Honte - a primer

[John Fairbairn]

My definition has been: "A _proper move_ postpones the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape."

I have seen your definition before, Robert, and while it is a good attempt it fails on several counts.

One, a rather subjective point admittedly, is that 'proper' has just too many rather different meanings and nuances, none of sit well with go. Its use stems from Kenkyusha, which has several other peculiar terms for go.

The bigger problem is that your definition would fit too many other types of play, e.g. boundary plays. Worst of all, it would fit slack moves. Since the crux of a honte is that it seems slack but is not, that is surely a bit of a killer.

I repeat, the definitive work on honte has not yet been written.

For some others: I don't recall ever seeing a phrase in Japanese that conveys anything like having a honte style. This sounds like something developed in the west and doesn't make much sense to me. A honte is a relatively rare event in a game, which is why it is given a comment whenever it occurs. It would be just as daft to say "I have a tesuji style".

[RobertJasiek]

'proper' has just too many rather different meanings and nuances, none of sit well with go.

In English go terminology, the phrase "proper move" is used in the same function as "honte" used in English go terminology. Therefore, there are not too many rather different meanings and nuances. Too many rather different meanings and nuances can occur when "proper" is used as a non-go-term word (in go texts); this is not what I suggest. I suggest to continue using the full phrase "proper move" (or its grammatical derivates, such as "the move is proper") or "honte" by those preferring more Japanese words in English go terminology.

Its use stems from Kenkyusha,

I do not care, because, for English go terms use, I care for what has been English go terms use.

The bigger problem is that your definition would fit too many other types of play,

My definition is not broken down to axioms yet, so you are right that there are still other types of plays, and maybe too many of them. OTOH, since your description is significantly more ambiguous, this kind of problem is bigger for yours.

My definition relies on definitions of aji and "thick shape":

"_Aji_ lies in the latent, bad possibilities in a player's imperfect shape that the opponent might exploit to his advantage at a suitable moment." [10]
"A move creates _thick shape_ if it leaves behind little or no aji. The opponent cannot capture, cut or play painful forcing moves against it." [8] (A couple of the more fundamental terms are also defined.)

e.g. boundary plays.

My definition of proper move applies only to such boundary plays that "postpone the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape.". For this kind of boundary plays, it is right that my definition applies. It is also right that my definition does not apply to other kinds of boundary plays. So what is the problem?!

Worst of all, it would fit slack moves.

My definition of proper move would apply only to such slack moves that "postpone the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape.". IOW, you want to call moves 'slack' that a) postpone the necessity for yet another local move until much later, b) eliminate aji and c) create thick shape. Let us study your suggestion. (a) is not a slack aspect of a move at all; therefore, you are wrong calling moves given by my definition 'slack'. (b) can be slack if aji is eliminated prematurely; however, (b) is not applied alone, but (b) is applied together with (a) and (c). (c) speaks of CREATING thick shape, which is not a slack aspect of a move at all; therefore again, you are wrong calling moves given by my definition 'slack'.

In summary, my definition does not fit slack moves.

You need to read my definition more carefully, if you want to find part of the remaining gaps towards an axiomatic definition.

[quantumf]

There's some cavalier use of the word "slack" here as though it's a widely understood word. I would venture that it might be as badly understood or defined as "honte". John, Robert (or anyone else), can you define this word? Preferably in a way that does not refer to "honte" at all

[RobertJasiek]

"Slack" is not worth defining as a go term, but here is at least a rough description: for every slack move, there is a tactically better alternative.

[Bantari]

"Slack" is not worth defining as a go term

Why not?
I would say there might be at least some value in defining a move which is 'not slack'. This, by definition, might get us pretty close to what 'slack' move is. Or not.

but here is at least a rough description: for every slack move, there is a tactically better alternative.

I surprised by that description and find it suspect.
I think some slack moves have nothing to do with tactical solutions but are purely strategic in nature.

