Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

BlindGroup · Post by **BlindGroup** » Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:37 pm

Tami wrote:Here is Yang's ranking system, paraphrased in a nutshell:

Class 1
Empty corners

Class 2
Approaches/Enclosures to assymetric corners
Mid-point of facing positions (star point/enclosure)
Starting a joseki

Class 3
Mid-point of side with fertile corner
Move that makes one side stronger and other side weaker
Approach/Enclose 4-4 or 3-3

Class 4
Completing 4-4 enclosure
Developing side with non-fertile corners
Other extensions

Based on @Tami's review, I decided to buy this book, and I'm glad that I did. Definitely learning things I did not know from it.

However, I have to say that I'm not sure about his treatment of the 4-4 in the ranking system above. Specifically, the idea that extending from the 4-4 is always a higher priority than enclosing. For those who haven't read the book, he considers the lone 4-4 stone to be the equivalent of a 3-4 (or other asymmetric) enclosure for the purposes of extensions. (Obviously, they differ in their control of the corner.

) So, in the following diagram, A and B are both class 2 move for both white and black, while something like C is class 3 for both.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Certainly white b is big for white, but it's not obvious to me that it's always superior to the small knight enclosure. Not surprisingly, I can find many examples of pro games in which something like white c is played before white b. This logic also seems to lead to a rather odd conclusion in the double 4-4 opening. Here a-h are all class 2 moves and so, should be played before either player either approaches the other corner or encloses the other corner. That does not seem right at all. In fact, I just checked the database that I use, and i is the overwhelming favorite black 5 in this formation with black f being second. Leela also favors i.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . f . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . c d . . . . . , . . . . . h g . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . b . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Am I missing/misinterpreting something?

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:38 pm

Hi BG,

Am I missing/misinterpreting something?

Certainly white b is big for white,

Certainly? Why certainly? In the post-AG era, I don't feel (b) is so big at all.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:04 pm

EdLee wrote:Hi BG,
Am I missing/misinterpreting something?
Certainly white b is big for white,
Certainly? Why certainly? In the post-AG era, I don't feel (b) is so big at all.

Even before that. I vaguely recall a question back in the 90s on rec.games.go by either breakfast or sorin about "b" that suggested that he thought it was problematical. As I recall, I suggested playing a boshi against it.

Certainly it's a possible fuseki play, but maybe Class 4, eh?

Tami · Post by **Tami** » Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:55 pm

Hi Blindgroup - I'm delighted that my review helped you to decide to buy the book, and still more pleased that you're getting value out of it.

I really love this book: it's different from what I'm used to, and it's got me thinking differently too. The ability to consider issues from another viewpoint is one of the engines of growth.

However, I want to remark in relation to the position you brought up that you have to take into account Yang's writing about considering the variables of the whole-board situation, taking into account the relationships between the stones, and the need to be efficient. If you like, and if I may borrow an analogy that I think John F. came up with some years ago, it is probably wise to consider the Class Ranking system as only a set of "training wheels" (though we Britons use "stabilisers" for the same thing, so perhaps it was somebody else's analogy after all). To learn to ride a bike, stabilisers/training wheels help you to get started, but at some point you have to jettison them in order to learn to ride freely and confidently. I want to reiterate my point in the original review that a Class Two move (say) is not really so large because it is Class Two, but rather it is the relationship of the move with previously played stones that make it so large (and thus get it so high up the ranking chart). So, if you want to develop an asymmetrically placed stone, such as a 3-4, then it happens that extending a small way from it (an enclosure) happens to be a great way to do it.

Let's take this example that you cited:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Going only by the ranking system, you'd have to assign b and a to the Second Class, as they are both extensions from facing corners. But I'd be inclined to avoid it because it feels slightly slow - White's putting all her moves in the same part of the board, and if she tries to compete with Black in such a purely building-orientated way then she's going to fall behind. Also, the boushi that Bill mentions appears to be a very interesting move - it creates an ultra-deep moyo with the other Black stones. I'd think about two other suggestions:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . d . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

The move d is in the same region as b - but being a line higher it has more influence over the board as a whole. Also, I'd think about e - it's a move between two facing corners (I am stretching Yang's system a little bit, but not unreasonably I believe), and it asks Black some questions, i.e., it begins to challenge Black.

The thing is, I'm starting to loosen the training wheels and ride free. In my recent games, I've fallen over a few times and bumped my head or barked my knees, but I've also gained in confidence to try some really big-scale schemes out. Besides, in my practical playing experience, I find that things get "fighty" and that sometimes so much is going on that one just can't sensibly think in nice, neatly ordered categories. However, what is much more valuable for me is the confidence and toolkit for thinking about move size and efficiency that Yang's book has given me. As Leonard Cohen says "Thank God it's not that simple" - Go is much more than applying hierarchical heuristics. I don't really know how AI works - but I'm a human and need to think like one!

BlindGroup · Post by **BlindGroup** » Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:15 am

Tami wrote:Hi Blindgroup - I'm delighted that my review helped you to decide to buy the book, and still more pleased that you're getting value out of it.

