Is Japanese or Western literature more brilliant?

[RobertJasiek]

The problem is generally in your presentation of the facts and the advertisement on the forum.

I think now I get it:)

[RobertJasiek]

Actual professional mathematicians have their work peer-reviewed, despite being the most mathematically experienced people on the planet. Even the greatest among them make mistakes.

Professional mathameticians have the luxury of paid time and the need to be 100% correct. I have the luxury of being able to bear the zero or one mistakes pointed out after publication (and even the luxury of - from a strict mathematical POV - slightly imprecise definitions in Capturing Races 1). Can you find the first factual mistake in my ko paper? I have asked a couple of times now but there appears to be none (other than the historical detail that it is more than a rumour that also triple ko stones were invented by Matti Siivola).

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

[RobertJasiek]

I can't work out why you would want to avoid it anyway.

Economic necessity. About 4 months for writing a book is the upper limit. Peer review can delay for another 2 or 3 months (or more) because there are only very few experts with sufficient background knowledge and time. It makes much more sense to publish a book and, if necessary, correct a next edition [if creating a correction is economically feasible].

If you have a deep interest in Go theory, I'd think discussing it with strong players and other theorists would be something you'd go out of your way to do,

Therefore I am discussing intensely and openly in the internet since 1995. I also discuss with strong players when I expect their willingness to available time, which is a rare case. Discussion with theorists is much more frequent. Also see my earlier replies.

not avoid, especially if you've come up with some awesome theories of your own.

You are invited to [purchase and] comment! [Many ask for free copies to comment, but I cannot give it for free to everybody.]

why not approach some people who's views might be more useful to you?

There are so few of them with ability to judge, time etc.! The internet is the by far greatest pool of opinions.

[RobertJasiek]

the belief that "I went to university and therefore don't need my work to be peer-reviewed" is an utter jaw dropper for me.

You are invited to find and blame me for my factual mistakes! (But you will have great difficulties to find any;) )
Let me repeat: I do not have the luxury of an employed mathematician who is "paid for waiting during peer-reviews".

There is another motivation: If I applied a professional mathematician's care for pre-publication reviews, then I would end up producing only half the number of go books per time. I prefer to inform the go players with as much knowledge as I can. The price is infrequent mistakes, but one does not get high frequency for free.

[oren]

Economic necessity. About 4 months for writing a book is the upper limit. Peer review can delay for another 2 or 3 months (or more) because there are only very few experts with sufficient background knowledge and time. It makes much more sense to publish a book and, if necessary, correct a next edition [if creating a correction is economically feasible].

I would suggest publishing your book and sending out 4-5 copies to strong players (preferably professional strength) to review and critique. You don't need to wait and incorporate anything they say, but the feedback could be very useful for you.

[Javaness2]

Professional mathameticians have the luxury of paid time and the need to be 100% correct. I have the luxury of being able to bear the zero or one mistakes pointed out after publication (and even the luxury of - from a strict mathematical POV - slightly imprecise definitions in Capturing Races 1). Can you find the first factual mistake in my ko paper? I have asked a couple of times now but there appears to be none (other than the historical detail that it is more than a rumour that also triple ko stones were invented by Matti Siivola).

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

Just looked over the paper, isn't ko a mass noun?

[Magicwand]

Professional mathameticians have the luxury of paid time and the need to be 100% correct. I have the luxury of being able to bear the zero or one mistakes pointed out after publication (and even the luxury of - from a strict mathematical POV - slightly imprecise definitions in Capturing Races 1). Can you find the first factual mistake in my ko paper? I have asked a couple of times now but there appears to be none (other than the historical detail that it is more than a rumour that also triple ko stones were invented by Matti Siivola).

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

Just looked over the paper, isn't ko a mass noun?

Just looked over the paper
your definition is harder than any math class i took.
and you try to sell that to people?

Name one person who think they learned something and got stronger by reading this.
if you can do that i will not comment on your ad no more.
if you can not.. i rest my case.

[Magicwand]

i just noticed that you dont even understand the rules of go.

under current japanese rule:
in the case of triple ko where one side having one eye and other side having no eye, it is an automatic win for side that have one eye.

did you know that??

[topazg]

Oh boy, this is going to explode. Magicwand, I implore you, don't open up a discussion on the fine details of rulesets!!

Just kick my ass instead

[Kirby]

I'm still hung up on your first post in this thread, Robert:

Yes, that seems to be a common problem.

Let's stop the personal attacks already.

I don't feel it's much of a personal attack since he started the thread. Is not insulting the works of professional players a personal attack? I personally think he likes the attention.

[Kirby]

It is hard for me (and for many others) to accept someone's different view as objectively true if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons.

Yes, but in addition, it seems to be also hard for you to accept someone's different view as objectively true even if it is sufficiently supported by reasons.

Also, it seems to be hard for you to accept your own view as false even if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons. This seems to be because you are not sufficiently able to be make the distinction between facts and you own opinions.

The result, which can be observed all over all the go discussion forums in the last decades, is thread derailment. It is not a coincidence that a much larger percentage of threads in which you participate tend to derail. Your style of discussion, due to the inability to see other peoples point of view, is the cause.

Now I do not think you do this on purpose (i.e. you are not deliberately trolling or such things), but it is rather hard to change the way your mind works. So I think the lesson to learn here, for most of us, is: Let it go. Ignore the outrageous claims that Robert makes. It is not productive to engage in discussion, you will just derail the thread. Ignore, provide alternative information to the other posters in the thread where appropriate, move on.

Hmm, I guess I should have read this post, first. I think it's pretty wise advice.

I think Herman is my new hero.

[Bartleby]

Japanese books have cooler covers.

http://www.7netshopping.jp/books/detail ... d_detail_5

[hyperpape]

My modest proposal was also motivated by the fact that for all the discussion, I do not know what your opinion on many questions is, Robert. For instance, do his theories:

1) allow him to evaluate potential novel joseki from recent professional games?
2) correct accepted josekis as unequal?

Or are they solely pedagogical?

The answers to these questions have probably appeared somewhere, but they are drowned under the massive back and forth exchanges (and this is what I mean by this interminable discussion ultimately being bad for you, Robert. I am a potential audience).

[Mef]

My modest proposal was also motivated by the fact that for all the discussion, I do not know what your opinion on many questions is, Robert. For instance, do his theories:

1) allow him to evaluate potential novel joseki from recent professional games?
2) correct accepted josekis as unequal?

Or are they solely pedagogical?

The answers to these questions have probably appeared somewhere, but they are drowned under the massive back and forth exchanges (and this is what I mean by this interminable discussion ultimately being bad for you, Robert. I am a potential audience).

Interesting idea, I would propose the following for #3 -- Predict a novel sequence or position that might, in the future, gain professional acceptance as joseki.

[hyperpape]

That's an interesting question. Of course, it's less likely to be true, since to devise a new sequence one must also have read enough to avoid any refutations. But perhaps there are some sequences that are simple enough to qualify.