Thoughts on obsession with shape

[pwaldron]

The idea that Westerners are missing something on the shape front is well taken. Thinking about it, my mental concept of shape is very much a geometrical (static) concept. The dynamic aspect that John refers to is missing. If I was forced to find a label it would probably be the idea of (future) development, but I'm not sure that captures John's idea properly.

I don't ever recall reviewing or discussing a game with a Westerner and having the concept of development come up. Generally the (dynamic) future came in the context of wanting sente to hit a particularly desirable (static) point, usually in the opening. I wonder if at least part of this is because there is no book in English that really discusses development explicitly.

When Korea was dominating everything a decade ago there were discussions about the Korean haengma concept, which I think also embodies the ideas of movement and development. I think there was an overlap with the Japanese suji, with some additional nuances. I presume Chinese players must have a similar idea?

Perhaps in parallel, John has mentioned that the phrase target is quite prevalent in the Japanese professional lexicon. To me one would naturally try and develop towards a target. Are the two concepts related or are they more distinct?

[RobertJasiek]

pwaldron, I have written about development explicitly a lot when referring to development directions or potential, less so about shape development yet.

[pwaldron]

pwaldron, I have written about development explicitly a lot when referring to development directions or potential, less so about shape development yet.

I'm pleased to hear it. It seems like a worthwhile contribution to Western go literature and shows how out of date my library has become.

[Knotwilg]

I think the most important conceptual leap most amateurs need to make is that shape is not a property of stones of one color but a relationship between stones of two colors. An easy example is the full versus empty triangle.

A related aspect is that shapes have a function. A bamboo joint is a connecting device, which is useful in the context of a potential cut. Placed in isolation it's still a bamboo joint shapewise but it's void of function.

As for dynamic vs static, I'm ambivalent. Yes, a ponnuki, captur-ing a stone, is not the same as a creating a diamond without capturing, but that pertains more to my first point. Otherwise, I dare say "the board has no memory". Mak-ing miai has been a useful way for me to think about the concept, but once the move has been played, it doesn't really matter how it came about.

[schrody]

Why would a dynamic view of shape be good and a static view of shape bad? Perhaps I've missed something in the discussion but from what I've read I'm not convinced. As Knotwilg has said "the board has no memory". I believe that it's a human shortcoming to see the board as telling a story, i.e. a succession of consecutive events. Let's imagine black is chasing a white group across the board. If we want to describe this situation in verbal terms, perhaps we could say that black is keima-ing his way across the board. Because we're speaking of the knight's move here, my immediate association is a group of wild horses in full gallop. While, if we say that black played several keimas, I get a much more sedate impression. The problem here is that go players often play poorly because we get swept up by the momentum of the local goings-on and lose sight of the big picture. I hear that this is one of the reasons why the AI is better than us - the AI doesn't see galloping horses or a story, it just sees the current whole-board position and always assesses it as such.

I've been trying to follow its suit recently. I pause and reassess the board more frequently, often even during fights, and it has made me a better player. When I do so, I think in what you may describe as static terms: I take note of the shapes on the board and run through a list of possible invasion points and other weaknesses that are specific to that shape. Of course, I also think of possible continuations and how they would affect the whole-board situation but I'd still say that my analysis has a strong static component.

So, all in all, I would caution against a too dynamic view of shape. I think a combination of static and dynamic is best.

[Harleqin]

The process of playing the move is not important, it is what future moves it enables (or disables). That is, we don't play something because it creates a keima, or windmill, or table shape, but because it enables us to enclose that group, to connect this or that way, or ensures that no opposing move can prevent us from forming an eye.

That is, yes, the board has no memory (almost, modulo ko rule), but the point is not the configuration of the stones but what follows from it. I think that this is not a question of absolutes (dynamic good, static bad) but of emphasis.

I believe conscious emphasis on the dynamic nature is important because static pattern recognition is easy. At least for me, in my development as a go player, it was quite an epiphany when I recognized where my disappointment came from when my static shapes didn't hold what I thought they promised: that I was running in almost pure pattern recognition mode and neglected to actually follow the future.

[Knotwilg]

The process of playing the move is not important, it is what future moves it enables (or disables). That is, we don't play something because it creates a keima, or windmill, or table shape, but because it enables us to enclose that group, to connect this or that way, or ensures that no opposing move can prevent us from forming an eye.

That is, yes, the board has no memory (almost, modulo ko rule), but the point is not the configuration of the stones but what follows from it. I think that this is not a question of absolutes (dynamic good, static bad) but of emphasis.

I believe conscious emphasis on the dynamic nature is important because static pattern recognition is easy. At least for me, in my development as a go player, it was quite an epiphany when I recognized where my disappointment came from when my static shapes didn't hold what I thought they promised: that I was running in almost pure pattern recognition mode and neglected to actually follow the future.

Essentially there's always a conflict or balance between brute force reading and heuristics. Heuristics help you make good decisions efficiently but occasionally send you the wrong way. In my case, analysis with KataGo taught me I'm often playing "slow connections", in particular bamboo joints or table shapes, while either other shapes are available which are more efficient, or I shouldn't even connect in the first place.

