What are the fundamentals?

bayu · Post by **bayu** » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:28 pm

My fundamentals tell me:

Bend if you can. Comes right after: if you can set up a tombstone tesuji, do it and smile

Setting up a leaning attack, playing on the left, in order to attack the central black group, is also part of my fundamentals. But I have no good idea how to execute that plan. If I attempted it, it'd probably backfire.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm60 White to play (Black has captured 2 stones) $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . O . . X . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O X O . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O X X X X | $$ | . . X , . O . . . , . . . X O O X X . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . O . X X O X X X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O O O O O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:16 pm

Bill Spight wrote:I think that maybe this position from a no komi game is relevant to fundamentals. At least for a few moves.

$$Wcm60 White to play (Black has captured 2 stones)
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O . . X . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O X O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O X X X X |
$$ | . . X , . O . . . , . . . X O O X X . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . O . X X O X X X X . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm60 White to play (Black has captured 2 stones) $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . O . . X . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O X O . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O X X X X | $$ | . . X , . O . . . , . . . X O O X X . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . O . X X O X X X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O O O O O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What do you think are the next three moves?

This game was played between Honinbo Dosaku (W) and Yasui Chitetsu in 1668.

Dosaku's play (hidden for courtesy):

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:31 pm

What was Dosaku's plan if black answered the attachment with nobi out? I did briefly consider the attach but thought it could be overplay. If I knew Black would hane under it's much easier to play. As Black my plan would be something like:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm60 White to play (Black has captured 2 stones) $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 8 . O . . . . O . . X . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 3 7 5 . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 9 1 . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . 0 X 2 . . . . . . . . X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O X O . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O X X X X | $$ | . . X , . O . . . , . . . X O O X X . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . O . X X O X X X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O O O O O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I don't mind getting split so much if I can get b17 slide. Maybe white attaches (c15) there instead of 66, or f9? b2 does mean the lower group has to be careful though so white could have some sente moves against it which means the splitting group isn't so weak.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:07 am

I found uberdude's comment that he rejected the chosen move as an overplay interesting.

I don't think I would have played anything like Dosaku, but I thought I would try to apply Sonoda's theory to this position. His theory treats the fundamentals as a way of thinking rather than discrete bits of knowledge. He has nine main criteria. One applicable here is to look at areas where there are groups that are not alive. The Black looks-thick-but-isn't group in the lower right would be classed by him as not alive.

But he wouldn't attack that directly because by his definition an attack is not an attack unless it makes profit behind the attacking stones. That doesn't seem possible here. He has a proverb for dealing with such groups: "Don't chase pretty ladies". You may get brief satisfaction but nothing lasting. Instead you attack these from a distance.

Applying some of his other criteria (one on width is applicable here) we can see that the focus for the next move should be the left side. That's stage 1.

Stage 2 is to count the stones in that part of the board. This is just a rough-and-ready way of telling who's got the advantage in that area. We can see that White has the advantage in the left half (that's why the comment about an overplay bleeped in my head).

Stage 3 is to choose a move based on the foregoing. If you are ahead in the half-board count you play vigorously.

There are several sub-criteria for choosing specific moves, and applicable here is the advice to use contact plays as a way of playing strongly, advice not to invade a three-space gap but to cause overconcentration on its sides (contact plays also good for that), and - longer term here - advice to aim for ijime bullying rather than attack when you can cut the opponent's sector lines. I think this applies in this case in the second variation shown by uberdude, when the Black group in the lower left seems ripe for ijime to me.

It seems to me therefore that Dosaku and Sonoda were in synch. They have both apparently applied a simple (fundamental) reasoning approach with little or no reading. In the case of this game we can possibly infer Dosaku didn't read too deeply because it was one of two games he played with Chitetsu on that day and the moves after 130 are not known, which usually means they didn't remember them well enough to record them.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:15 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Stage 2 is to count the stones in that part of the board. This is just a rough-and-ready way of telling who's got the advantage in that area. We can see that White has the advantage in the left half (that's why the comment about an overplay bleeped in my head).
<snip>
- longer term here - advice to aim for ijime bullying rather than attack when you can cut the opponent's sector lines. I think this applies in this case in the second variation shown by uberdude, when the Black group in the lower left seems ripe for ijime to me.

