It is currently Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:03 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Using moyos à la O
Post #1 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:05 am 
Oza

Posts: 2574
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3698
I mentioned in another thread a book on thickness and moyos by O Rissei (Teatsusa no Wana). I said it was especially valuable because one aspect was that he stressed "using" moyos rather than "making" them. I imagine some would like to see an example.

But a word of warning. If you want to come to this with the urge to say "Ah, but AI says this, not that" or "My patented theory says you have count gefurtels instead" you are wasting your time with me.

It is necessary to understand that the vast majority of Japanese go books have been written for go fans, not budding professionals. And to appreciate that properly you also need to understand that until fairly recent times, education was very highly regimented in Japan. The very word for "learn" (manabu) has the same etymology as "imitate" (mane), and most education was done by imitation and rote memorisation. It was similar in China. Go Seigen liked to point out he had to learn about 200 Chinese classics by heart, and if he failed to recite them accurately in front of his father, he would be beaten across the calves with a bamboo rod. It was actually the same in many parts of the world - for me it was the ruler or the tawse. But in Japan it went a step or two further and extended even beyond school. In the post-war recovery period there was a pretty strict paradigm of school, crammer, Todai (or other university), salaryman, karoji - death from overwork. This was the joseki of life.

There were critics of this joseki, both at home and overseas. They pointed out that it made Japanese (of the period) efficient but lacking in creativity, for example. The salarymen themselves similarly grumbled about the system, and looked for ways to satisfy their creative urges. For very many, go was a satisfying outlet. On the board you could play as you wanted and not as your boss or society wanted. But, at the same time, your free-time was limited. You wanted to learn something about the game, to really unleash your creative impulses, but it all had to be in bite-sized and palatable chunks - suitable for the daily commute, say.

It's all a fair bit different now, of course, but then it shaped how go books evolved. Among the things that go writers learned was that you had to stress the freedom go gave you. So Takemiya was wildly popular when he told fans not to worry about imitating pros - just play what you want to play. He was far from the only one with that sort of message. And pros like Kitani who may not have written books in such a jaunty tone but played their own games in a dogma-denying way were always the most popular with fans.

Fans asked in magazine polls fans what they liked most about the game always highlighted this freedom or creativity: "no two games ever the same". It has even been suggested this was a major reason for the huge post-war popularity of go in Japan (tradition and cheapness were other obvious factors, of course, but an often overlooked one was the simplification of kanji and the use of katakana; pre-war go writers mostly saw themselves as literary figures, not educators).

But freedom is not random. To appreciate your favourite pros, and to get the satisfaction of winning which is at least as strong as being creative, you needed some knowledge, some technique. Quite a bit of this came from the old "imitation" method - memorising josekis. But a lot came in nugget form, especially proverbs. However, an awful lot of knowledge picked up this way was close to random. You had a lot of ingredients but no recipe, so no cake. One of the major themes that evolved among go writers of the time, therefore, was "consistency". It didn't matter if you lost a bit here, and a bit there, so long as you followed a consistent plan. This approach was especially popular among "lesson pros", of course, as it worked especially well in the handicap games they gave as lessons.

With time, this approach, too, evolved, into what I believe is still the dominant ethos in Japanese go books today: that is, make only moves that you understand. A higher form of consistency, if you like.

We can expect evolution here, too, of course, especially with AI on the scene. But that hasn't happened yet, and may not for quite some time. A lot of the flurry of AI activity among amateurs can be explained, in my view, by a slightly guilty feeling of needing to justify spending a fortune on powerful computers. The obvious counterpoint to this cynical view is, of course, the plaintive "I've spent a fortune on books - I really need to trust them." But it's not a true dichotomy. Books were written to help you understand something. AI was designed to help you understand everything, and thus nothing.

That will change, eventually, but by how much? I think the real point will still boil down to: "I'm an amateur. Amo, amas, amat and all that - I love go." No matter how much you spend on fancy hardware, or bookshelves full of dead trees, the real object of your attention is nothing more a board with 300+ black and white counters, and the patterns they make. From Day 1 of our acquaintance with the game, we feel the urge to make sense of those patterns. But even if we all feel the same urge, the urgent feeling - in both senses - is far from the same in all of us. Some pro wannabes want to drive to their go destination in a Ferrari, and stuff the scenery; most, who embrace fandom as much as freedom, want just to saunter along in a pony and trap, take in the sights, and drop in at the local hostelries along the way. Personally, I think the fans will always heavily outnumber the budding pros, simply because without huge numbers of fans, pros can't really exist.