That's where the shape heuristic/bias needs to be countered. If that's what we call "dynamic", the fact that you always have to apply caution with a shape heuristic, whereas "static" then would mean you apply it too enthusiastically, then it's a confusing label. It doesn't make the shape itself "dynamic", rather reduces its applicability.

If the "dynamic" aspect is about the order of moves which could lead up to a certain static shape, then it makes more sense to me, but then again "order of play" and "tewari" are more useful concepts.

[Harleqin]

Yes.

Side note: I have a bit of reservations with the words »order of play« as a concept, because (I think Cho Chikun said something like this) Go is the order of moves.

But I think we're describing the same elephant.

The Tao that is written is not the real Tao.

[John Fairbairn]

I have a fascination with how other people think - the process sometimes being more interesting than the content for me - so the posts here have been good to read while I've been on holiday. Nobody seems to think my way, but that's no surprise, and seeing that was ultimately the point of the exercise, in a way.

However, in the course of reading some of these other opinions, I did have a feeling (a strong one actually) that number-itis was coming up again, and that was reinforcing my impression that numbers guys really are missing out on something useful. So, with your indulgence, I'll offer some more thoughts.

Although I'm stepping into a minefield here, I'm also trying to get on the same wavelength, so I'll venture this analogy. Static go is rather like the "static" mathematics of algebra and geometry and trigonometry (AGT). Dynamic go would be like calculus. I get the impression that calculus is something of a Marmite subject. You either love it or you hate it (or can do it or can't do it), and in a way it has nothing to do with AGT. You may use some AGT type arithmetic, but that's trivial. The hard part of calculus is the mindset, and the ability to see how it might be useful.

Static go, like AGT, is relatively easy. Anyone can get to 5=dan amateur with just that (and hard work, of course). But the leap to pro is like the leap to calculus, and it depends not on skill as much as on mindset - an ability to see what all the simpler techniques are for. Hard work is then not sufficient, and in fact may not even be necessary in some respects.

When I make the distinction between static go and dynamic go, I am definitely NOT talking about shapes being static or dynamic, or indeed anything specifically on the board. I am talking rather about a way of describing these shapes. Describing them with static terms is (I posit) an AGT form of addressing the topic. Describing them in dynamic terms is the calculus way. It is dynamic because it uses verbs, that is words that describe function and change, i.e. go's equivalent of differentiation. It is my contention that the Oriental countries, through the function-stressing nature of their languages, have a head start on the "calculus of go", and that western players could help themselves bridge the gap by using a more function-stressing vocabulary.

"Bending round and keeping the opponent out of the centre" is implicit in the term magari for a Japanese-speaking go player - and VERY useful for thinking about the game both tactically and strategically. But for the average westerner, "magari" is not much different from saying "raspberry jam" or "gefurtel". It's just a label. So they miss out on the mindset that leads to go calculus.

[RobertJasiek]

"yose" also refers to approach moves (on the boundary) in an approach ko. [...] it should be obvious that "yose" is not "endgame" because yose plays can be made at move 80 of a 200+ move game. And something the endgame devolves into a fight rather than peaceful boundary plays.

If that is all yose is about, then I agree with Bill that there is no difference between yose plays and endgame plays. Two phrases for the same.

[Cassandra]

I am a little afraid that you want to drive a divisive wedge between Yin and Yang.

Yesterday I found that one anology for the pair of "Yin" / "Yang" is "standstill" / "movement".

"Igo Hatsuyôron" is "On Yang Production in the Game of Go", so it is an analysis of how to generate "movement".
But we can't find anything in the classic book but static forms! Which are "standstill".

However, it should go without saying that before you make a MOVE, you should think about what you want to achieve with that MOVEment of your stones.
This thinking is future-oriented.
MOVEment is dynamic, so it is best described in terms of VERBs.

Your opponent, on the other hand, will first analyse the board PATTERN (= standstill) after your move, in order to evaluate what you HAVE really achieved (compared to the board PATTERN two MOVES before).
This thinking is results-oriented.
Standstill is static, so it is best described in terms of NOUNs.

It seems to me that the ordinary East-Asian mindset is primarily future-oriented, while the ordinary Western mindset is primarily results-oriented.
But these are still two sides of the same medal!

[CDavis7M]

"yose" also refers to approach moves (on the boundary) in an approach ko. [...] it should be obvious that "yose" is not "endgame" because yose plays can be made at move 80 of a 200+ move game. And something the endgame devolves into a fight rather than peaceful boundary plays.

If that is all yose is about, then I agree with Bill that there is no difference between yose plays and endgame plays. Two phrases for the same.

Well, the 80th item out of 200+ is not the final part of that series. So it is not the "end" by definition. A yose play and an endgame play may be the exact same play locally, but the difference is when they are played. Maybe this goes back to the original post -- seeing a (static) endgame play rather than a (dynamic) yose play.

But again, this is talking of yose in Japanese (boundary play) and not yose in English (might as well just say endgame).

[dust]

Is there still an obsession with shape?

