Tami's Way

[Tami]

Robert, you`re misquoting me and selectively quoting me. I can`t get into discussions like that.

BTW, I think your Nihon Kiin L&D must be a different one from mine. Mine is only a small pocket book. I gave the ISBN number so anybody can check it out if they wish. It may be small, but it contains everything I need for the time being.

[RobertJasiek]

Robert, you`re misquoting me and selectively quoting me.

The purpose of selective quoting is to keep the length short instead of twice or thrice as long. If this happens to lead to misquotation, then by accident.

[Tami]

Robert, you`re misquoting me and selectively quoting me.

The purpose of selective quoting is to keep the length short instead of twice or thrice as long. If this happens to lead to misquotation, then by accident.

I know. I believe you are a good person and that you have positive intentions, so I would never for a moment think you misquoted me maliciously.

[thirdfogie]

It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels. The real problem seems to be enforcement. The better you are at L&D and tactics, and the better you are at shape, the more easily you can get your way strategically. Conversely, there`s not much good in building a beautiful moyo if you don`t know how to convert it into real points.

Good point, well made. The quote also captures the feeling one has when playing a significantly stronger opponent, that greater force or power resides in his or her stones.

[Splatted]

It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels.

I feel the same way, but I wonder if it might be more accurate to say that just reading strategy books isn't as useful as it feels. I'm currently working my way through attack and defense, and I've had almost no luck applying what I've "learned", but there definitely is a lot of very useful information in there.

I don't know how you try and make use of the books you read, but my impression is that like me you've been reading/solving sections and then trying to keep that in mind when playing. This may not have worked, but that could just mean we need to find better ways of engaging with the material. Here are some ideas:

1) Go through the book multiple times: Try and drill it in to your subconscious.
1b) You could also treat books you've worked through like problem books and solve them repeatedly. With multiple books on the same subject I imagine it would be like having a collection of targeted problems with detailed explanations.
2) Go through pro games and look for situations that seem relevant to what you're studying.
2b) Guess how they will apply the concepts described in the book.
2c) Try and work out how/if the moves the actually play relate to those concepts.
3) Review a bunch of your games looking only for positions relevant to what you are studying.

Maybe none of this will help either, but I feel like there is so much good information locked away in these books that learning how to use them would be a huge asset to improvement, and well worth the time invested.

[Bonobo]

John,

I’ve already offered my skill for free to another Go author, only to get replies whining about good professional typesetting software they apparently didn't know to use and about bugs in some software they did use that certainly is not fit for the job

Bonobo: I don't know who you are referring to, of course, but he is a fellow author and I empathise with his frustrations.

I cannot empathise when somebody criticises a software they don’t know how to use. That’s what I meant. Kind of related to “a bad worker blames his tools”. And then there are those who want to repair a Ferrari with a can opener (or something like that).

For you to describe his attitude as "whining" tells me any relationship with you could easily start off on the wrong foot.

I’m sorry you got this perception, guess I should’ve been more clear.

Obviously, I understand that your offer is basically a very kind one, but I've been down the path before of being told before that I need to buy very expensive hardware or software (or download it illegally), and spend weeks learning to use it, probably screwing up my existing set-up in the process, just to produce a book for a tiny number of people. I would start to believe that the whole business is becoming more worthwhile only when more go players start buying existing books again.

No, no, no. All you would need is any text editor you feel comfortable with. If it need be, use MS Word, OpenOffice (which is not being developed anymore) or LibreOffice, its successor. I can import or convert/import all standard (TXT, RTF) or semi-standard (DOC, OpenOffice or Libreoffice formats) formats for further processing. You know about the information, the content you want to convey, so you just take care of that and leave the rest (the form) to somebody who knows how to further process it for press and/or screen output.

That’s the proper way to do it: everybody does exactly what they know to do. Everything else is like … for example those customers from hell who give me their “layout” in Powerpoint, tell me to make it printable (for press!) and then later get mad when they can’t edit the InDesign files in Powerpoint. Yes, that friggin’ Ferrari doesn’t run on Diesel. And you can’t build the Eiffel Tower with only a screwdriver.

Just edit your text, put in “XXX Diag. 42” where you want your diagram, write a caption like “(Caption for Diag. 42) blah blah blah” after “XXX Diag. 42”, and leave the rest to your typesetter. Any typesetter with just a bit of experience would know how to import the text into (for example) Adobe InDesign (which is my tool of choice). You could even just use "" (inch marks) instead of typographic quote marks; the typesetter would either know how to set the software to automatically convert them to correct typographic quote marks (“curly quotes”) or they’d do it by hand.