So bear all that in mind when I give an example from O. He is not telling you how to play like a bot. He is not even telling you how to play like him - many pro writers specifically say such things. He is telling you, as a fan, to make moves you understand. Like almost all go writers of his ilk, he is giving you a go bread-maker. You just have to understand enough to get the right ingredients, follow the recipe consistently, then sit back and enjoy the delicious aroma and taste of fresh go, made just as YOU like it.

In the position below O is asking you to choose, as White, A, B or C. Remember that he is talking about "using" a moyo, and a further clue for the book reader is that his general theme in this part of book is "putting a wick in your candle"!



I will tell you straight off that Leela likes a clutch of moves just to the right of C. It also found O's actual choice acceptable in the sense of being within a close margin of error (the Spight margin!), and also showed a follow-up line pretty similar to O's. The reason I mention this first is that I want to ask you something. Let's take a move to the right of C, at G3 for example. It's a good move. But do you really understand why? Do you feel this is "using" your moyo? Or your mojo? I would answer no to all those questions. I would answer yes to the same questions for O's line.

I'm not going to give O's explanations of the two moves A and B (which are not duds - inferior, perhaps, but mainly harder to understand) and will just focus below on part of what he says about his "right answer" - C:



This is what he calls putting a wick in your candle (芯を入れる). Or lead in your pencil, or marrow in the bone. Yeth, he is telling you to take the pith. That's the foundation for using a moyo.

The next diagram shows the application (I omit the move numbers and variations, but it starts with Black invading the moyo on the lower third line).



The use of the moyo is obvious here. The potential White territory on the left has become more real rather than virtual, and White has added outside strength that gives him options at the top and on the right and in the centre. Black has invaded and run away successfully, but really he has gone poaching and hasn't come away with even a rabbit, let alone a salmon.

There is, as with all contrived examples, an element of katte-yomi, but that's how most amateurs read anyway, and I do believe most amateurs can understand this way of playing, whether or not they would choose it for themselves.

I expect in practice many amateurs would choose B. It's actually a very good move, and one that Leela likes. But O tries to dissuade us from playing it because it's harder to understand. The line he shows has Black invading the lower left corner, which takes away White's "easy" territory. White gets an outside shape but one that does have weaknesses and so White is left with what, for amateurs at any rate, is the very much harder problem of making territory in the centre (or worse, attacking a non-existent Black group!). As O puts it, the stone at B is then not really working. A, incidentally, obviously has some merit but is basically just the wrong direction of play: Black will answer on the lower side.

Here's a harder example from O, much boiled down to this single diagram by me. It's very different superficially, but still contains as its "pith" the idea of taking the pith (the Black triangled stone) rather than adding peel to the orange.



Black's basic problem here is that his moyo is actually just too big. Add to that the fact that his stones at the bottom are thin, and also that the triangled White stone is a viper in the bosom. I don't believe that the typical amateur dan player properly appreciates the nuisance value of that stone. We might well notice it, and it might even fire up some axons of association, but only a pro who has looked at thousands of games really appreciates it. My own heuristic is not to understand it, but just to double whatever negative nuisance value I put on it. I take the same approach with weak groups: if I think a group is weak I assume it's really twice as weak.

So, given that, you might see why O dismisses expansive peel-adding moves like A out of hand. B is a little trickier to explain, but it has two drawbacks. One is that it is too close to thickness (above) and the other is that it doesn't address the weakness of his stones just below quite as well. O is also not fashed about moves such as White C. Black answers at D and says, Thank you very much for solving the problem of my overstretched moyo for me." Being a pro, he is also not bothered about White E, despite the presence of the White triangled stone. He would kill White. But if needs be, a Black amateur can always follow Takemiya's advice on moyo invasions: let him live small. You keep most of your territory, and better yet firm it up, and gain massive thickness to compensate for what you do lose. Takemiya's fundamental point is the same as O's: make moves you understand. In both cases, despite the different outcomes, we can see the use of a moyo as a Venus fly-trap.

And if you do really have that nagging worry that you maybe did spend too much on your new graphics card, you might like to know that Leela likes O's move very much. But with the ten-quid book, you now know why!


