It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:43 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: 批驳日本的棋史谎言:“取消座子增加了围棋的变化,使围棋得到极大的发展。”
Post #1 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:01 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 117
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 22
文章的最新版本在:
LAST VERSION:https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/344776623

批驳日本的棋史谎言:“取消座子增加了围棋的变化,使围棋得到极大的发展。”

一、首先批驳所谓“取消座子增加了围棋的变化”。

日本去掉座子,并不是改良围棋。日本算砂取消座子,以及将基本眼位算作目,有400多年的时间。日本人不断地在说:中国是围棋的生母,日本是围棋的养母。其实,以现今的棋制,确实是如此。日本人还说:取消座子带来了围棋的巨大进步,增加了围棋的变化。许多中国人不假思索,信以为真,实际上以算砂与道策等人为围棋祖宗,这应该吗?事实果真如此吗?

取消座子,从技术上说,产生了许多“XX流”的开局套路,貌似增加了围棋的变化,但其实只是增加了开局套路,开局套路实质上不过是反复咀嚼他人的饭菜罢了。开局套路手数增加,导致的结果是中盘手数变少,反而是减弱了中盘的变化。

而座子围棋预置的座子,让黑白在一开始就处于“分”的状态,“基本眼位非目(还棋头)”的自然法则,又导致必须努力使自己的棋子“合”,使对方的棋子“分”,因而产生激烈的中盘战斗。围棋变化的关键在于中盘。围棋的魅力,也在于中盘。关于中盘的精彩程度这一点,我们观看中国顶尖的范施黄古谱,就会有很强的感性认识。而所谓的日本围棋“六超”对局,就是4角的定式摆摆,然后基本上是没有什么中盘战斗的,只是装模作样打几下就收官了,这也叫做增加围棋的变化?

再让我们看看网友“小马过河”的评论:“所谓‘现代’围棋无非就是说开局那两步有点变化,可这点变化的复杂性,与整盘棋的复杂性相比,又能提高多少呢?古棋鼓励战斗,中腹重要性提高,其中又增加了多少复杂性?喜欢哪一个,可能是一个见仁见智的问题。何况现在倒是不座子了,十盘棋有九盘棋都是一顺边的布局。”

关于规则:“基本眼位非目”的实质并不是规则,因为这所谓的2目“基本眼位”,是棋块赖以生存所必须的,不能填掉,而在对局与判断胜负阶段,我们不能使用两种不同的判断方法。算砂不能真正理解中国文化,将基本眼位算作目,是改错了。那么切断对方,从官子角度就起码能获利2目,但也增加了对杀的风险,可能被反杀,考虑的地方多了,自然增加了围棋的复杂程度。

关于古棋不贴目的问题:因为古棋是大奖赛,有很多官僚与商人会压彩,以及给胜者奖金。所以,施行的是棋品、棋份制,根据不同的棋品等级,让子或让先、水平一样的敌手就分先下2盘,这样才能有赌彩的悬念。请不要看不起古代的棋份与赌彩制度,这与现代的费厄泼赖制下的大奖赛是完全不同的两个模式。

关于中盘:中盘是否精彩,当然与人有关,比如李世石的僵尸流就是一例。但围棋规则是基础,只有古代座子围棋的棋制,才能真正发挥顶尖棋手的智商与创造力。

现在已经有支持古棋规则的AI(KataGo)了,座子围棋群的有志同仁正在不断研究座子围棋文化,并用AI来验证古今高手的棋力,希望大家进一步关注。



二、接着批驳“取消座子增加了围棋的变化,使围棋得到极大的发展。”

取消座子,是否真的使围棋得到极大的发展?

取消座子的日本算砂,出生于1559年,相当于明代嘉靖三十八年。

而发明“手割”理论的日本道策,大致与清代棋圣黄龙士同时代。

如果取消座子,使围棋得到极大的发展。按这个逻辑,从明代到清代,中国并没有取消座子,那么,围棋的发展肯定会受到很大的阻滞。

事实果真如此吗?

