Honte - a primer

[oren]

Would we get 10 different answers?

I would guess at least 11.

[Bill Spight]

Let me boil down my main point.

There are honte that receive comment because they are very good plays. There are also honte that receive comment because they are not so good plays. It is therefore plausible that there are also honte that lie in between these two groups, that receive no comment.

[hyperpape]

How should we perceive 'honte' in light of the nugget "When your position has no weakness, it means you are playing inefficiently" from Wang Yang as quoted by Benjamin Teuber in SL?

To relate to that, I think that we can say that a honte not only shores up weakness, it's also a good move.

Interesting question. But of John's initial examples, many have weaknesses remaining. The two partial board examples are incomplete, and 3 is so early that I suspect that it's not what Wang Yang meant.

As I see it, game 7 and 8 both leave Black with no weakness once the honte is played. In 8, I don't know the game, but White may be preparing to invade the center, and doesn't want to leave weaknesses that will hobble him in the fighting that is coming.

In game 7, it seems interesting that Go didn't play honte, and I wonder if it was because the move seemed too safe, and therefore slack.

My theory: honte is typically a move that shores up one weakness, but it's rare that you'll want to leave no weaknesses. The key is keeping the global balance of strength and weaknesses reasonable, so that you can't be bullied and can fight acceptably. Consider the proverb to the effect that two weak groups will not both survive.

[John Fairbairn]

Thanks to those who offered comments. Now I see which way the wind is blowing. It's ironic that I quoted an old song in another thread - murie sing cuccu - only to find the presence of the cuckoo in the nest is welcomed, or even preferred.

I'm OK with accepting that majority view, just as I have been OK with tolerating the usual distortions here, e.g. I think I used the phrase "admittedly imperfect translation" which by some mysterious process leads to a discussion of my "prescriptive" views and "definition". (And I'm sure I'm as guilty as the next man of falling into such traps.)

I'm also OK with odd comments from RJ - indeed I have enjoyed and praised some.

But the red line for me is putting in a lot of work and then having to wade through RJ's repetitive rants and derailments which add nothing new, and of course the replies they generate, just to get a meagre dollop of the genuine discussion that was meant to be my "reward". This is especially infuriating as quite a few of the comments here were just what I'd hoped for, even when I disagreed.

It's ignoble of me, but it got up my nose that someone even praised RJ's "discipline" in opening up new threads to avoid derailment. I hope I'm wrong, and if I am I'll happily apologise, but I don't think it's self discipline. It seems to be discipline imposed by an admin. My understanding is that some sort of restrictions were imposed on him, which may have been lifted by now.

Quoting RJ himself from rec.games.go on 1 Jan 2013, these were along the lines of a permanent L19 ban up to the end of 2012 being lifted and then limiting him to "at most three replies per thread" - one to speak his piece, one to clarify and one to reply to "someone particularly obtuse". There was also something on SL about this from tapir. Ironically that incident seemed to relate to "proper moves" too. Is it a coincidence that his first new thread here appeared just after I mentioned that he had made 11 posts? In other words, is a new thread just a way to defy the admin's intent? I may have all this wrong and/or be out of date and so it would be good to have RJ's own account, or the admin's, of any restrictions. Whilst I was in no way involved in these alleged restrictions, I confess to being influenced by them in my willingness, now shown to be naive, to post substantive pieces.

In any case, splintering off a new thread is essentially just doubling the derailment nuisance as far as I'm concerned. To be specific, in the three relevant threads, 178 post have been made and RJ made 45 of them (I made 10 but I did start the main thread after all). If you assume at least one post by others in response to each of his posts (it's usually more), we are close to him and his own concerns dominating or influencing maybe two thirds or even three quarters of the thread, even without taking into account the usually lengthy nature of his replies.

As I say, if others enjoy that, fine. I don't. So it makes sense for me not to cause myself grief by starting discussions that lead to that sort of scenario. I'll now limit myself again, like most others, to odd interventions and announcements.

[Boidhre]

Perhaps a discussion forum, or newsgroup, is the wrong setting for what you want John? One thing we used hammer home on a forum I used to be involved in was "You don't own the threads you start, you can't control where they go from your first post." Maybe, contact some people with contrasting views to your own who you'd enjoy the debate with, have the debate in a closed off setting and share it with others? I'd find it interesting to read anyway.

