Life and Death Problems 1 - Review

[RobertJasiek]

Lake, nakade etc.: will answer in a different thread:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9335

Check list for a reviewer: I do not expect a typical review of some book (not just this particular book) to answer all the questions in detail. However, I want to encourage reviewers of any go books to consider such questions more than before.

[PeterHB]

Robert, I notice a lot of awkward grammar choices in your sentences. Rather than back that up with evidence, I would like to just state that as an unsupported assertion. I am insufficiently qualified to argue the nuances of the reasons for different choices of language. I am neither a writer, nor a linguist, but merely a native speaker of British English. I just have an internal sense of what sounds correct in my mother tongue. A subjective opinion rather than an objective truth.

In my unsupported opinion, there are three Go book writers whose grammar choices rise a level above the pack: John Fairbairn, John Power and James Davies. If all three happen to settle on a particular phrasing, I think it is a safe assumption that they are right. So before introducing new terms, it would be worth double-checking against their work to see if they have already selected a word or phrase for that concept.

This new use of lake is just another example. I may be reacting to an unfamiliar new usage, but I don't think so.

[Boidhre]

Boidhre, it is a good idea for reviews to discuss the books' methodology, concept, didactics etc. I wish that many reviews would discuss such in detail. When you ask for such a review on a specific book, you are, I am afraid, too optimistic about reviewers. They might, but often do not describe:

- Is the conveyed go theory good, useful, relevant, sufficient for the book's scope and correct?
- Are there any examples suffering from the author's missing or wrong understanding of go theory relevant for them?
- What, for the book's topic, is missing in it? What in the book does not belong to its topic? If the topic allows the author some choice about what to include, is the actual choice good or representative?
- Is the methodology of the contents good and appropriate, or does it contain errors or severe gaps?
- Are the didactics good and appropriate for the chosen style and intended readership of the book?
- How do these aspects compare to other books?
Etc. (What else might you mean?)

Well, the idea is that the reviewer is giving their view on a work not a complete and total view or one that you necessarily agree with. Each reviewer has their own "list." This is how it kinda works, I read certain people's reviews of some things (outside of go) because they cover aspects I care about and don't spend too much time on the bits that don't bother me, etc. Extreme detail in a (non-academic) review is problematic as readers often won't wade through it. One that covers a few key points about the book is far more likely to be read by people.

[RobertJasiek]

rule of thumbs (better than Kageyama's :P).

Of course, better than Kageyama's extension of the popular proverb "1. reduce, 2. occupy the vital point". As a general advice, this is WRONG, because it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. The inverse order can sometimes be correct.

Why, o why, is this proverb so extraordinarily popular? I sometimes get the impression that almost nobody studies LD theory carefully.

***

PeterHB, there is no point in avoiding more efficient language with a few new terms and phrases using them. E.g., thankfully Davies introduced 'snapback' to the English terminology. New terms must be used, when the prior terms are inefficient. See also the other thread on such terms.

BTW, I am surprised that nobody so far has mentioned 'approach block', 'external / internal liberty shortage'. IMO, no such English terms have existed so far, I am inventing them, because their techniques deserve names. (And speaking English is better than hard-to-remember Japanese 'oi-otoshi'.)

[SoDesuNe]

BTW, I am surprised that nobody so far has mentioned 'approach block', 'external / internal liberty shortage'. IMO, no such English terms have existed so far, I am inventing them, because their techniques deserve names. (And speaking English is better than hard-to-remember Japanese 'oi-otoshi'.)

Well, I guess there is - again - the theoretical approach and the practical.
For me this sounds like the difference between the japanese nobi, tsukiatari, narabi, sagari, hiki and de. My take is the avarage player does not care and he still plays these moves frequently and correctly. Knowing the difference between the terms does not make you stronger or make you play better Go, knowing terms in general does not make you stronger, I would assume.
If you like to explain a technique in detail then there is always the question if you can do that without drifting into the realm of too many technical terms. For "oi-otoshi", I simply say: White or Black cannot connect (thus save) his stones with one move because connecting does not increase his liberties. Or something along this line. No technical terms except "connecting" and "liberties" which are basic terms in everyday Go use and also easily understood in non-Go English.