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 5 people: gowan, justtysen, mhlepore, sorin, yakcyll
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #2 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:45 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1640
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Liked others: 253
Was liked: 740
Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
KGS: Artevelde
OGS: Knotwilg
Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
In the first diagram, this was my unaffected assessment:

A - invading a potential territory; however, I've learnt that an invasion should either unsettle a surrounding group, or if its only purpose is stealing by living, then the stolen property should be the opponent's "win condition". Here it's neither. No group will be unsettled, nor does White NEED to steal that potential territory

B - builds; but that's all it does; if next Black invades, White's right stones may grow stronger but to which purpose? Black is very solid on the lower right; and if Black invades, the two stones become unsettled, so Black's invasion becomes worthwhile

C- makes territory; but it looks like the best move. Now how does this use the moyo? Well, for 1 thing it turns part of it into territory, which White is dearly needing. And if Black now invades, White has only 1 group to act with.


edit:

On the second example, Black has basically 5 options

1 - growing the moyo by expanding the upper boundary
2 - growing the moyo by expanding the lower boundary
3 - sealing off the moyo by playing on the sector line
4 - strengthening the upper boundary group
5 - strengthening the lower boundary group

1 and 4 are out, because of reasons explained by John already.
2 another keima, however has no effect on the group below
5 an attachment or keima in the corner, also has no effect
so that leaves 3 for me, a sector line play = two space jump from Black's keima


Last edited by Knotwilg on Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #3 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:49 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 289
Liked others: 59
Was liked: 93
KGS: lepore
Moyos and O - of course I was expecting the other O (Meien). But this was very informative - thanks!

In the second example, however, I almost want to ask if B is misplaced? It seems like it would never be on a pro's radar.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #4 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:46 am 
Judan

Posts: 6487
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 387
Was liked: 3565
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
I spent more at the garden centre today than I did on my graphics card :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #5 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:03 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9943
Liked others: 3219
Was liked: 3254
John Fairbairn wrote:
I mentioned in another thread a book on thickness and moyos by O Rissei (Teatsusa no Wana). I said it was especially valuable because one aspect was that he stressed "using" moyos rather than "making" them. I imagine some would like to see an example.


Thanks. :) Now I have a little better idea of what he means by that.

Quote:
It is necessary to understand that the vast majority of Japanese go books have been written for go fans, not budding professionals. And to appreciate that properly you also need to understand that until fairly recent times, education was very highly regimented in Japan. The very word for "learn" (manabu) has the same etymology as "imitate" (mane), and most education was done by imitation and rote memorisation. It was similar in China.

{snip}

To appreciate your favourite pros, and to get the satisfaction of winning which is at least as strong as being creative, you needed some knowledge, some technique. Quite a bit of this came from the old "imitation" method - memorising josekis. But a lot came in nugget form, especially proverbs. However, an awful lot of knowledge picked up this way was close to random. You had a lot of ingredients but no recipe, so no cake. One of the major themes that evolved among go writers of the time, therefore, was "consistency". It didn't matter if you lost a bit here, and a bit there, so long as you followed a consistent plan. This approach was especially popular among "lesson pros", of course, as it worked especially well in the handicap games they gave as lessons.

With time, this approach, too, evolved, into what I believe is still the dominant ethos in Japanese go books today: that is, make only moves that you understand. A higher form of consistency, if you like.
(Emphasis mine.)

This pedagogical shift from maneru to wakaru is interesting. I have emphasized the phrase about winning, because, indeed, following recipes does produce wins. :) And the recipe approach is not confined to go. There are many recipes in contract bridge, for instance. I came up against them when teaching bridge, as a hindrance to my students' thinking when they did not fit the actual hand. I was a fan of the Adkins Principle long before we met. :)

Quote:
AI was designed to help you understand everything, and thus nothing.

AI for go was designed to provide answers, not understanding.

Quote:
In the position below O is asking you to choose, as White, A, B or C. Remember that he is talking about "using" a moyo, and a further clue for the book reader is that his general theme in this part of book is "putting a wick in your candle"!