Hidden because diagrams might spoil the problem.

So Sonoda counts j17 and k3 then for 7 white vs 5 black? Whilst these obviously have some merit in stabilising white's nearby positions (and ladder breakers potentially), using them in deciding play against the left side feels a bit oblique to me. For example if I change the position a bit and give black one extra stone so he has the lower left corner territory/eyespace, but it's still white 7 to black 6 in the left half (you could give white a stone at j15 too if you want to keep the board position with the same number of plays from both sides and white 2 up on the left half, though you could argue j15 is less efficient for white compared to black gaining the lower left corner so this adjustment favours black a bit):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . O . . X . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O X O . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O X X X X | $$ | . . X , O . O . . , . . . X O O X X . | $$ | . . . X O . . . . O . X X O X X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now if I answer the attach with nobi and black splits then I feel a lot happier without the worries of b3/b8/e6 almost-sente moves (I presume it's things like this John refers to with ijime bullying). The fact that this attach and nobi out shape of a 3 space low to high extension more commonly occurs (at least these days) with a defended 4-4 corner (because if it's not defended usually the 3-3 is bigger than invading/reducing the extension) maybe biased me to think this splitting result was worse for white that it really is, because with a defended 4-4 corner you have a nice big chunky corner and no bullying (for example my game vs Surin here viewtopic.php?p=210065#p210065, there even the descent to n3 cf c9 here was not clearly sente for quite some time).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm60 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 8 . O . . . . O . . X . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 3 7 5 . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 9 1 . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . 0 X 2 . . . . . . . . X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O X O . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O X X X X | $$ | . . X , O . O . . , . . . X O O X X . | $$ | . . . X O . . . . O . X X O X X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:51 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Stage 2 is to count the stones in that part of the board.

Instead of counting the difference of numbers of stones, my method of such kind would be to count the difference of numbers of INFLUENCE stones, i.e., the influence stone difference. (In this example, stones and influence stones coincide, but this is often not so!) And my conclusion would be: it is too close to 0 to have a decisive meaning. Therefore, reading is mandatory.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:20 am

Instead of counting the difference of numbers of stones, my method of such kind would be to count the difference of numbers of INFLUENCE stones, i.e., the influence stone difference. (In this example, stones and influence stones coincide, but this is often not so!) And my conclusion would be: it is too close to 0 to have a decisive meaning. Therefore, reading is mandatory.

Well, Sonoda's a 9-dan pro and you're not. And he says more about his method than I've revealed, so you need to read the book before you leap to judgement.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:38 am

1) One does not need to read a book (of a 9p or not) to understand that useless or dead inside stones beyond the outside-influence generating stones ought not to be counted as stones in competition for potential.

2) I have written many principles and applied them to, e.g., pro games so demonstrated that influence stone difference is the relevant concept. Stone difference (in contrast to influence stone difference) has other applications, e.g., when assessing inefficiency of useless or dead stones.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:05 am

One does not need to read a book (of a 9p or not) to understand that useless or dead inside stones beyond the outside-influence generating stones ought not to be counted as stones in competition for potential.

Yes you do. Sonoda even counts captured stones, which made my eyes do a Tom and Jerry take-off. But the sense of it dawned on me later. Read the book.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:16 am

For what purposes does he count captured (or useless live) stones?

Do you suggest this for assessing outside potential?

Can the book be read meaningfully by diagrams and numbers without otherwise reading any Japanese? ISBN?

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:00 am

For what purposes does he count captured (or useless live) stones?

I have not yet absorbed this well enough to speak here. It also comes up a lot and I haven't read the whole book yet. But I'm reasonably convinced he's right.

Do you suggest this for assessing outside potential?