However, if you have an itch you really want to scratch, there is a person who wants to typeset the complete Shuei trilogy as a book, and he would certainly need help with diagrams. His idea is to produce three presentation copies (me, Mark and him). He may be willing to add a fourth, but he awaits the final volume (soon) before really getting down to work.

Well … I have no idea how large that opus is. I have a new job (typesetting technical documentations) that’s eating me up; but, well, I’m willing to look into it if the people involved are patient. If you contact me here via PM I’ll give you my mail address and phone number, or we could videochat with Skype or whatever to get acquainted.

But I’d rather have somebody else set the diagrams with some other special Go diagram software they know since I have no experience with Go diagram software and I don’t own one. Still, if there’s nobody who’d create those diagrams, I’d be willing to look into that (I’ve learnt to use a huge number of softwares, so why not learn another one) and then decide whether it’s usable, i.e. if it creates prepress quality diagrams, how much work it is, whether it’s better and less work than creating diagrams in a dedicated graphics program (for me that would be Adobe Illustrator) or even in InDesign itself whose graphic capabilities are quite good, in some areas even better (i.e. more intuitive to use) than Illustrator’s.

Have I explained a bit better this time?

Greetings, Tom

p.s.: Please forgive the length of some of my sentences, cf. Mark Twain, “The Awful German Language”

[Tami]

2) Go through pro games and look for situations that seem relevant to what you're studying.
2b) Guess how they will apply the concepts described in the book.
2c) Try and work out how/if the moves the actually play relate to those concepts.

Yes, I do try this, but I`m beginning to feel that one tends to bend concepts to the moves, i.e., you tend to see what you think you`ll see. In other words, I`m beginning to think that the "do L&D school" were right all along - it`s reading that makes you strong.

Try making a leaning attack on a stronger player - he`ll thwart you through reading.

Try making a splitting attack on a stronger player - he`ll thwart you through reading.

Try making sabaki against a stronger player - he`ll outread and make you heavy.

Try making shinogi against a stroner player - you`ll be resigning with a big dead group.

Maybe you could think of it as being like a swan on the water. What you see on the surface is an elegant gliding motion, but underneath, out of sight, the legs are working furiously. Similarly, when you look at some pro games, say one of Shuei`s masterpieces, it might look like pure strategy, but what you`re not noticing is all the tactics that the master was reading and controlling.

[RobertJasiek]

I'm currently working my way through attack and defense, and I've had almost no luck applying what I've "learned", but there definitely is a lot of very useful information in there.

Even just the limited amount of knowledge in Attack and Defense can be good for about two ranks (if the contents is new to you), but you must be patient and try to apply the knowledge during the next three months.

I don't know how you try and make use of the books you read,

Surely it depends on the contents presentation of the books! If the contents is hidden in the text, then you must find and transform it to forms you can understand and recall. If the contents is explicit in the text, then you only need to understand and recall. (And apply.)

Maybe none of this will help

You missed the most important kind of learning: learn the relevant contents consciously.

[RobertJasiek]

I cannot empathise when somebody criticises a software they don’t know how to use.

I cannot share the idea of buying an expensive software just to find out whether it is good or bad.

those who want to repair a Ferrari with a can opener

Big software bugs must be repaired with rough tools - or a difference software must be used.

All you would need is any text editor you feel comfortable with. If it need be, use MS Word, OpenOffice (which is not being developed anymore) or LibreOffice, its successor. I can import or convert/import all standard (TXT, RTF) or semi-standard (DOC, OpenOffice or Libreoffice formats) formats for further processing. You know about the information, the content you want to convey, so you just take care of that and leave the rest (the form) to somebody who knows how to further process it for press and/or screen output.

Do you? IMX, fighting the software's bugs is the by far greatest help. However, submitting a document to somebody else so that he can then fight the bugs SLOWS down the process for the author. (Can you bring OpenOffice to be updated more frequently again? Can you reduce the bugs of LibreOffice (incl. its database software!) so that it becomes better than OpenOffice?)

everybody does exactly what they know to do.

Right.