明末林符卿、过百龄,清初周嘉锡、汪汉年,周东侯,棋圣黄龙士,徐星友等人,棋艺水平不断发展提高。棋书棋著,灿若繁星,皓如星海。

范西屏的《桃花泉弈谱》自序里讲的好:“国初弈乐园诸公,冥心孤诣,直造单微。于先后之中生先后,虚实之中生虚实,向背之中生向背,各就英分所极,自成一家。堂堂正正,怪怪奇奇,突过前人,可谓盛矣。至三十年来国手,则又不然。较大小于毫厘,决存亡于渺冥。交易变易,时时存一片灵机;隔二隔三,处处用通盘打算。”

可见,有座子的围棋,并没有阻滞围棋技术的发展。

江山辈有人出,直到康乾时期出现范西屏、施襄夏那样的棋圣,然后周小松成为余波。

清末民初的棋手实力下降,更多的是政治腐败、经济凋敝所致。那个时候,什么都不行,也不能责怪棋手吧。更不能将这种末世景象,诿过于座子围棋棋制本身。

所谓“取消座子,使围棋得到极大的发展”,这句话的实际意义只在于:

取消座子,使“日式”围棋得到发展。这才是准确的意思。

你可以看出,日本人将“日式”围棋与“围棋”本身等同起来了。

我们批驳这些伪论,是为了让人们认识到,座子围棋在明清繁荣时期,一直得到了极大的发展!

所谓“取消座子,使围棋得到极大的发展。”的谎言,是日本人强推祖上荣光的行为。



最后,推荐一首唐诗给大家,必有感触。



河湟有感

作者:司空图

一自萧关起战尘,河湟隔断异乡春。

汉儿尽作胡儿语,却向城头骂汉人。

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Fri Nov 04, 2022 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: 批驳日本的棋史谎言:“取消座子增加了围棋的变化,使围棋得到极大的发展。”
Post #2 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:34 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
For the benefit of others, our Shanghai friend is making the argument that the Japanese claim that go was made more interesting by the abolition of the starting stones must be challenged.

It is more a statement of faith than of specified facts, with a touch of nationalism creeping in. But since I myself have been pushing the claims of old Chinese go since MSO days, I can't say that I disagree with him.

But I think the author needs to be more aware of the Japanese views on the matter. They are far from ignorant about the virtues of old Chinese go, and have written books about it, glowing with admiration. Apart from Go Seigen, of course, I would mention Watanabe Hideo, Watanabe Yoshimichi, Yasunaga Hajime and, going back a little, Prof. Ogawa Takauji, whose son Kaizuka Shigeki followed in his go footsteps (his other son, Yukawa Hideki, won Japan's first Nobel Prize, so they were hardly nonentity nerds). And since pgwq ends his piece with a Tang poem, let me mention the likes of Akiyama Kenji (a famous go reporter) who delve repeatedly into Chinese culture via go poems.

I would even add a couple of arguments that pqwq omits. One (which I have mentioned several times in recent posts) is that China has bequeathed us a mass of books and commented games, so we can see the development of go theory in detail for ourselves. That alone makes the old Chinese scene much more interesting in many respects than the old Japanese scene, which is bereft of such materials.

The other point I would make is that the four starting stones were absent in handicap games, so we can see how the old Chinese masters coped with open-corner josekis (hard to say for amateurs like me, because group tax still applied, but there is no questioning the skill of the players overall (if we accept the host of favourable comments by modern pros).

Historically, there were some nastily nationalistic reasons why China accepted the Japanese version of go, but it's also true that some Chinese had the same cargo-cult fascination with the Japanese version that we see today among AI fans. They wrote newspaper articles about it, so we can see for ourselves that they came to their not entirely under the yoke of Japanese imperialism.

Ultimately, I'm not sure where this debate can go. It's fascinating if you are a fan of visiting the "Museum of Go", like me, but for modern go, I don't see how you can put the genie back in the bottle.

(It might be worth adding that this seems to be a cross-posting from another (?Chinese) forum).


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, gowan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: 批驳日本的棋史谎言:“取消座子增加了围棋的变化,使围棋得到极大的发展。”
Post #3 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:36 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 117
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 22
John Fairbairn wrote:
以下中文由机器翻译(稍作修改):

For the benefit of others, our Shanghai friend is making the argument that the Japanese claim that go was made more interesting by the abolition of the starting stones must be challenged.
为了其他人的利益,我们的上海朋友提出了这样一个论点:日本人认为围棋因为取消了座子而变得更有趣,这一说法必须受到挑战。

