Is efficiency sente?

[RobertJasiek]

the proof will be whether or not he produces definitions that expand our understanding of the game. We can't judge it beforehand.

Judge about my findings so far! They greatly expand go theory understanding.

[RobertJasiek]

valid opinions, but that doesn't make them factual.

I see. But does it matter? I say "factual" - you say "factual or valid opinion" and we mean about the same:)

[topazg]

valid opinions, but that doesn't make them factual.

I see. But does it matter? I say "factual" - you say "factual or valid opinion" and we mean about the same:)

A valid opinion is a subjective feeling with supportive reasoning. A fact is an objective "truth", and not based in subjectivity. So yes, to most people, it does matter

[SmoothOper]

Perhaps you could apologize for your suggested definition of efficiency [...], so that we can continue a civil discussion?

If you want a civil discussion, then do not suggest apology for a factual contribution. Factual contributions are nothing one can apologise for (in the sense of regretting a moral failure). One can find out whether a factual contribution is factually correct, incorrect or inconclusive. If a factual contribution turns out to be incorrect, then one can admit this.

You asserted that people were "attacking" you, when in fact they were "defending" themselves from blatant and offensive proselytization.

[lemmata]

I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

Since most of your questions have received sufficient discussion, I wanted to mention a few things about the great Lee Changho (the signer of this go board). Which go player do you think most strongly influenced his thinking? According to interviews, Takemiya's style had a big influence on Lee Changho's thinking (and perhaps his theoretical view of the game?) even if Lee did not imitate Takemiya's style. Isn't that surprising? Make of it what you will.

[SmoothOper]

I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

Since most of your questions have received sufficient discussion, I wanted to mention a few things about the great Lee Changho (the signer of this go board). Which go player do you think most strongly influenced his thinking? According to interviews, Takemiya's style had a big influence on Lee Changho's thinking (and perhaps his theoretical view of the game?) even if Lee did not imitate Takemiya's style. Isn't that surprising? Make of it what you will.

I think in many ways Lee Changho is the modern Takemiya, only probably a more dominant player for longer. I believe Lee's style will be popular with the Bhudda Zen approach being popular like the Natural Cosmic style in that they appear to be simple safe and secure, however people won't have much success imitating the styles since Lee and Takemiya were so talented to begin with. A major difference it seems is that there is no overt Moyo in Lee's style, but I am not exactly sure there is a specific tell tale sign of Lee's strategy, which is part of my question.

[RobertJasiek]

A valid opinion is a subjective feeling with supportive reasoning. A fact is an objective "truth", and not based in subjectivity.

Of course.

Maybe your motivation of discussing these two phrases is related to my use of 'factual' in the sense of German 'sachlich'. Does the English word necessarily imply 'related to and only to proven facts'? In that case, my assumed translation and so use of the word was too naive as 'somehow related to facts, things or ideas or what might be facts'.

[RobertJasiek]

You asserted that people were "attacking" you

No. In this thread, I have not said that people were attacking me but said that [a few] people were attacking my work.

[Joaz Banbeck]

[admin]
This thread is going way off topic, and on several occasions has verged on breaking the TOS prohibition against personal attacks.
I ask all participants to try to keep on topic. For reference, I quote the OP below.
Being polite to your fellow members would be nice too, at least for the holidays.
Thanks,
JB
[/admin]

I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

[RobertJasiek]

Concerning the existence of efficiency as a strategic concept, Bill has expressed his opinion that he does not perceive such. In fact, efficiency as a strategic concept differs from quite a few other supposedly general strategic concepts: efficiency is a sort of collective concept for a couple of more specific concepts while other general strategic concepts (whether secondary level such as connection or whether tertiary level such as thickness (primary is the level of the very basic rules concepts such as player, string and physical liberty)) are concepts of their own right.

As a collective concept, efficiency contains in particular these more specific concepts:
1) efficiency of [dynamic] shape (creation) and related tewari evaluation
2) avoided overconcentration and territory efficiency
3) speed of extensions and connections [move type]
4) proper moves [whether they are efficient or too slow]
5) efficiency of sacrifice
6) maximal number of development directions
7) haengma (if one wants to extend the scope of efficiency to it)
8) best use (if one wants to extend the scope of efficiency to it)

It is hard not to talk about efficiency when talking about either of these specific concepts. IMO, one gains additional insight by identifying common aspects of all the specific forms of efficiency; Bill and Herman, don't you think so?

