should write a book.

There are at least two ways in which connection is a factor in thickness. One has to do with the influence of the thickness on other stones. As a rule, in a fight the possibility of connecting to thickness gives the player with thickness an advantage. The thickness is a safe haven. The other has to do with the formation of thickness in the first place. Stones that are easily disconnected do not form thickness. Again, with rare exceptions, for instance, where some of the cut off stones may be sacrificed for even more thickness.

[Boidhre]

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

In the practical context placing a stone after your opponent places a stone is a key aspect to becoming a pro player.

Maybe I should write a book.

There are at least two ways in which connection is a factor in thickness. One has to do with the influence of the thickness on other stones. As a rule, in a fight the possibility of connecting to thickness gives the player with thickness an advantage. The thickness is a safe haven. The other has to do with the formation of thickness in the first place. Stones that are easily disconnected do not form thickness. Again, with rare exceptions, for instance, where some of the cut off stones may be sacrificed for even more thickness.

Sure, but as a point on its own it's not very useful. Well connected stones can be heavy not thick, and previously thick stones can become heavy due to a change in circumstances that does not affect connection in any way. Connection is a necessary factor, not a sufficient one. Just as playing games is a necessary factor in becoming strong but far from being a sufficient factor.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though.

[RobertJasiek]

Thickness is determined by its degrees of connection AND life AND territory (potential).

[Bill Spight]

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

In the practical context placing a stone after your opponent places a stone is a key aspect to becoming a pro player.

Maybe I should write a book.

There are at least two ways in which connection is a factor in thickness. One has to do with the influence of the thickness on other stones. As a rule, in a fight the possibility of connecting to thickness gives the player with thickness an advantage. The thickness is a safe haven. The other has to do with the formation of thickness in the first place. Stones that are easily disconnected do not form thickness. Again, with rare exceptions, for instance, where some of the cut off stones may be sacrificed for even more thickness.

Sure, but as a point on its own it's not very useful. Well connected stones can be heavy not thick,

In go not much is useful on its own.

and previously thick stones can become heavy due to a change in circumstances that does not affect connection in any way.

If thick stones become heavy, it is the result of error.

Connection is a necessary factor, not a sufficient one.

No one is claiming that it is.

[Boidhre]

No one is claiming that it is.

Sorry my point is unclear. My thinking is that saying X, Y and Z are necessary (yes not sufficient) isn't very useful until you can show why X, Y and Z are necessary as a group and insufficient with one element missing and even then you run into the problem of of X, Y and Z being necessary for Concept 1 yet X, Y and Z does not exclusively consist of situations where Concept 1 applies and ends up being "You need X, Y and Z and then you need to judge if it fits within the Concept or not."

Defining thickness specifically this way just strikes me as very problematic because of the latter issue, we can probably agree on a bunch of necessary factors but then find these necessary factors are all present for shapes or groups which we'd never consider as thick, rendering the definition not that useful.

My weak players 2c.

[tomukaze]

In the practical context placing a stone after your opponent places a stone is a key aspect to becoming a pro player.

Maybe I should write a book.

Maybe you should write one about key aspects in Go...
Perhaps you could name it the Fundamental Key Aspects of Go or some such, maybe in the vein of Funakoshi's 20 precepts.

[RobertJasiek]

Thickness:

In a general consideration, thickness can have various degrees of connection, life, territory, but we are impressed only if the degrees are good. So connection and life alone do not suffice, because thickness shall achieve territory; territory is necessary.

Territory alone is not sufficient, because territory surrounded by badly conected, hardly alive stones can be attacked by the opponent. So (good degrees of) life or life and connection are also necessary.

(Good degrees of) connection and life are both necessary, because there can be different kinds of thickness: e.g., such with a) a modest degree of life and a modest degree of connection or b) a modest degree of life and a great degree of connection or c) great degrees of life and connection. If we considered only life, we would be overlooking the variety of thickness.

Connection, life and territory are sufficient to describe thickness, because every other aspect traditionally attributed to (or known verbally about) thickness follows from these properties: generating influence, (preferably) good eye value, thick shape, little aji, creating board division lines, [informal] territory potential.

In contrast to influence, thickness is a property of stones, while influence is a property of affected intersections. Therefore, it does not matter that influence is defined also via connection, life, territory (but from both players' view).

Is there anything else that is characterised by good degrees of connection, life, territory, but not thickness? Why? By definition, it IS thickness!

EDIT:

There can be efficient or inefficient thickness.

[Bill Spight]

No one is claiming that it is.