Not sure what that's about. But from this example and your other analogies I hear an echo of something from the martial arts about an outer softness and an inner firmness. A student of Shaolin boxing explained it to me in terms of having both lips and teeth. :)

Quote:


I will tell you straight off that Leela likes a clutch of moves just to the right of C. It also found O's actual choice acceptable in the sense of being within a close margin of error (the Spight margin!), and also showed a follow-up line pretty similar to O's. The reason I mention this first is that I want to ask you something. Let's take a move to the right of C, at G3 for example. It's a good move. But do you really understand why? Do you feel this is "using" your moyo? Or your mojo? I would answer no to all those questions. I would answer yes to the same questions for O's line.


I can't claim to really understand anything except for certain aspects of the game in which I am an expert, or for some moves which I have bludgeoned to death, but I can offer some explanation for G-03. For one thing it is a corner enclosure, a thin one, to be sure, but an enclosure. Also, it forms a base with the White stone on K-03. As such, it inhibits an invasion at H-03 and invites an invasion of the corner.

By contrast, E-03 gives an inner firmness to White's moyo. It invites an invasion at H-03, and provides an anvil against which to hammer that invasion.

But frankly, I would like it better if my opponent invaded the corner. :lol:

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Banana Republic. It's not just a store anymore.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #6 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:17 am 
Oza

Posts: 2574
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3698
Quote:
In the second example, however, I almost want to ask if B is misplaced? It seems like it would never be on a pro's radar.


It's not misplaced, and since O talks about, it's not just on his radar but it was in his in-tray, and since Leela gives good marks to it, it would be interesting to know why you think it's not worthy of pro attention.

That is in no way a put-down I hasten to add. I ask partly for an external reason. To put the cart before the horse, it seems there are some very different models of radar out there, even among pros.

I watched a Michael Redmond video on a Dosaku this morning (No. 2, versus Kikugawa Yuseki). As always I hugely enjoyed it, and was inspired by it to look again at Go Seigen's commentary. Since Michael bills himself as a pupil of Go Seigen, I was expecting a huge overlap. In fact the differences were incredible. Moves that Michael said were good, Go said were bad. Moves that Michael said were fascinating were totally ignored by Go. Moves that Michael was sniffy about got the thumbs up from Go. And that was just the opening! The move 33 that Michael raved about, and which he said Kobayashi Koichi regarded as a life-changing move for his own career, did not get a squeak out of Go. Ditto for White 15, though in that case AlphaGo/Master did not exist in Go's time so he may not have seen any special need to mention it.

I turned then to Sakai Takeshi's respected commentaries and found a somewhat similar situation - a different radar - though it has to be said that he was much closer to Michael, and did mention 33 as an astonishing move - but that's literally all he said about it. (He also omitted comment on move 15 but did comment on a similar move in a game played a short while later.)

Even bot radars are iffy. How often have many of us here noted that they don't even look at a certain move, but when we input it, the bot says it was OK.

I'm derailing my own thread a bit, but I'll take this opportunity to mention a comment by Michael on White 39 in the Dosaku game (and which Go totally ignores). Michael spoke about it in terms of Dosaku liking that point (the 9-3 point on the side), and the way it became formative in creating the small Chinese fuseki, which some people think should be properly called the Dosaku fuseki. But his comments rang two bells for me. One was that a liking for a strange place on the side reminded me of what I have called a Go Seigen group. The other was that it brought to mind a poem by Dosaku that I didn't properly understand. In that poem (one of 17 go poems he wrote), he tells us not to forget there are back kakaris (????; gyakukakari) and true kakaris. He then adds that you must exert your power into the centre.

There's a huge amount of interest packed into that 31-syllable poem. One is that Dosaku talks about the centre. As Michael explained, Dosaku was the first to emphasise the centre (the poem can be said to confirm that, of course), but he was so far ahead of his time his lesson (like the 9-3 move) was ignored for a very long time afterwards. I never really knew what a back kakari was, and still don't for sure, but I suspect now it may be the 9-3 kind of move as exemplified by this game. Another point of interest is the word I translated (somewhat tentatively) as power - 生勢. That's a very unusual word, and has all the hallmarks of being made up by him. At not much of a stretch, we can maybe add the discovery of thickness to his achievements - if he had to invent a word for it, it was clearly not yet a standard concept. In another of his poems he gives advice not to go to close to a 大地, which from the context there (if you do it you will be chased for a long tome and that is the low road to defeat) seems not to mean a big territory (at least as we know it) but an area dominated by the opponent. If so, they hadn't quite isolated the strand of what we now call thickness, or atsumi - a term which in any case is conspicuous by its absence in early texts. Another Dosaku discovery ignored for aeons?