Do not overegg the pudding : )

[John Fairbairn]

thankfully Davies introduced 'snapback' to the English terminology.

Where is your source for this? Snapback as a go term is even in Kenkyusha, at least since 1974. And futokoro is in the Go Almanac. Both books in English.

For oi-otoshi 'connect-and-die' seems well established among English speakers.

[RobertJasiek]

SoDesuNe, without knowing such terms or having seen related examples, players do not think about the good moves related to the techniques. E.g., IIRC, I learnt about approach blocks and internal liberty shortages only as a 3 dan. As a kyu player, I had no idea of their existence, because the English literature had no names for them and problem books for kyus did not show (enough) related examples.

This is a severe contrast to the importance of these techniques. A noteworthy percentage of problems involves variations with them. IOW, they are basic techniques, which are better learnt early rather than late.

John, during the ICOB 2001, IIRC Charles Matthews gave a speech about the history of English go terms, and he mentioned that Davies was the one to invent 'snapback'. I cannot verify this, but this is where I got the information from.

EDIT: connect-and-die I saw today for the first time on Sensei's. Maybe it is well established in the UK?:)

[Bonobo]

Re: oi-otoshi

First, I didn’t find “oi-otoshi” was hard to remember—quite the contrary: after reading it for the first time, I never forgot it.

Then, aside from the onomatopoetic and funny “bata-bata” that sometimes seems to be used colloquially, why not simply call it “Connect and lose even more”? Five words that say it all, that’s how I explain it to my Go kids, and nobody has ever needed more explanation.

Greetz, Tom

[RobertJasiek]

"Connect and lose even more" or "series of ataris" are descriptive, but are not easily recognised as terms, because these phrases can occur also with other meanings (such as using a series of ataris as forcing moves before doing something else). "liberty shortage" is more specific and encourages the idea of the fate self-atari / cannot-escape-from-atari or suicide.

[Boidhre]

We just say "connect and die". It's not precise but no one seems to be confused by it.

[RobertJasiek]

I found the sentence "reduces by connecting" very odd English. An intransitive usage made no sense, and the assumption that it's transitive with ellipsis for the object is defied by the context shown.

I have become curious how often this verb is used (in)transitively in the book. So here are the statistics of occurrences of the verb 'reduce' in the book:

* 14 occurrences of transitive use. ("reduces the eyespace")
* 10 occurrences of directional use, the object is unambiguously given in the same sentence or the described diagram(s). ("reduce from the outside")
* 6 occurrences of intransitive use, the object is unambiguously given in the same sentence or the described diagram(s). ("Black reduces and creates a nakade.")
* 0 other intransitive use.

[Charles Matthews]

John, during the ICOB 2001, IIRC Charles Matthews gave a speech about the history of English go terms, and he mentioned that Davies was the one to invent 'snapback'. I cannot verify this, but this is where I got the information from.

Robert, you do not recall correctly. "Snapback", IIRC, is a term from financial markets. I don't know who first applied it to go.

[tchan001]

John, during the ICOB 2001, IIRC Charles Matthews gave a speech about the history of English go terms, and he mentioned that Davies was the one to invent 'snapback'. I cannot verify this, but this is where I got the information from.

Robert, you do not recall correctly. "Snapback", IIRC, is a term from financial markets. I don't know who first applied it to go.

Charles, you do not recall correctly. I can't find "Snapback" on any of the online financial dictionaries I have looked up so far. Even this financial glossary which is billed as the biggest on the internet with over 8,000 entries. Nor is it defined as a financial terms on Wikipedia.

[HermanHiddema]

Merriam webster gives (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snapback)

1: a football snap
2: a sudden rebound or recovery <a snapback of prices on the stock exchange>

[tchan001]

Thanks HH, but that is using a financial situation to explain the term "snapback" rather than showing "snapback" as being a financial term in and of itself.