When, in 1998, I reflected about the nature of efficiency, first I wondered whether it was some strategic concept besides (1) to (6), but I could not see it as an independent concept. Instead, I noticed that (1) to (6) all are about aspects of efficiency, so considering efficiency as the collective concept for these aspects was the natural choice. Not for a second had I assumed efficiency to be only a word of ordinary language and not a go term with specific meaning because, in literature, I saw efficiency more consistently used in a function as a go term than occasionally as nothing more than a word of ordinary language.

[John Fairbairn]

Robert:

Maybe your motivation of discussing these two phrases is related to my use of 'factual' in the sense of German 'sachlich'.

I'd say it would be rather rare to translate 'sachlich' as 'factual'. 'Pertinent' or 'objective' or even topazq's 'valid' spring to mind first, although I would accept 'factual explanation' for 'Sacherklaerung'. Perhaps we'd most often want 'tatsaechlich' for what we mean by 'factual', though I admit English speakers also often use 'factual' to mean 'according to my opinion'.

You feel the integrity and relevance of your work are under "attack". I can't here or in other threads see how you can justify that factually for the most part. My sense is that it is simply the presentation that grates. Obviously even on, say, relevance some people may have an opinion that differs from yours (for example, I think your work is not likely to be relevant to human teaching but could be highly relevant to computer programming), but since when is holding a different opinion on the same set of observations an attack? What is an attack (to use your word) is to assert repeatedly, without adding new information, that the approach, knowledge or preferences that other go players have are vague, ambiguous, worthless, cowardly, etc etc while also maintaining that one's own path of alleged logic is infallible. The majority of readers here have invested a lot of time and money in cultivating a common interface by which they can discuss things - they have bought and read the same books, shared the same experiences, and so on. On L19 they simply want to sit sociably at the party table enjoying their trifle and other goodies. They don't want one guest to be trying to nail his jelly to the ceiling above them, to filch a phrase from my sage GoGoD colleague, T Mark Hall. Jelly nailing is fine if you do it in the privacy of your own room. Asking you to do that is not an attack on your jelly, nor on you. It is simply an observation that there is a time and place for everything.

In short, it is about presentation. And lo and behold, I see a post presented so that we can all relate to it and enjoy it and empathise with it. It begins, "Concerning the existence of efficiency as a strategic concept". If this form of presentation can be kept up, I wholeheartedly welcome the newcomer to the party table.

Taking my cue from that, and so becoming willing to have a discussion, I offer the following thoughts relating to the line "proper moves [whether they are efficient or too slow]", and of course to the main topic of this thread. I quote below from a chapter on egosim in the excellent book The Seven Deadly Chess Sins. Author GM Jonathan Rowson is making the point that players tend to see positions only from their own point of view and want to satisfy only their own urges. As part of this he discusses "Populist Prophylaxis". I give a long quote, but I think that if you mentally substitute honte (proper move) for prophylaxis as you read this, there are superb insights here for go players - not necessarily new information, but just seeing the topic of honte from a different angle may bring it all into better focus for you.

POPULIST PROPHYLAXIS
The greatest skill in chess lies in not allowing the opponent to show you what he can do. GM GARRY KASPAROV

Prophylaxis. It's an awkward word that I can never remember how to spell and I feel pretentious every time I say it. Many players think of it as something profound that Nimzowitsch conjured up but nobody fully understands, and I suspect most club players consider it an entirely foreign concept, not applicable to the hussle and bussle [spellings sic! JF] of your average game. Watson (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy) does an excellent job of surveying recent thinking on the matter, including the instructive writings of Dvoretsky and Yusupov (Positional Play and Training for the Tournament Player) and Tisdall (Improve Your Chess Now) but in all of these cases I have the impression that many readers must find the whole idea of prophylaxis a bit perplexing, occurring only in exceptional circumstances and something which only happens over 2600 level.

This is certainly my experience when teaching the idea to junior and adult players. There is an inclination to admire prophylaxis from a distance, as if it were something to be revered as a part of chess culture, but not incorporated into chess below a certain level. This is sad because it's really not such a regal or exclusive area, and I believe it can and should be used and understood by players of all strengths. [....] Once you start to look at positions with an awareness of your opponent's perspective, you are already thinking prophylactically to an extent. Indeed, as far as I can tell, prophylactic thinking needn't be considered as anything more than a state of mind whereby you are aware of your own plans and how they relate to your opponent's. [....]