It is more a statement of faith than of specified facts, with a touch of nationalism creeping in. But since I myself have been pushing the claims of old Chinese go since MSO days, I can't
say that I disagree with him.
与其说是具体的事实,不如说是对信仰的陈述,带有一丝民族主义的气息。但由于我自己从MSO时代起就一直在推动中国古代围棋的主张,我不能说我不同意他的观点。


But I think the author needs to be more aware of the Japanese views on the matter. They are far from ignorant about the virtues of old Chinese go, and have written books about it, glowing
with admiration. Apart from Go Seigen, of course, I would mention Watanabe Hideo, Watanabe Yoshimichi, Yasunaga Hajime and, going back a little, Prof. Ogawa Takauji, whose son Kaizuka
Shigeki followed in his go footsteps (his other son, Yukawa Hideki, won Japan's first Nobel Prize, so they were hardly nonentity nerds).
但我认为作者需要更多地了解日本人对此事的看法。他们对中国古代围棋的美德绝非一无所知,他们写了许多关于围棋的书,赞不绝口。当然,除了吴清源之外,我还会提到渡边英雄、渡边吉一、山谷由纪夫
(Yasunaga Hajime)以及小川高二教授,他的儿子Kaizuka Shigeki追随他的围棋脚步(他的另一个儿子Yukawa Hideki获得了日本的第一个诺贝尔奖,所以他们很难算是无足轻重的书呆子)。

And since pgwq ends his piece with a Tang poem, let me mention the likes of Akiyama Kenji (a famous go reporter) who delve repeatedly into Chinese culture via go poems.
既然pgwq以一首唐诗结束了他的作品,让我提到像秋山健二(著名围棋记者)这样通过围棋诗反复钻研中国文化的人。


I would even add a couple of arguments that pqwq omits. One (which I have mentioned several times in recent posts) is that China has bequeathed us a mass of books and commented games, so
we can see the development of go theory in detail for ourselves. That alone makes the old Chinese scene much more interesting in many respects than the old Japanese scene, which is bereft
of such materials.
我甚至会添加一些pqwq忽略的参数。一个(我在最近的帖子中多次提到)是中国给我们留下了大量的书籍和对局评论,所以我们可以自己详细地看到围棋理论的发展。仅凭这一点,中国的老场景在许多方面就比日本
的老场景有趣得多,因为日本的老场景缺少这样的素材。

The other point I would make is that the four starting stones were absent in handicap games, so we can see how the old Chinese masters coped with open-corner josekis (hard to say for
amateurs like me, because group tax still applied, but there is no questioning the skill of the players overall (if we accept the host of favourable comments by modern pros).
我想说的另一点是,在让子比赛中,四枚座子是不存在的,所以我们可以看到古代中国大师如何应对空角的定式(对我这样的业余选手来说很难说,因为团体税仍然适用,但是没有人质疑棋手的整体技术(如果我们
接受了现代职业棋手的好评)。

Historically, there were some nastily nationalistic reasons why China accepted the Japanese version of go, but it's also true that some Chinese had the same cargo-cult fascination with the
Japanese version that we see today among AI fans. They wrote newspaper articles about it, so we can see for ourselves that they came to their not entirely under the yoke of Japanese
imperialism.
从历史上看,中国接受日式围棋有一些令人厌恶的民族主义原因,但也确实有一些中国人对日式围棋有着与我们今天在AI粉丝中看到的相同的货物崇拜。他们在报纸上写了文章,所以我们可以亲眼看到,他们并非完
全是在日本帝国主义的枷锁下走到自己的道路上来的。

注解:货物崇拜(英文:Cargo Cults,又译货物运动)是一种宗教形式,尤其出现于一些与世隔绝的落后土著之中。当货物崇拜者看见外来的先进科技物品,便会将之当作神祇般崇拜。

Ultimately, I'm not sure where this debate can go. It's fascinating if you are a fan of visiting the "Museum of Go", like me, but for modern go, I don't see how you can put the genie back
in the bottle.
归根结底,我不确定这场辩论能走向何方。如果你像我一样喜欢参观“围棋博物馆”,那就很有趣了,但是对于现代围棋,我不明白你怎么能把精灵放回瓶子里。

(It might be worth adding that this seems to be a cross-posting from another (?Chinese) forum).
(值得补充的是,这似乎是另一个中文?论坛的帖子)。


In China's mainstream Weiqi world, they also don't support it.
It's very difficult, but the point is to do it.

So, we are very grateful to the author of KataGo for providing the AI of group tax.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 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