Other already acknowledged achievements of Dosaku are being the first proponent of overconcentration, tewari and amashi (though Go Seigen tips his hat to Huang Longshi as a co-discoverer for amashi). One other achievement we may be able to add to Dosaku's roster, I think, having just listened to Michael's commentary, in which he made much of Dosaku's novel treatment of disposable stones, is sacrifice play. In yet another of Dosaku's poems, he refers to abandoning stones slightly once you realise they are no longer important. It seems to me that Dosaku wouldn't have written that poem if he thought it was already a common-or-garden concept.

It's a shame we only have 155 games by Dosaku. He was clearly the AlphaGo of his time.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, gowan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #7 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:24 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 290
Liked others: 32
Was liked: 46
Rank: OGS ddk
KGS: Ferran
IGS: Ferran
OGS: Ferran
mhlepore wrote:
Moyos and O - of course I was expecting the other O (Meien).


Well... since there was an "à la" and an "O" I was expecting a more... French approach to the Histoire.

My mind's weird, I guess.

Anyhow, what's "katte-yomi"? Getting bits and pieces from here and there I might have come upon "pearl counting", but... er... I really wouldn't trust what passed as a translation.

Take care.

_________________
玄 之 玄

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #8 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:28 am 
Judan

Posts: 6487
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 387
Was liked: 3565
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
katte-yomi is wishful reading, i.e not looking for opponent's strongest replies but dreamily going down a happy path where you get what you want.


This post by Uberdude was liked by: Ferran
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #9 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 289
Liked others: 59
Was liked: 93
KGS: lepore
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
In the second example, however, I almost want to ask if B is misplaced? It seems like it would never be on a pro's radar.


It's not misplaced, and since O talks about, it's not just on his radar but it was in his in-tray, and since Leela gives good marks to it, it would be interesting to know why you think it's not worthy of pro attention.

...


The embarrassing answer is that I thought it was black to move, not white. But I still enjoyed the rest of your thoughtful response.

And while I'm misunderstanding people, what's with Uberdude and the garden store?


This post by mhlepore was liked by: Ferran
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #10 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:40 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 648
Liked others: 281
Was liked: 323
I;m not a native English speaker and I don't know what "putting a wick in your candle" means.

But I believe that 芯を入れる, "shin wo ireru", literally translates to "inserting the core", and again I'm not sure whether that's Go jargon or part of normal speech.

Here it means "reinforcing the framework by playing at its base". As far as I understand it, O Rissei says that it's not good to just expand, expand, expand your moyo if the opponent can then hollow it out. He proposes a rhythm of "expand", then "reinforce", then "expand" again.

You can see another example on the Go terminology site.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #11 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:51 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9943
Liked others: 3219
Was liked: 3254
Ferran wrote:
mhlepore wrote:
Moyos and O - of course I was expecting the other O (Meien).


Well... since there was an "à la" and an "O" I was expecting a more... French approach to the Histoire.


Histoire D'O. A classic, if not exactly about go. ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Banana Republic. It's not just a store anymore.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: Ferran
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #12 Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:07 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1445
Liked others: 403
Was liked: 407
Rank: 5d
GD Posts: 1000
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
In the second example, however, I almost want to ask if B is misplaced? It seems like it would never be on a pro's radar.


It's not misplaced, and since O talks about, it's not just on his radar but it was in his in-tray, and since Leela gives good marks to it, it would be interesting to know why you think it's not worthy of pro attention.

That is in no way a put-down I hasten to add. I ask partly for an external reason. To put the cart before the horse, it seems there are some very different models of radar out there, even among pros.

I watched a Michael Redmond video on a Dosaku this morning (No. 2, versus Kikugawa Yuseki). As always I hugely enjoyed it, and was inspired by it to look again at Go Seigen's commentary. Since Michael bills himself as a pupil of Go Seigen, I was expecting a huge overlap. In fact the differences were incredible. Moves that Michael said were good, Go said were bad. Moves that Michael said were fascinating were totally ignored by Go. Moves that Michael was sniffy about got the thumbs up from Go. And that was just the opening! The move 33 that Michael raved about, and which he said Kobayashi Koichi regarded as a life-changing move for his own career, did not get a squeak out of Go. Ditto for White 15, though in that case AlphaGo/Master did not exist in Go's time so he may not have seen any special need to mention it.