He doesn't mention outside potential, and not even thickness really. He's not measuring what I think you think he's measuring, and he's not measuring rigorously in the way you would - he's just a creating an immediately useful tool. Ultimately he wants us to cultivate a homogenous, informed first way of looking at positions so as to develop good judgement. The fundamentals really

Can the book be read meaningfully by diagrams and numbers without otherwise reading any Japanese? ISBN?

I very much doubt it. It's long and texty, with a quite different structure from most books. There are non-standard proverbs. On the other hand, strict definitions are important (he makes fascinating points about the difference between attacks, chases, attempts to capture, seriai (running battles) and ijime (and to understand all of that, some familiarity with Japanese military history and topography is useful). Numbers are rarely given - he just wants us to know if a count is more than, equal, or less than. That's all buried in the text. Similarly, lots of diagrams have unusual shading on them - that's explained in the text, too (not very well, though).

It's not perfect but the more I've read it the more I've been impressed. At least it's exposed some painful flaws in my own play while offering a remedy. I can also quickly spot apparent flaws in other people's play better now. It's a shame I don't play enough now to absorb all this for practical use. Or to put it another way, I wish I'd had this book 50 years ago.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:18 am

John Fairbairn wrote:he's not measuring rigorously in the way you would - he's just a creating an immediately useful tool.

Whether tools related to stone difference need be rigorous or can be rough depends on purpose of application.

Applications needing rigorous stone differences:
1) assessing josekis (which are related to equality)
2) assessing efficiency of newly played stones (a sequence is fair exactly in the case of equality)

Application possible with rough stone differences:
3) everything related to 'influence in a region'

(2) and (3) can be called "immediately useful", although (2) is rigorous whilst (3) is not. It would be a great mistake to let (2) be rough because one stone played too many during a sequence is like passing once.

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:23 pm

Today I posted a game commentary in Majordomo's "Progress in Black and White". He plays as a 3 kyu on KGS and (from my own fallible 1d perspective) does a lot of things right in terms of what I consider to be the fundamentals. His opponent being a bit of a jerk, he said at some point to Majordomo "it's because of people like you that go is so boring". At that point, Majordomo was leading comfortably, by playing only normal moves - one could say dull moves, but I've seen so many games where the player(s) did not respect the flow of the game, that I found his go rather beautiful to watch. So, the opponent's derogatory remark was actually a great compliment. Unfortunately, Majordomo failed to finish off the opponent on 2 occasions - a surrounded group was waiting for the fatal blow - and later on made a few more mistakes due to which the jerky opponent pulled of a fluke victory. Nevertheless, the game is worth reviewing for any amateur player, to see how Majordomo courageously followed fundamental strategic principles of go: connect, cut, surround, escape.

Posted again here for convenience:

John Tilley · Post by **John Tilley** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:54 pm

You can see a "look inside" preview of Sonoda's book on Amazon.co.jp - go to their homepage, bottom of page, language English. At top of this page select Japanese books and enter ISBN - that's in JF's post "A Slew of Books" - but it's ISBN 978-4-8399-5951-7.

This preview shows you images of the contents (7 pages, 1 page not available), then Part 1 Intro (4 pages of proverbs) and finally Theme 1 diagram ( a four stone game), followed by 6 diagrams. This way you can at least get an idea of the level of Japanese involved.

There are reviews of two of Sonoda's earlier books on Sensei's Libarary.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoStrategy
http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoodPointsAndBadPointsToPlay

I tried using a pop-up Japanese-English dictionary add-on for Firefox with Amazon Japan - it's very useful. It makes looking at book web-sites much easier, if your Japanese is limited.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-gb/firefox/addon/rikaichan/

You can't use it with the full page images from the Amazon preview - you need the Japanese text as unicode - you can of course OCR the images and produce an HTML file of the page and then you have a pop-up dictionary and all of a sudden it's got really late! Unfortunately the Amazon images are only at 96dpi, for OCR of Japanese text 300 dpi is needed. I have used Abbyy Finereader for OCR of both English and also Japanese.

My copy of Sonoda's book arrives on Tuesday.

Best Wishes - John

Life In 19x19

What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?