It was a thorough, thoughtful, and (so far as I can tell) accurate review. It also happened to be on a subject that I've been thinking about quite a bit lately, so, thank you!

Tami wrote:However, I want to remark in relation to the position you brought up that you have to take into account Yang's writing about considering the variables of the whole-board situation, taking into account the relationships between the stones, and the need to be efficient. If you like, and if I may borrow an analogy that I think John F. came up with some years ago, it is probably wise to consider the Class Ranking system as only a set of "training wheels" (though we Britons use "stabilisers" for the same thing, so perhaps it was somebody else's analogy after all). To learn to ride a bike, stabilisers/training wheels help you to get started, but at some point you have to jettison them in order to learn to ride freely and confidently. I want to reiterate my point in the original review that a Class Two move (say) is not really so large because it is Class Two, but rather it is the relationship of the move with previously played stones that make it so large (and thus get it so high up the ranking chart). So, if you want to develop an asymmetrically placed stone, such as a 3-4, then it happens that extending a small way from it (an enclosure) happens to be a great way to do it.

Tami, I agree with everything you say here. I was actually trying to make a different point. My reference to the figure you quote was just to illustrate that both of these moves are considered class 2, even though one extends from an enclosure and one from the lone 4-4 stone. My larger concern is that, with a 4-4 stone in the corner, this system uniformly prioritizes the long extension (class 2) from the 4-4 over the two stone enclosure or the approach to another 4-4 stone (both class 3). To use your "stabilizers" example, I'd expect there to be exceptions to this depending on the board position, but after white 4, the dual 4-4 opening is entirely symmetric. This would be a situation in which I would least expect an exception to this system, but the overwhelming opinion seems to be that the 4-4 approach is preferred to the long-extension.

My impression so far is that I think this chapter does a nice job of illustrating how to think about the development of and from the asymmetric corners, but I think the 4-4 doesn't fit quite as nicely into this framework as the author would like. I will say that I have a better appreciation for the resilience of the 4-4 to the double approach and the value of the long extension from the 4-4. But I think the relative value of the long extension, approach, and enclosure of the 4-4 is more complicated than described.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:59 am

Blindgroup, I think the answer is fairly simple, the book is some years old and thinking of top players and even us patzers in the West has changed. Side extensions from 4-4s used to be played before knight enclosures from them (e.g. see few-decades-old Japanese games in Go World). That's what I learned 10+ years ago. Maybe top pros had already abandoned that idea back then, but at least in the 2010s early knight enclosure from 4-4s have become much more popular (this was before AlphaGo, maybe Korean-driven) and I picked this up from watching pro games and teaching from others with more up to date knowledge. It emphasises stable groups and local efficiency (side extensions can more easily end up in the wrong place). AI also tends to prefer them over side extensions, so looks like we were on the right track. If Yang wrote this book 5 years ago based on thinking at that time I expect knight enclosure from 4-4 would be higher up the list. And if he wrote it now 3-3 invasions would too (or does that count as class 2 "starting a joseki" already?).

Tami · Post by **Tami** » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:35 am

Uberdude wrote:Blindgroup, I think the answer is fairly simple, the book is some years old and thinking of top players and even us patzers in the West has changed. Side extensions from 4-4s used to be played before knight enclosures from them (e.g. see few-decades-old Japanese games in Go World). That's what I learned 10+ years ago. Maybe top pros had already abandoned that idea back then, but at least in the 2010s early knight enclosure from 4-4s have become much more popular (this was before AlphaGo, maybe Korean-driven) and I picked this up from watching pro games and teaching from others with more up to date knowledge. It emphasises stable groups and local efficiency (side extensions can more easily end up in the wrong place). AI also tends to prefer them over side extensions, so looks like we were on the right track. If Yang wrote this book 5 years ago based on thinking at that time I expect knight enclosure from 4-4 would be higher up the list. And if he wrote it now 3-3 invasions would too (or does that count as class 2 "starting a joseki" already?).

Absolutely! And, any kind of ranking system is only a heuristic anyway, and obviously thinking has been evolving super-quickly recently. The fun begins when you can judge well enough to let go of it to some extent. My recent jump up of 100 Elo points in chess was simply because I did that: I started playing the position on its merits, and not just by following Nimzowitsch. Yang Yilun is my "Go Nimzowitsch" (okay, I don't think he's as odd as Nimzo, but that's not relevant); I'm already starting to find my own way. But I'm glad I've got his book

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:09 am

Tami wrote:My recent jump up of 100 Elo points in chess was simply because I did that: I started playing the position on its merits, and not just by following Nimzowitsch.

Congratulations!

Yang Yilun is my "Go Nimzowitsch" (okay, I don't think he's as odd as Nimzo, but that's not relevant);

Nimzowitsch wrote:Why do I have to lose to this idiot?!

Gomoto · Post by **Gomoto** » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:45 am

Nimzowitsch wrote:Why do I have to lose to this idiot?!

I want to be the Friedrich Saemisch of Go

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:59 am

Hi Tami

Since you found Yang's classification style useful. I thought you may like a recommendation for a follow-up.

