This is Haengma - Kim Sung Rae

[RobertJasiek]

Sure. I just don't get it why (so far) 67% of the poll voters issue an "excellent".

[entropi]

the broader a concept is defined, the useless it becomes.

Utter nonsense.

A concept with a very broad meaning requires a very broad definition to fully grasp all the concept's meaning. Such a very board concept and definition then also requires a very exhaustive breaking-down to its very great varieties of applications. Otherwise not the concept in its entirety is explained but only a specialized part of its meaning.

You argue as if the General Theory of Relativity would be useless while only the Specialized Theory of Relativity would be useful or as if the general definition of ko would be useless while only basic ko would be useful.

Why does one define a concept at all? The final goal of the game is clear, i.e. making more points than the opponent. But an instruction like "make more points" is too vague and practically useless.

Then what you do is defining narrower concepts that help you develop your game step by step. An example is "good shape". You may find it still too vague, but it is a step forward.

Your broad definition of haengma (local to global relation and development of all stones) is also a step forward but I find it too vague.

What Kim Sung Rae does is interpreting the concept of haengma in a narrower sense so that it becomes more useful for beginners. He defines it as developments towards the center and gives clear examples of how to do it efficiently.

Some other professionals may want to include side extensions as well. OK! Going even further, some other utmost crazy pros may want to include even L&D situations (after all the life of a group affects the development of all stones both in local and in global sense). OK! But otoh, some others may also prefer to concentrate on something more specific like Kim Sung Rae does.
I honestly don't understand your problem with it.

[Tommie]

Kim Sung Rae writes so concise and clear that I will probably buy every of his books (in English).

The titles with dogmas/principles/heuristics + their accompanying explanations are excellent (e.g. p. 110-113) IMO.

Tommie, I fully agree that the definitions in the book are clear, concise and supported by the description and figures

Translation is difficult (...) I have needed a decade to find mine and it describes haengma as something pretty abstract and flexible. ...

That was an insider-joke referring to dull books (see picture):

ERROR: "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached."
Yes, his book would pass all tests.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert, from your first entry (#28) in this thread, it isn't even clear to me whether you have read the book.
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 748#p46748

[RobertJasiek]

The problem is that he teaches you only a part and that you are satisfied with being taught only a part and improving only a bit. One should not - one should prefer being taught all parts so that one can improve a lot.

My definition is vague because it includes all parts. A general definition must be broken down to apply it to its parts. For each part, there can then be a definition that is relatively much more specific.

Forgoing the most general definition is an attempt to hide parts from you. Rejecting such a definition is your opposition to become yet stronger. It is like learning life and death while overlooking multiple threats on several local problems.

[Tommie]

(... hundreds of words ...)
although I have not read the book yet, it seems to me that those liking the book should have chosen "good" rather than "excellent" to describe the book's quality.

THIS QUOTE is exemplifying the meaninglessness of a contribution
in a thread where the reader was requested to evaluate a book.

Not having read the book, YET STILL advising others how they should have evaluated .... ttssss , tss

[RobertJasiek]

Tommie, if "excellent" becomes the standard for something that can be improved significantly (and, as the thread has shown, the book's contents can), then later better books on any (or the same) topic cannot (by the same standard) be assessed as better because "excellent" is the best possible quality. One does not need to have read the book to come to this basic insight.

(If the top voting rating were called "very good" instead of "excellent", I might have lower reservations.)

[Magicwand]

Tommie, if "excellent" becomes the standard for something that can be improved significantly (and, as the thread has shown, the book's contents can), then later better books on any (or the same) topic cannot (by the same standard) be assessed as better because "excellent" is the best possible quality. One does not need to have read the book to come to this basic insight.

(If the top voting rating were called "very good" instead of "excellent", I might have lower reservations.)

according to your argument one can not place the statement "excellent" on anything.

i have a feeling that you know that your argument dont make any sense because you are resonably smart person.
dont try too hard to make sense of non-sense it will only make you look foolish.