Through a long and somewaht alcoholic grapevine in Holland I heard that GM Artur Yusupov, who had recently been coaching in Apeldoorn, had proclaimed that "If you understand prophylaxis, you understand chess". A few months after hearing this I found myself climbing up a more sober grapevine and on reaching the top I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the man himself. I asked if this quotation was an accurate reflection of what he had said and, not surprisingly, was told by Yusupov that he did not make such an extravagant claim. However, he did say that although the given statement is an over-simplification, it is not very far from the truth and that a close study of top players and their thinking processes reveals that prophylaxis is never far from the minds of the strongest players. Yusupov singled out Kasparov in this respect, whom he referred to as "deeply prophylactic" [....]

Yusupov was also keen to stress that prophylaxis should not be seen as in any way defensive or passive, but rather as a very active, even aggressive way of looking at chess. This was a particularly interesting insight because another aspect of the average player's thoughts on prophylaxis is that it tends to lead to highly profound but usually quite defensive moves, and of course this may not appeal to your average 1800 hacker. The truth, however, is that prophylaxis is every bit as important in attack as it is in defence.

If I may, I will add yet another insight of my own from chess which relates to "speed of extensions and connections [move type]". As is well known, the pawn structure determines almost all chess strategy. But if you change 'pawn structure' into 'moyo' and transfer the strategic thinking to go, you can understand go in a new light. First it has to be undertood that moyo is simply a framework for a territory. It does not have to be big, nor does it belong only in Takemiya's games. Every mapping out of a potential territory in every game is a moyo. Therefore, every go game has a moyo structure in just the same way that every chess game has a pawn structure. Masters are those who are familiar with many such structures. Second, in the west, for reasons of historical accident, we have been taught only about big moyos and only how to deal with erasing them or invading them. We have not been taught the primary Japanese concepts, which apply to all moyos large or small, of kamae (construction) and kakoi (surrounding). My suggestion therefore is that you start to look on moyos in a new light, and learn how to build them large and SMALL, and then how to surround them, but in such a way that you begin to observe the patterns that come up in every single game, not just Takemiya's.

[RobertJasiek]

[...attack...]I can't here or in other threads see how you can justify that factually for the most part.[...]

Indeed, and I have not referred to the most part. (Can we end meta-discussion now?)

The majority of readers here have invested a lot of time and money in cultivating a common interface by which they can discuss things

Every two players' knowledge of terminology and go theory varies so much that I would not speak of a common interface. New developments of go theory require adaption of a player's "input interface", if he wants to profit from the new.

- they have bought and read the same books,

That was so until the mid 90s. Afterwards, there have been so many books that different players have read pretty different sets of books.

shared the same experiences,

Certainly not. E.g., some players live in cities with go clubs while other players live in the countryside without access to real world go clubs.

If this form of presentation can be kept up,

Not everybody follows your preferred form of presentation, and especially not all the time.

moyo is simply a framework for a territory. It does not have to be big, nor does it belong only in Takemiya's games. Every mapping out of a potential territory in every game is a moyo.

It is a funny incident that I have just recently come to the same conclusion while writing a positional judgement book. It is so much more consistent and suitable for evaluation tools to speak of moyos regardless of their size, place and shape.

Every mapping out of a potential territory in every game is a moyo. Therefore, every go game has a moyo structure [...] Second, in the west, for reasons of historical accident, we have been taught only about big moyos and only how to deal with erasing them or invading them. [...] My suggestion therefore is that you start to look on moyos in a new light, and learn how to build them large and SMALL, and then how to surround them, but in such a way that you begin to observe the patterns that come up in every single game

Yes, and soon I will be contributing to overcome a too restricted view.

[hyperpape]

I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

I have never actually understood what this question was asking, which I think helped to contribute to the thread going off topic.

[SmoothOper]

I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

I have never actually understood what this question was asking, which I think helped to contribute to the thread going off topic.

I am not interested in playing like Lee Changho, I have chosen to idolize other players, but I expect he will have a popular style to imitate, so how would one recognize imitations, and what is the basic theory behind the strategy. I gather that it is Yose heavy. People describe his play as "calm", well calm doesn't seem all that great of a strategy, calm is the absence of fight, but what do you get by foregoing fighting... efficiency?

[hyperpape]

That's more clear, I think, though I can't say I can comment on Lee's way of play very much. Many people recommend Yuan Zhou's books on professional players, and he has one on Lee.

But my sense is that while Lee was an amazing player, few of the current generation of Korean players follow his lead.

Also, note the way I say "way of play", not just strategy. I think much of what separates Lee's play was not "high-concept" strategy, but specific tactical choices and style in particular cases--when do you play tenuki, when do you reinforce, etc. That's why I think your approach to strategy in the other thread is off base.