(Concerning 1) "Defend important weak groups" and 2) "Urgent moves before big moves.")



It is not the same. Rather: the two are very different.

(1) applies also if there are no "big moves" (in the sense of oba). "Urgent moves" can be also moves that do not defend weak groups (have too little life potential), e.g. defending an important aji or greatly stabilising shape of a group's end. (2) suggests a relative order while (1) is an imperative supposed to be always applicable (if looking at the principle's text alone).

That I agree with. I think it doesn't merit "stupid" but I do prefer the directness of defending important weak groups. That sort of difference is what I meant by wording.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

The stupid thing is to call a "big move" big instead of calculating its relatively small size by miai counting. Urgent and big moves are sometines comparable by miai counting, but the "principle" fails to give this advice. I needed 17 years to figure that out, which is an indication of the very great degree of stupidity of "Urgent before big".

Those teaching that principle explained neither evaluation of "urgent" nor of "big", so effectively they kept people dull.

I wonder why then professionals usually play in the corner first and then at the side before they advance into the center. Could you please outline why you would consider such an advice "stupid"?

I don't think it makes sense to criticize beginner advice on the grounds that it doesn't include miai counting.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Fashion.



1) Early stones near the corner have little impact on the middle game.

2) The principle is too static; it fails to consider cases when the center is the most important or when a side is more than the corners. Even worse, for such cases, the principle gives the wrong advice. It is better not to use a misleading principle.

1) The principle has not been advertised as being only overly simplifying beginner advice.

2) Beginners do not need to understand miai counting.

3) A principle using "urgent move" and "big move" must explain clearly the meaning of these terms; this is not done. Furthermore, the principle does not enable one to compare degrees of urgency with sizes of big; instead the principle suggests that any urgent move would be better than any big move.

4) Even beginners should not be taught things that they have to unlearn later. Instead of principles to be learnt as beginners and then forgotten as intermediate players, they should be taught permanent principles.