The book I recommend is a fairly new one (2015) and is called "Surrounding territory efficiently: the four basic points" by Kimu Sujun (ISBN 978-4-8399-5504-5).

Part of the reason for recommending it, apart from its small but neat classification, is that I mentioned earlier the not well known concept of "kakou" (surrounding) and that is obviously amply covered here (though not all the advanced aspects), but also it has a chapter on how to "mamoru" your territory, and I stressed that mamoru is quite different from ukeru - the quiet kind of move you have now learned to appreciate.

The four principles are:

1. 弱い石から囲う
2. 弱点を補強しながら囲う
3. 相手が強ければ囲わせる
4. 厚みには近寄らずに囲う

(NB kara in 1 means 'starting with' not 'from')

One of the book's great strengths is the way it shows how saying a "territory is big" is to do with much more than size or empty points. Also, each category is subdivided into sub-categories. One I especially liked was labelled 狭い地は囲わない. It sounds obvious but most amateurs do fall into this trap, I find, and as Kimu shows, it's one of the easiest things to put right (and worth a bucketful of points!)

You will, as I implied above, especially appreciate the extra chapter entitled 地を守る正しい形. One amusing pair of examples is where he shows in one that ﾄﾋﾞも甘い and in the next example that ﾄﾋが形. In other words, a gentle reminder that to play correct shape you need to think more deeply about the position and not just go to Rent-a-shape. The whole book is in this light, gentle, encouraging tone.

(Tami knows Japanese, of course. For others who know only some Japanese and have to proceed slowly with a dictionary, this book has very little text, which is nearly all limited to the subset of go's technical language. Since it covers an important topic you will not have seen before, it's worth giving it a whirl.)

Tami · Post by **Tami** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:55 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Hi Tami

Since you found Yang's classification style useful. I thought you may like a recommendation for a follow-up.

The book I recommend is a fairly new one (2015) and is called "Surrounding territory efficiently: the four basic points" by Kimu Sujun (ISBN 978-4-8399-5504-5).

Thanks for that. I'll look into that one, too.

The funny thing about the classification system is that it makes more sense to me in light of the second and third chapters of the book, and when one starts to diverge from and play freely it.

What I mean is the realisation that a move is only big (or not big) because of its relationship with what has been played before.

Now, corners are obviously Class 1 - experience, logic and AI all show that you cannot do better than start the game by playing in an empty corner. So it's the next lot of moves - "Class 2" and downwards that need the thinking.

I can tell you that if one tries to stick to Yang's ranking strictly, then it just won't work in real games. I've tried it, and the wheels come off pretty quickly. The reason is that the little table of moves on page 18 (of the edition I have, at any rate) assumes that the opponent is going to "play nicely" and not interfere with your own plans too soon. If your opponent were just to let you build away happily, making first your enclosures, then your happy little extensions in sides with facing corners, then your other extensions, etc., etc., you would indeed produce a pretty powerful opening. This is the ideal world.

But once the opponent decides to stick his oar in, then we enter the real world. However, this is what I think I've learned: the better you understand the reasons for the each kind of move's prioritisation in the ideal world, the better you can adapt to living in the real world. Because I've seen how to build cathedrals in peace, I feel better able to improvise fortifications in war.

sorin · Post by **sorin** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:13 pm

Uberdude wrote:Side extensions from 4-4s used to be played before knight enclosures from them (e.g. see few-decades-old Japanese games in Go World). That's what I learned 10+ years ago. Maybe top pros had already abandoned that idea back then, but at least in the 2010s early knight enclosure from 4-4s have become much more popular (this was before AlphaGo, maybe Korean-driven) and I picked this up from watching pro games and teaching from others with more up to date knowledge.

Very accurate observation about the knight enclosure, Uberdude!

Here are some graphs showing the frequency of three extensions from the 4x4 point (based on data from my personal pro game collection).

Old years are grouped together in larger intervals, so the x-axis is not linear. Also, if one wants to compare the relative frequencies of patterns to each other, the y-axis has different ranges for different patterns, but otherwise each graph is a good indication of how the popularity of a given pattern changed through history.

: mid_low_hoshi_extension.PNG (164.41 KiB) Viewed 19662 times

: mid_high_hoshi_extension.PNG (166.42 KiB) Viewed 19662 times

: keima_hoshi_extension.PNG (164.19 KiB) Viewed 19662 times

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:17 am

Thanks sorin, nice to see quality data to confirm my impressions. Also interesting the difference between low and high middle extensions, with low having its peak in the first half of the 20th century (shin fuseki?) whilst high had a boom around 1990. I suspect the latter could be the influence of Takemiya and other san-ren-sei fans.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:29 am

Thanks, sorin.

What about the ogeima? Thanks.

And while we're at it, the ikken tobi? If it's not too much trouble.

sorin · Post by **sorin** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:22 pm

Bill Spight wrote:Thanks, sorin.

What about the ogeima? Thanks.

And while we're at it, the ikken tobi? If it's not too much trouble.

Gladly, but I will only be able to do that in 10 days or so, when I will be back at my computer.

Life In 19x19

Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re:

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go

Re: Yilun Yang: The Fundamental Principles of Go