Just edit your text, put in “XXX Diag. 42”

This is exactly how I do NOT work. (Scribus is inapplicable for me because of that.) I do not know if other authors work like that. If I tried to write a book while not already seeing the diagrams in the text roughly inserted, it would not work. We are not speaking of a narrative with one colour plate but of factual texts with 1000+ diagrams (each updated once on average during the writing process), where the text contents is written around the diagrams and vice versa.

typesetter.

Extra processing of typesetting is not a problem, except that the go book market is too small to justify much publication delay for the sake of getting perfect typesetting.

You could even just use "" (inch marks) instead of typographic quote marks; the typesetter would either know

You can't. A go book author does not have the time for inserting such marks.

whether it’s better and less work than creating diagrams in a dedicated graphics program (for me that would be Adobe Illustrator)

Cry. Go diagram editing programs cannot be beaten by generic graphics software.

[RobertJasiek]

one tends to bend concepts to the moves

Imprecise concepts must be bent - precise concepts must not.

the "do L&D school" were right all along - it`s reading that makes you strong.

Strategy without reading is nothing. Reading without strategy is nothing. Strategy informs about what and how to read. Reading verifies whether particular strategy is good.

[John Fairbairn]

Tom: I agree with Robert's assessment above. The problems of producing a go book cannot be appreciated properly until you have tried it. This is not a case of starting with a negative attitude. Anything can be achieved if you put enough time and mental effort into it, but you have to be sensible and start with some idea of how much time and effort it is worth investing for such a small market - a market that is going backwards, too.

Diagrams are by far the biggest problem in the production process for various reasons. Among them, there is no go software that works reliably to produce good diagrams (e.g. missing captured stones in variation diagrams, inability to use long labels, add arrows, awful fonts, etc.) I have found MultiGo to be the best for me, but I still have to Photoshop every diagram as well as create it. Even then, you often find that a small change in text pushes a diagram to the next page and so it has to be done all over again. It's a burden only the idiots among us take on.

[topazg]

... i.e., you tend to see what you think you`ll see. In other words, I`m beginning to think that the "do L&D school" were right all along - it`s reading that makes you strong...

My only observation is to be careful to separate reading from L+D. L+D is an important aspect of reading for sure, but often stronger fundamentals and superior understanding of shape can give you a completely commanding lead against a weaker player without having had a single L+D issue arise.

Good fundamentals is a quintessential part of good reading - it gives you a much better collection of moves to assess in your reading lines and weeds out some of the chaff before you get started, so it's an integral part of reading skill.

It's one of my big frustrations that so many problems are either L+D, tesuji to split/separate/kill, or find the big point (border of two moyos) type moves. That sort of skill is important, but the "squeeze / sacrifice for thickness" type reading is at least equally important and, IMO, rather neglected in problem sites and problem books (maybe I'm reading the wrong ones).

[Bonobo]

Robert,

it must be terrible to live with an attitude where one constantly asks oneself: “What am I doing right that everybody else is doing wrong?”

I don’t intend to go any further into this, my life’s remaining time is too precious to waste it and thank [ghod] there are enough who appreciate—and pay for—my expertise.

Only this:

[..]

You could even just use "" (inch marks) instead of typographic quote marks; the typesetter would either know

You can't. A go book author does not have the time for inserting such marks.

Uhm, WOT?

Maybe I should’ve written "word" instead of just "" …

Inch marks are these: " … used on every typewriter as quotation marks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark.

That’s what we all use as quotation marks if we don’t have easy access to correct typographic (“curly”) quote marks which, in English, are these: “word”.

The inch marks are what you get in every text editor not set or settable to use typographic quote marks. No extra work needed. And these also are what you use in your posts here, and, sadly, also in your books. Almost everybody uses these without even thinking about them, as you proved. But every properly set book, magazine, or newspaper uses typographic quote marks, of course.
________________

And lest you all believe I’m obsessed with form over function, I will end this comment now since anybody who has a little understanding of reading psychology and/or typography and typesetting already knows what I’m talking about. I won’t be able to convince those who prefer to ignore facts, and any further attempts would be the above-mentioned waste of time.


Greetings, Tom

[RobertJasiek]

without even thinking about them, as you proved.

I thought about that and rejected it; it is not worth the extra time for the books in question.

[EdLee]

LaTeX plus the igo package; see its documentation at http://ctan.open-source-solution.org/fonts/igo/igo.pdf

LaTeX is amazing (as always). Thanks, hanekomu.