[Kirby]

Perhaps a discussion forum, or newsgroup, is the wrong setting for what you want John? One thing we used hammer home on a forum I used to be involved in was "You don't own the threads you start, you can't control where they go from your first post." Maybe, contact some people with contrasting views to your own who you'd enjoy the debate with, have the debate in a closed off setting and share it with others? I'd find it interesting to read anyway.

This is a good point. Maybe making a blog would be a good option, too. This way, the author is the author. If you really wanted a section for comments, you could do that, but it'd be less likely to spiral into debate.

[Knotwilg]

I tried to offer a constructive summary, without comments from John Fairbairn. I assume it was worthy of less attention than the alleged derailment. I don't get this kind of self fulfilling prophecy. There's enough proof of explicit gratitude for the content posted. If the community is meant to suffer as some kind of punishment for not having scolded Robert Jasiek, then let it be so. We've been coping with him for a long time. I would think we're capable by now of getting the best out of his minority opinion.

[Bill Spight]

Perhaps a discussion forum, or newsgroup, is the wrong setting for what you want John? One thing we used hammer home on a forum I used to be involved in was "You don't own the threads you start, you can't control where they go from your first post."

The Participate conferencing software, authored by Harry Stevens, was (is?) a kind of super-forum in which the person who starts a topic is its moderator, with administrator powers over it. You could make it read only, so that only you could write to it. You could even make it write only, so that only you could read it. Often someone would create twin topics, one read only, where he or she could write what they wanted to without distraction, and a topic for free discussion. I used Participate in the 1980s, when it was part of The Source online service, and eventually became the Lead Helper for it there. Harry was (is?) an old-line Democrat who believed in power to the people, and Participate reflects that attitude.

Last I knew (in the 90s) it was being used by large companies and organizations.

[hyperpape]

Perhaps a discussion forum, or newsgroup, is the wrong setting for what you want John? One thing we used hammer home on a forum I used to be involved in was "You don't own the threads you start, you can't control where they go from your first post." Maybe, contact some people with contrasting views to your own who you'd enjoy the debate with, have the debate in a closed off setting and share it with others? I'd find it interesting to read anyway.

I don't think it's an ownership thing: I think that most of us recognize that threads are being dominated by Robert's line by line refutations.

In the past, I recall that John found some relatively abstract topics I thought worth discussing uninteresting, and he said so rather directly, but he didn't tell me that I had to get out of his thread.

I don't think a blog (hey, was there something on GoGoD ), is such a bad idea, but why blame John for being annoyed by a problem that so many of us have complained about in the past?

[Boidhre]

Perhaps a discussion forum, or newsgroup, is the wrong setting for what you want John? One thing we used hammer home on a forum I used to be involved in was "You don't own the threads you start, you can't control where they go from your first post." Maybe, contact some people with contrasting views to your own who you'd enjoy the debate with, have the debate in a closed off setting and share it with others? I'd find it interesting to read anyway.

I don't think it's an ownership thing: I think that most of us recognize that threads are being dominated by Robert's line by line refutations.

In the past, I recall that John found some relatively abstract topics I thought worth discussing uninteresting, and he said so rather directly, but he didn't tell me that I had to get out of his thread.

I don't think a blog (hey, was there something on GoGoD ), is such a bad idea, but why blame John for being annoyed by a problem that so many of us have complained about in the past?

I don't blame John, I've just seen this being played out many, many times before and the best resolution generally was to control who could get involved. Having the discussion in a different setting is something he can control. He cannot control whether certain people join his threads here.

[Boidhre]

Perhaps a discussion forum, or newsgroup, is the wrong setting for what you want John? One thing we used hammer home on a forum I used to be involved in was "You don't own the threads you start, you can't control where they go from your first post."

The Participate conferencing software, authored by Harry Stevens, was (is?) a kind of super-forum in which the person who starts a topic is its moderator, with administrator powers over it. You could make it read only, so that only you could write to it. You could even make it write only, so that only you could read it. Often someone would create twin topics, one read only, where he or she could write what they wanted to without distraction, and a topic for free discussion. I used Participate in the 1980s, when it was part of The Source online service, and eventually became the Lead Helper for it there. Harry was (is?) an old-line Democrat who believed in power to the people, and Participate reflects that attitude.