[topazg]

Tommie, if "excellent" becomes the standard for something that can be improved significantly (and, as the thread has shown, the book's contents can), then later better books on any (or the same) topic cannot (by the same standard) be assessed as better because "excellent" is the best possible quality. One does not need to have read the book to come to this basic insight.

(If the top voting rating were called "very good" instead of "excellent", I might have lower reservations.)

So you would say "excellent" is a synonym of "completely perfect"?

If someone feels the book was genuinely excellent, they are entitled to feel that way and vote accordingly. Something that gives an incredibly hard topic a very good overview may have a number of flaws but still be excellent with regards to the task undertaken. Remember, a vote of "excellent" is a personal and subjective opinion by the voter. It isn't "wrong" just because you don't like it.

[RobertJasiek]

A go book is excellent if both

- its impact on the suitable reader's strength or knowledge improvement and
- the quality and completeness of contents in relation to its number of pages

are excellent. (If one of them is excellent and the other is very good, then, if you like, you can round up.)

E.g., Lessons in the Fundamentals is excellent concerning the first aspect but poor concerning the second aspect.

Looking at only one of the two aspects does not do a go book sufficient justice.

[John Fairbairn]

Once again we see a non-native speaker of English telling us native speakers we don't know our own language.

Consider a couple of sentences:

"This car is in excellent condition. Only $500 for quick sale."

"I've just had an excellent meal, even though I don't like sprouts."

"Bill & Ted's excellent adventure."

The first two are hardly likely to refer to the best car on the road or a three-star (or three flogged horses) Michelin meal, and it's anybody's guess what excellent in the third one really means.

It is a characteristic of language that many evaluative words are actually fuzzy. What's the difference between, many, a largeish share, considerable, significant, not inconsiderable, a good deal?

What's the difference between excellent, fine, wonderful, spot on, great, fantastic, marvellous, pretty good, pretty-pretty good, smashing?

Long live fuzziness. Do we want to live in a world where you go to a concert and have to clap 6 times, 10 times or 20 times to show differening degrees of approval?

[topazg]

Long live fuzziness. Do we want to live in a world where you go to a concert and have to clap 6 times, 10 times or 20 times to show differening degrees of approval?

This made me laugh out loud John, many thanks

[gaius]

Do we want to live in a world where you go to a concert and have to clap 6 times, 10 times or 20 times to show differening degrees of approval?

Yes, yes, yes, I want to live in that world! It can be very efficient. Also, for extra approval, you have to make a little dance while clapping.

Conversations can be much simplified: "Good day Mr. Jones, how are you today?" - "why Mr. Eddington, with this beautiful weather I'm feeling round about 8.3/10 today, two and a half thanks for asking". Romance will also be easy: "Oh sweetheart! My love for you ranks over 9000!"

Only one question remains: what to do when you want to show six and a half claps of approval?

[RobertJasiek]

Excellent used in advertisement to let something appear better than it is may be grammatically correct but is semantically abusing by misleading intentionally.

Citations from two authoritative British sources:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _gb0278700

"extremely good; outstanding"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... /excellent

"extremely good"

So the word in its basic meaning has the same meaning as the German word.

[topazg]

So, I could read a book, think "Wow, what a complicated concept, this book isn't perfect but I felt it was an extremely good book at covering this issue" - why am I not allowed to vote my opinion of it as "excellent"?

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[HermanHiddema]

Instead of all these simple confusing terms, lets be much more clear!

Rate books as:

• This book exceeded my expectation in every way imaginable. If you buy only one go book in your life, make sure it is this one.
• This book was incredible, certainly one of the top 10 books ever to have been published in the English language.
• This is a great book, I learned very much from it and would heartily recommend anyone to buy it.
• This book covers its subject satisfactorily. Although there are better books, this can still be a fine addition to your collection.
• This book is very poor. I would not recommend anyone buy it, I consider it a waste of money.