John Fairbairn wrote:
This is mostly sheer bombast. You acknowledge repeatedly that you cannot read the world
literature, nor have you seen it, so how can you know?
Without provoking, I will never find out.
I look at every go book I get to see and must have seen thousands different ones. The problem is, of course, that big, ordinary go bookstores in Asia offer many books but almost all of them are uninteresting. I lack your research possibilities in which further books exist and you have pointed out occasionally a few books or journal articles published during
the last decades with potentially competitive contents. You have even started to describe some of their contents. Whenever the real matter of whose description might be better was "threatened to be revealed", you dropped discussion though, leaving me with the impression that there was no better Asian description of a concept than mine. So far your descriptions have only convinced me that there are or have been a tiny number of Asians with serious attempts of providing some good descriptions. Of what you have described, those were significantly weaker though than mine for the concepts I mentioned. Maybe another round of descriptions and comparision can clarify better whose descriptions of concepts are?
Thickness and influence are superbly dealt with, for just one example, in the Japanese book
Atsuku Utsu devoted exclusively to the subject in over 220 pages - almost ten times
your pagination. It is heavy with text, and most diagrams relate to discussions and
commentaries rather than examples. It covers more aspects of thickness than you do, it
covers the whole game and not just joseki, and it gives historical perspectives, too. I rate
it several magnitudes higher than your work, although I wouldn't quibble much with what
relatively little you do say.
Here we appear to have had a misunderstanding. My claim is to have provided the best DEFINITIONS of what influence and thickness are. The book you mention and probably further such books appear to belong to those with the best descriptions of HOW TO USE influence / thickness. I have not written detailed texts about usage so naturally I expect such Asian books to be much better and much more detailed concerning usage.
I do not recall if the book mentioned by you above is the same you had described a bit earlier. If it is the same, then the description of definitions of influence / thickness were much better than the average English descriptions for that but much weaker than my description of definitions of influence / thickness. From what you have reported so far, an
Asian description classifies thickness into different types like atsumi and atsusa. This is useful, of course, but - as I see so far from your selective translative descriptions - it
misses the core of the natures of influence / thickness, which I define by reducing them to the possibilities for player versus opponent to connect, make life and make territory. If
some of the Asian books do the same, please reveal it, thank you! So far though I have yet to be convinced though that they do it at all. Beyond this essential insight, I go the final
step farther and show how in general to derive influence and thickness (and their degrees) from (rules) axioms. Such is possible because my theoretical models refer to n-connected,
m-alive, t-territory, which rely on "force", which in turn is an already solved rules term.
Summarising, my definitions do two things: 1) They let influence and thickness rely on the more basic concepts connection, life, territory. 2) They are shown how to be derived from axioms.
Where Asian and my descriptions appear to be already closer to each other is on the intermediate level of characterisation: aspects which are implications of my definitions: thicker shape, less aji etc.
So what do the best Asians definitions of what I do? Where and how, as you claim, would they be better as definitions than mine? You even say magnitudes better, but that might be
related to our above mentioned misunderstanding between seeking definitions of what influence / thickness are versus seeking usage during various parts of the game.
Please don't hesitate to point out all shortcomings in my desriptions and what the best Asian books might do better! Only if we know what it is that might be better can we learn
I disagree with your definition of haengma
Unfortunately! It is so convenient to be less general than I am;) I am grateful to Prof. Jeong 9p though to have opened my eyes towards the very general potential of a generally perceived haengma though. It is very unfornate that the well known haengma books teach it as if were little more than efficiency combined with some striving to walk to the center.
(which you yourself claim to be too general for usefulness, anyway).
No. Rather I have said that my definition is too general for a DIRECT application (to a position).
What you say may be valid enough in its own right, but I think you would have done better to
invent a term of your own,
What I learned I did learn from a few Korean professionals like Jeong. So I think that ackowleging their origin and relation to the word haengma is appropriate. A word of my own would have pretended more personal discovery of related understanding than occurred.
as people reading your book may be confused when encountering other (better) definitions of haengma by natives
Better? If so, please state them! So far I see only much more restrictive definitions or example studies presuming such in Korean books (I know; mostly those from the standard publishers like KBA available to my eyes).
and (more pertinently) discussions of how haengma is applied.
Quite possible. I do not claim that my short description in the book would even start to be as detailed with respect to usage.
Without going into detail, I think your concept of mobility mostly belongs under haengma,
It is possible to group it that way but I think that considering mobility on its own is a very powerful view for practical application in one's games. Very simple and yet very powerful. Burying it under haengma would lose that simple usefulness.
which is hardly surprising as haeng refers specifically to mobility and nothing else.
The mobility of haengma is usually treated as that of stones interrelation. The mobility in my book's concept of that name is something else: a count of dominant numbers of more mobile
stones than the opponent's.
Concepts such as mobility and stability (as you define them) or unrest, or 1-territory, are
not used in the Oriental system, so claiming to be better than nothing is not much of a
Rather I'd say that inventing the first step of a new concept is the most difficult step of all! Like inventing the use of fire for human beings. A simple step but very difficult to invent (I suppose it must have been). Nevertheless, already the basic usage of controlled fire at all was very valuable. (Surely mankind added lots of improvements later such as
specific uses of fire for running engines.)
a frog at the bottom of the well. The end result is to detract from your legitimate claims.
What about stability and unrest model? Rather than worrying I'd like to know if anybody else might have some better description, which so far is just hidden to the west. Convince me that I am a frog at the bottom rather than the panther at the top!;)
The unrest model is one of many possible approaches. So I guess that something more or less equivalent must have been written down somewhere rather than existing only in one person's
head. But which alternatives are actually written? So far I have not even heard of any.
EDIT: Several layout corrections after the server had issued timeout and I had to copy & paste and linebreak again.