Last I knew (in the 90s) it was being used by large companies and organizations.

Using vBulletin forum software what we used do was create a forum that was read-only for users by default, gave read/write privileges to the debaters that had been selected, and then created a sister forum that was open access (similar to the software you mention) where anyone could discuss the points brought up in the other forum.

[Bantari]

At the risk of derailing the thread even more, let me say that I fully agree with John here.
And the solution, to me, is not really a dedicated forum functionality to block users or make threads read-only or whatever - its the self-discipline and general culture of the participants not to let the threads devolve into free-for-all but remain more-or-less focused.

But what if the self-discipline is lacking? Everybody gets caught up in the moment, everybody occasionally misses the right point to resign (i.e. stop yapping.) I know, it happens to me perhaps more than to others, especially when I get involved in something I feel strongly about. In my case, usually somebody would say 'cool off' or something like that, and it is sufficient for me to take a step back, reevaluate, and stop making a donkey of myself. Most of the time. I have seen this working for some others too, when they are running too fast and too far with their polemics or their tempers.

What else can be done? If there is really no self-discipline apparent by a person, it might be up to the other participants to simply ignore his posts, no matter how much the finger is itching to write a reply. This is one thing I did to some very pesky people back in the days - and it worked very well, overall. Its like training session: if this is how you behave, I am not talking to you until you change your tone, period. Can do wonders, especially if its not only a personal action but by the community (or the rest of thread participants.) Its one way of clearly showing that some things are not acceptable, without necessarily excluding or blocking a person - his views are still heard, but he does not get engaged because this leads to trouble.

I am not sure what the particular issue with RJ is. I find his contribution overall very valuable, but at times (often lately?) he can be like a little bulldog, latching on to a topic with fierce determination to prove himself right and everybody wrong, and he does not seem to be willing to make any compromise or give even an inch. He will argue line by line, word by word, trying to show how everybody who is not him is wrong... maybe its the age. I know I get more grumpy and stubborn as I grow old...

Still, I have not seen anybody say to him 'cool off, dude', not even once (which does not mean it did not happen, I just have not seen it.) Maybe this is the way, if it would work?

I have tried a different technique lately with RJ - to just cherry-pick one or two main points he is making, and hopefully guide the conversation so that he does not keep beating the dead horse over and over but at least there is some progress. Not sure how much success that was... but it was better than just word-by-word slap-fest. My next step was to be not answering, but it did not come to that, which was a success, I think.

So Robert - if you read this, what is it that can be done? I hope you realize that your particular flavor of jumping on every little detail you disagree on, and never giving an inch, basically arguing until the threads expire - its not cool. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say, but as I said before, the delivery sucks big time. You basically beating a dead horse, like you are unable to let the other gut have the last word for fear that this somehow makes you the loser in this discussion.

I remember there were times, back on rgg in mid 90s or so, when I had a similar style of arguing. A good friend told me what I am saying now: Just make a point, you don't need to argue with every sentence. Say what it is that you want to say, people will read it. There is no need to always have the last word. It took a lot of soul searching, I am still struggling a little, but at least I realize that I am obnoxious when I am obnoxious - and I usually try very hard to avoid it. Sometimes I fail.

One technique I had for a while was to try to say what I need to say in one paragraph, 5 sentences or less - instead of arguing each point word by word. So I quote one block of text (instead of each sentence separately) and write one block of text as my answer - and this forces me to reallt try to *understand* what the core of the argument is, and answer only that, rather than getting sidetracked by each little thing. Obviously I long since abandoned this method, and was never really successful, but the process gave me a lot to think about, and I think made me a better poster. Which only shows I was really badly messed up back then, heh.

In any case - as I said - I agree with John here.
But I would also like RJ to continue contributing.
There must be a way for us, as a community, to self-regulate in some way without John withdrawing or RJ getting banned or restricted by admins. I guess this is what I would like to happen, somehow... I like John's posts very much, and RJ is interesting too...