Sorry my point is unclear. My thinking is that saying X, Y and Z are necessary (yes not sufficient) isn't very useful until you can show why X, Y and Z are necessary as a group and insufficient with one element missing and even then you run into the problem of of X, Y and Z being necessary for Concept 1 yet X, Y and Z does not exclusively consist of situations where Concept 1 applies and ends up being "You need X, Y and Z and then you need to judge if it fits within the Concept or not."

Defining thickness specifically this way just strikes me as very problematic because of the latter issue, we can probably agree on a bunch of necessary factors but then find these necessary factors are all present for shapes or groups which we'd never consider as thick, rendering the definition not that useful.

My weak players 2c.

I was a dan player before I was fairly confident of distinguishing between heavy and thick, between light and thin. These concepts are important, but fuzzy and difficult to define.

Robert has not convinced me that he has good definitions for these terms, but I applaud the effort. Besides, it is not like anyone else has come up with good definitions, either.

[RobertJasiek]

Bill, I think you major objection is that you want to define a different kind of thing:)

[oren]

Bill, I think you major objection is that you want to define a different kind of thing:)

Bill generally discusses the terms as currently used. Your definitions tend to attempt to change the terms which is why you're better off creating new words and terminology than trying to create confusion.

[RobertJasiek]

Bill generally discusses the terms as currently used.

Do you recall his suggestion about influence? It was not as currently used.

Your definitions tend to attempt to change the terms

See my earlier message: my definition keeps all earlier characteristics valid by implying them, but a) simplies by using fewer, and more basic, aspects in the definition and b) generates optional precision by specifying degrees that can be determined.

which is why you're better off creating new words and terminology than trying to create confusion.

Confusion is replaced by clarity by having mentioned the simple aspects (connection and life) at all and having added precision. Describing the same deserves using the same word.

[oren]

Confusion is replaced by clarity by having mentioned the simple aspects (connection and life) at all and having added precision. Describing the same deserves using the same word.

Wrong.

You change the meaning to get the precision you desire and add confusion when discussing these terms with you.

So keep trying but you should keep making up your own terms like connected-5 and capturable-2 with the precision you desire.

[Bantari]

No one is claiming that it is.

Sorry my point is unclear. My thinking is that saying X, Y and Z are necessary (yes not sufficient) isn't very useful until you can show why X, Y and Z are necessary as a group and insufficient with one element missing and even then you run into the problem of of X, Y and Z being necessary for Concept 1 yet X, Y and Z does not exclusively consist of situations where Concept 1 applies and ends up being "You need X, Y and Z and then you need to judge if it fits within the Concept or not."

Defining thickness specifically this way just strikes me as very problematic because of the latter issue, we can probably agree on a bunch of necessary factors but then find these necessary factors are all present for shapes or groups which we'd never consider as thick, rendering the definition not that useful.

My weak players 2c.

I was a dan player before I was fairly confident of distinguishing between heavy and thick, between light and thin. These concepts are important, but fuzzy and difficult to define.

Robert has not convinced me that he has good definitions for these terms, but I applaud the effort. Besides, it is not like anyone else has come up with good definitions, either.

The question is: in practical context - do we even need a definition more precise than what we have?

Here is my thinking:
Lets say we have a perfect definition. This definition lets a 30k unerringly decide what is think, what is thin, what is lose, and what is weak. Now, what can he do with that knowledge? I suspect - unless he knows how to handle each of these shapes - not much. This knowledge comes with skill and experience and time, and no other way, I think.

So what I would say, in this particular case, might even be the opposite - the 'type' of the shape (think, think, whatever) might be defined by the way we handle it, and as our skill in handling it grows, so do our understanding of how to tell those concepts apart. The 'definition' is itself defined by our ability to handle the particular concept. In other ways - the understanding grows when it needs to grow, not before. Cramming down definitions before we are ready for them is like putting the cart before the horse - and might even be damaging (I know at least one practical example in which I think it did a lot of damage I am trying to undo now.)

This is why we so often say "i did not understand this or that before I was X level" and then later "when I was Y level I realized I did not understand it fully even at X level" and so on... Our understanding of the concepts is not bound to how well they are defined, but to how well we can handle it in practice. And if we cannot handle it at all, no amount of perfect definition for 'thickness' or 'influence' can mean squat to us.

[RBerenguel]

My view of all this term nightmare is that go itself is a language. We are just trying to translate it to another language (English, Spanish, Mathematics), whereas pros and high ranked amateurs have varying (and higher) degrees of fluency in it. They don't need a definition of honte, thickness, influence or ko because they can "think" in the target language without barriers.