[quantumf]

What these explanations lack for me is a sense of when the locally excellent move (the "honte" move?) should be played. Yes, I understand that there is a lot of power in creating a really strong group with few weak points, and that that power can pay off over the long run, but even so, surely a "honte" move can also be "slack" if it is played at the wrong time, or to strengthen a group or area that is actually rather small and insignificant in terms of the whole board. In this sense I agree with Bantari that "honte" and "slack" should have some kind of strategic or whole board aspect to them.

[HermanHiddema]

I do not care, because, for English go terms use, I care for what has been English go terms use.

No, you care for what has been your own use.

[daal]

'proper' has just too many rather different meanings and nuances, none of sit well with go.

In English go terminology, the phrase "proper move" is used in the same function as "honte" used in English go terminology. Therefore, there are not too many rather different meanings and nuances. Too many rather different meanings and nuances can occur when "proper" is used as a non-go-term word (in go texts); this is not what I suggest. I suggest to continue using the full phrase "proper move" (or its grammatical derivates, such as "the move is proper") or "honte" by those preferring more Japanese words in English go terminology.

Despite defining a phrase such as "proper move" as a go term, the word "proper" exists independently in the minds of any English speaking person. I am not sure, but I suspect that even when clearly defined as a go term, most people are not capable of eliminating from their minds other known meanings of the word, such as in this case: "correct according to social or moral rules" or "respectable." Is is not a legitimate concern that such nuances could influence the reader's interpretation of a go text?

[John Fairbairn]

What I'm sensing here in some posts is a desperate wish to turn a honte into a magic pill. Some people thing they can bottle them and sell them under a patented trade mark "Proper Moves". Some people seem to think that if an apple a day keeps the doctor away, then eating 100 apples a day must be 100 times better.

I think it's better to view a honte as a birthday. Every day you get up, have breakfast, go to the office or the shops, etc etc. But on one day a year you do all that but have a piece of cake with candles stuck in it, and maybe open a present or two. When you reach a certain age you will probably also use that day to reflect on where you're life is going, or even what life is all about. Then the very next day you get on with climbing out of bed, eating your Cheerios, going to the office, etc etc.

A honte is as rare as a birthday. It occurs only once or twice in a game usually. Of course there are other moves that can fit the all-encompassing "proper move" description, but you play them for other reasons - it's the joseki, I can't see anything better, I'm ahead anyway, and so on. But a well-played game goes in a series of flows which come to branching points - decision time, in other words. We need guidance or motivation as to which branch to take. In some cases it is purely a matter of style: take territory, invade and cause a fight, or whatever. In some cases an all-or-nothing move (shoubute) is called for, because you are behind. You make your choice - have your party, then get on with the rest of the game/day as usual. You may, of course, forget your birthday and miss the party altogether - in game terms you will have misread the flow of the game.

In other words, there is a small treasury of words and phrases that go players and commentators use to comment on these few but significant crux points, or on missing them. That is all that is special about them. The commentators are not telling you turn every day into a birthday, or to take a magic pill. They are simply saying: this is an important strategic point in your game/life. It's a good time to reflect on your play/life.

In the specific case of a picking out a honte for comment, I think what the commentator is saying is something like (assuming a case of a player missing a honte): "X misread the flow of the game and got carried away by a lust to attack. He got his come-uppance later. What he ought to have done was to batten down the hatches and play a move that first covered his own weaknesses. You can learn from this. Learn to read the flow. Learn to be patient. Learn to see aji where others see none. If you can do this it will improve your game, even though you may only be called on to do it once or twice in a game, because it is of high strategic importance."

When a commentator says a move is an all-or-nothing move, and so is really saying "player X has carefully counted the game and knows he is behind and cannot win by normal moves - he must try desperate measures or even a swindle", I don't think anyone ever fails to understand that. (Of course, we may not put our understanding to use because we are too lazy to count, but that's a separate issue.)

So why is it so hard to apply the same attitude to honte? Just see it as commentator rhetoric, friendly advice to take a moment to reflect - not as a magic pill or (shudder) an axiom.

[Kirby]

I can see that commentary that a move is honte may be rare. But in itself, this doesn't imply that honte is rare. Is there a pro that's said this, or perhaps an article that indicates this? How do we know this to be true?