I turned then to Sakai Takeshi's respected commentaries and found a somewhat similar situation - a different radar - though it has to be said that he was much closer to Michael, and did mention 33 as an astonishing move - but that's literally all he said about it. (He also omitted comment on move 15 but did comment on a similar move in a game played a short while later.)

Even bot radars are iffy. How often have many of us here noted that they don't even look at a certain move, but when we input it, the bot says it was OK.

I'm derailing my own thread a bit, but I'll take this opportunity to mention a comment by Michael on White 39 in the Dosaku game (and which Go totally ignores). Michael spoke about it in terms of Dosaku liking that point (the 9-3 point on the side), and the way it became formative in creating the small Chinese fuseki, which some people think should be properly called the Dosaku fuseki. But his comments rang two bells for me. One was that a liking for a strange place on the side reminded me of what I have called a Go Seigen group. The other was that it brought to mind a poem by Dosaku that I didn't properly understand. In that poem (one of 17 go poems he wrote), he tells us not to forget there are back kakaris (????; gyakukakari) and true kakaris. He then adds that you must exert your power into the centre.

There's a huge amount of interest packed into that 31-syllable poem. One is that Dosaku talks about the centre. As Michael explained, Dosaku was the first to emphasise the centre (the poem can be said to confirm that, of course), but he was so far ahead of his time his lesson (like the 9-3 move) was ignored for a very long time afterwards. I never really knew what a back kakari was, and still don't for sure, but I suspect now it may be the 9-3 kind of move as exemplified by this game. Another point of interest is the word I translated (somewhat tentatively) as power - 生勢. That's a very unusual word, and has all the hallmarks of being made up by him. At not much of a stretch, we can maybe add the discovery of thickness to his achievements - if he had to invent a word for it, it was clearly not yet a standard concept. In another of his poems he gives advice not to go to close to a 大地, which from the context there (if you do it you will be chased for a long tome and that is the low road to defeat) seems not to mean a big territory (at least as we know it) but an area dominated by the opponent. If so, they hadn't quite isolated the strand of what we now call thickness, or atsumi - a term which in any case is conspicuous by its absence in early texts. Another Dosaku discovery ignored for aeons?

Other already acknowledged achievements of Dosaku are being the first proponent of overconcentration, tewari and amashi (though Go Seigen tips his hat to Huang Longshi as a co-discoverer for amashi). One other achievement we may be able to add to Dosaku's roster, I think, having just listened to Michael's commentary, in which he made much of Dosaku's novel treatment of disposable stones, is sacrifice play. In yet another of Dosaku's poems, he refers to abandoning stones slightly once you realise they are no longer important. It seems to me that Dosaku wouldn't have written that poem if he thought it was already a common-or-garden concept.

It's a shame we only have 155 games by Dosaku. He was clearly the AlphaGo of his time.


Interesting to see the reappraisal of Dosaku. Not so long ago Japanese pros frequently said that Dosaku was one of the greatest players but younger pros and amateurs disparaged Dosaku as being old style.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #13 Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:50 am 
Oza

Posts: 2574
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3698
Quote:
I;m not a native English speaker and I don't know what "putting a wick in your candle" means.

But I believe that 芯を入れる, "shin wo ireru", literally translates to "inserting the core", and again I'm not sure whether that's Go jargon or part of normal speech.


芯, as you can see from the grass radical, originally designated a plant. It was a kind of rush related to the rushes used for tatami mats, but specifically used for the wicks in oil lamps. As such it acquired the alternative name in both Chinese and Japanese of lamp-wick grass (燈芯草 toushingusa in Japanese). From there it developed to refer to the core or pith of various other things, obviously including the wick of a candle (cf. Japanese 蝋燭の芯を切る rousoku no shin wo kiru - to snuff a candle.). Modern Japanese often just uses 心 instead of 芯 but note that it is read shin in that case and not kokoro.

A candle without a wick is of course something rather useless. I'm old enough to remember using candles at home, and problems with missing wicks were one of life's many burdens.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Marcel Grünauer
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Using moyos à la O
Post #14 Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:03 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 735
Liked others: 219
Was liked: 115
Rank: German 2 dan
(I think the confusion with B in the second example comes from that it is not clear that the triangle-marked stone is the actual chosen move, and B would have been an alternative. The diagram might be misinterpreted that black is asked to add another move here.)

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group