Not sure what else to say.
Sorry for the long post.
I mean every word.

[Cassandra]

Hane has also written a book on honte: 本手の打ち方が分かる本 (The Book to Understand How to Play Honte), available at http://www.amazon.co.jp/本手の打ち方が分かる本-マイコミ囲碁ブックス-羽根-直樹/dp/4839925461 .

For those, who are better in Japanese than mine, some introductory text of Hane's above mentioned book:

本手とは何か
「本手」という言葉はよくききますが,実際,どういうのが本手ななか,はっきりしないところがあるのではないですか.
「本手」をしっかり理解することで,碁の考え方,一手の価値判断の仕方が分かり,質が飛躍的に向上します.
では,本手とはなんでしょうか.
「自分は厚しくて,なおかつ次の狙いがある手」と,僕は定義しています.自分は守っておいて,相手が守らなければ厳しく行くよ,ということです.ただ厚いだけだと,ぬるいだけの一手ということなります.
僕の実利やアマチュアの方の碁を題材に具体例をお話ししましょう.

As far as I understand the text in bold, Hane defines HONTE as a move that makes yourself thick, and at the same time has a further aim.

[PaperTiger]

Nobody has mentioned it in this thread, but I like "honest". I see it's been mini-debated on the Sensei's page for honte and that it wasn't popular, but it works for me to capture the sense of seemingly slack but proper. It's also a good mnemonic because the words look similar.

[tapir]

The difference between (exceptional) honte as used in professional comments / presented by John Fairbairn and (common) honte as advocated by Bill Spight resembles the eternal question "what is the meaning of a word?". "Exceptional honte" is in line with "the use of a word is its meaning" while the "common honte" school presupposes another meaning that is always "meant", but in which it is never actually used, because it is so common. Intriguing question. (The RJ position is "the meaning of the word is defined in my book on page 24".)

What probably matters to this discussion is, how Go is taught to Japanese beginners / intermediate players. Do professional teachers use "honte" when commenting the games of their kyu level pupils? Some posts alluded to a "honte in stages", i.e. some moves called honte, that wouldn't produce such a comment in a professional games. How common is this? E.g.

$$B Why not ''a''? (From a recent game I reviewed)
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 3 4 . . .
$$ | . . . . 1 2 . . .
$$ | . . X 7 O a . . .
$$ | . . . . 6 . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Why not ''a''? (From a recent game I reviewed)
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 3 4 . . .
$$ | . . . . 1 2 . . .
$$ | . . X 7 O a . . .
$$ | . . . . 6 . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Would a Japanese say the sequence is not joseki or would he point out that 'a' would have been honte? (I tried the latter, but needed a lot of words to say so.)

Personally, when I ended up writing / commenting in English (which happens regularly on the Go Teaching Ladder, that by the way urgently needs mid-high dan reviewers to review my games) I try to review with as little terminology as possible, but I guess a few "proper moves" occurred. I very much like the stylized "the safe and sound move" for honte, if only I would be able to recognize and play them (and not the slack moves that look similar to me).

I'm also OK with odd comments from RJ - indeed I have enjoyed and praised some.

But the red line for me is putting in a lot of work and then having to wade through RJ's repetitive rants and derailments which add nothing new, and of course the replies they generate, just to get a meagre dollop of the genuine discussion that was meant to be my "reward". This is especially infuriating as quite a few of the comments here were just what I'd hoped for, even when I disagreed.

I can feel the pain. This thread was a painful read even without taking the time to prepare the initial post. It is also odd, that we end up educating people how to handle derailments/rants instead of having an honest word with the habitual derailers/ranters. However, what happened after your post #43 in this thread was no surprise to anyone, who ever had a discussion with Robert Jasiek.

Furthermore (as an answer to some of the recent postings), I doubt there is a technical fix. Sure, you can close the discussion to invitees only, but you lose a lot of what makes people want to discuss in an open forum in the first place, the surprising insight from a third party, the openness of discussion, where you don't have to make decisions among those worthy and not worthy of contribution ... and of course the mere suggestion of a closed discussion is like telling John Fairbairn, Lifein19x19 isn't the place, where he can have the discussion, he would like to have.