[RobertJasiek]

for English go terms use, I care for what has been English go terms use.

No, you care for what has been your own use.

I do not overlook my own use when I care for what has been English go terms use.

Is is not a legitimate concern that such nuances could influence the reader's interpretation of a go text?

Many (go or non-go) terms are expressed by words otherwise used with other meanings. So what? E.g., 'board', 'stone', 'player', 'play', 'move'. Do you also consider "legitimate concerns" for terms using these words?;)

patented trade mark "Proper Moves".

The phrase is not invented by a single person, but common use among many players. Specific definitions for the phrase are suggested by single persons. The purpose of a definition is not patenting it, but is spreading it.

there is a small treasury of words and phrases that go players and commentators use to comment on these few but significant crux points, or on missing them. [...] this is an important strategic point in your game [...]

E.g., they can be called "decisive moments of making major decisions / strategic choices". It is possible that, at such a moment, a proper move might be played. It is also possible that a proper move is played at other moments. Furthermore, it is possible that, at a decisive moment, no proper move is played.

So why is it so hard to apply the same attitude to honte?

Is it?

[HermanHiddema]

for English go terms use, I care for what has been English go terms use.

No, you care for what has been your own use.

I do not overlook my own use when I care for what has been English go terms use.

No you do not overlook it indeed. Quite the contrary, it is in fact the only use you generally consider.

[SmoothOper]

A honte is as rare as a birthday. It occurs only once or twice in a game usually. Of course there are other moves that can fit the all-encompassing "proper move" description, but you play them for other reasons - it's the joseki, I can't see anything better, I'm ahead anyway, and so on. But a well-played game goes in a series of flows which come to branching points - decision time, in other words. We need guidance or motivation as to which branch to take. In some cases it is purely a matter of style: take territory, invade and cause a fight, or whatever. In some cases an all-or-nothing move (shoubute) is called for, because you are behind. You make your choice - have your party, then get on with the rest of the game/day as usual. You may, of course, forget your birthday and miss the party altogether - in game terms you will have misread the flow of the game.

I don't have a problem with people celebrating birthdays, but dans who seem to believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and ghosts, are what I call honte style.

[daal]

Is is not a legitimate concern that such nuances could influence the reader's interpretation of a go text?

Many (go or non-go) terms are expressed by words otherwise used with other meanings. So what? E.g., 'board', 'stone', 'player', 'play', 'move'. Do you also consider "legitimate concerns" for terms using these words?;)

I don't have a problem with the words "black" and "white," if that's what you mean. Unlike "proper," the words you mentioned are already strongly associated with board games and the extraneous nuances are unlikely to lead one astray. Other words, such as "attack" or "punishment" can be more challenging. As a translator, I am always interested in expressing the original idea as well as possible. Nuances and connotations play an important role in how a word is understood, and it is unwise to ignore them.

[RobertJasiek]

it is in fact the only use you generally consider.

Wrong. Apparently, you confuse other terms invented and defined by me with "proper move = honte", which is NOT invented, but approximately defined by me. "Proper move" and "honte" both have been used in English go terminology for decades, while my definition is of 2011. Therefore, I do not overlook the use of "proper move" and "honte" excluding my own use of it before and since 2011. Hence, my own use is not the only use I consider. Similar things can be said about my observation of use of other terms, so that generally the opposite of what you suggest above is correct.

Furthermore, I have also observed unfortunate use of "proper move" and "honte" by kyu players (ca. 3 kyu or weaker) not having a good understanding of the concept yet. (In recent years, with online information being available, this problem may have decreased.) Again, this is another use that is not my own use and that, contrary to your suggestion, I consider.

Instead of making an unjustified, wrong claim about my considerations, it would be much more interesting if you could discuss suggested definitions. E.g., can you show us a proper move called so by a dan player that violates conditions of the definitions? Would you call that move "proper move" or "honte"? Why do you think that a particular definition is (not) useful for improving strategic understanding? Let's have discussion instead of meta-discussion!