As I understand it, back in the 50s and 60s there wasn't much available in the West in terms of instructional material. So, shape was something you could try to learn from game records by yourself. And it wasn't a bad idea! You could amass a reasonable 'vocabulary' of moves, even if your 'grammar' and accuracy in using your vocabulary was a bit shaky.

But things have moved on considerably - and a much greater range of theory and study materials has been available for some time.

I'm struggling to understand the supposed distinction between static and dynamic shape.

[jeromie]

When I saw this thread, I first wanted to examine the premise. The shape page on Sensei’s Library has had links to pages about static and dynamic shape since at least 2017, so the idea of dynamic shape is certainly not unknown in the West. But John first brought up this topic, so far as I can tell, in May 2001, so he can be forgiven for thinking we’ve been slow to pick it up!

However, the idea of thinking of moves in a way that considers their “movement” isn’t new at all to the Western literature. The first go book I read was way Way of the Moving Horse, by Janice Kim, which uses the concept of haengma to introduce the reader to moving stones. And Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go, one of the classics of Western go literature, talks about the way “the stones go walking.” So the question, in my mind, is not just whether Western go players have a vocabulary to talk about the movement of stones (they do), but whether that idea being part of the discussion of shape is particularly important.

And while I like the idea of “dynamic shape,” I don’t think the lack of it in the Western go literature is what’s been holding people back. Mainly because when I listen to strong players talk about shape, they clearly have the idea of “functional shape,” which I think is the most important part of the conversation. Perhaps they won’t call a move the “shape point” when it’s not a recognizable pattern (like Go Seigen), but they can still find a more efficient move when it doesn’t fit a standard repertoire of shapes. And, just as importantly, they will play a good move even if it makes “bad shape.”

Now, to the other question: does the greater number of analytical folks in Western go tend to lead to static over dynamic analysis? I wouldn’t think so. Certainly there are some prominent figures that tend to a more systematic approach than I’ve seen in book coming from Japan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the systems they devise will only include static terms. Mathematics and other “analytical” disciplines are certainly broad enough to contain both static and dynamic concepts. I think of the relationships between numbers in a series, for instance, as an area where we see “movement” in math.

Now, where you may feel a gap, John, is that there may be some who seek a more precise definition in the terms that they use rather than the sometimes fuzzy terminology that seems to be suitable in at least some Asian uses. I think it was the same haengma discussion on SL that I linked above that mentioned difficulty in getting someone from Korea to give a firm definition of the term. What I imagine this may lead to is taking words that have unclear meanings, or sometimes do double duty, and using multiple words to describe the same concepts. That leaves it up to the players to re-synthesize the concepts that may have had some natural unity in an Asian language. This, perhaps, does affect the way that some players develop (language matters!), but I don’t see evidence that the synthesis doesn’t happen.

[Knotwilg]

However, in the course of reading some of these other opinions, I did have a feeling (a strong one actually) that number-itis was coming up again, and that was reinforcing my impression that numbers guys really are missing out on something useful.

Since the reference is impersonal, I don't know if you see me as a numbers guy and my arguments necessarily induced by being one. I have a degree in math but when I made that choice, I was also very close to choosing (English-Dutch) languages, due to an interest in linguistics (rather than literature). Eventually I chose math because I figured it would be easier to nourish my interest in languages in my spare time than the other way around. Regardless, I don't approach Go in a numerical fashion. The precise endgame numbers with their decimals is one of my least favorite subjects - though I appreciate the hard work and the quest for truth. I do approach Go conceptually and pursue a similar quest, not so much of "truth" but of logic and clarity in its articulation. I think we may differ here more than on the numerical/linguistic front, in that you allow for more uncertainty, perhaps in the sense of contextuality, whereas I like Go terms to have an absolute meaning and if there's another meaning then we may try finding another word. I remember when you enlightened us with the atsumi/atsusa discussion, which unfolded the "thickness" obscurity in a for me very useful way.

Although I'm stepping into a minefield here, I'm also trying to get on the same wavelength, so I'll venture this analogy. Static go is rather like the "static" mathematics of algebra and geometry and trigonometry (AGT). Dynamic go would be like calculus.

For a non-mathematician you have a good intuition of the temporal aspect of calculus, compared to the more statical algebra and geometry. Unfortunately in my case even well chosen analogies have no effect, often even a reverse one. I prefer the topic itself than debating it in the wonky analogy space.

It is dynamic because it uses verbs, that is words that describe function and change, i.e. go's equivalent of differentiation. It is my contention that the Oriental countries, through the function-stressing nature of their languages, have a head start on the "calculus of go", and that western players could help themselves bridge the gap by using a more function-stressing vocabulary.

"Bending round and keeping the opponent out of the centre" is implicit in the term magari for a Japanese-speaking go player - and VERY useful for thinking about the game both tactically and strategically. But for the average westerner, "magari" is not much different from saying "raspberry jam" or "gefurtel". It's just a label. So they miss out on the mindset that leads to go calculus.

This then again is where I learned from you, specifically on the already mentioned miai: since I have been thinking of it as "making miai" I have the idea I've become better at it. I'll try that thinking with other go terms too, like your suggested magari. I find it useful indeed.