The definition of "Excellent"

[Magicwand]

Why would anyone ever expect meaningful results from a poll on the internet?

because robert is not just anyone. he is almost equal to chuck norris.

[gaius]

Oooh, I think we should make Robert a moderator! At least the forum shall then be purged from all of these glaring semantical errors

[Stable]

Oooh, I think we should make Robert a moderator! At least the forum shall then be purged from all of these glaring semantical errors

How antisemantic of you!

[RobertJasiek]

Now that this has become a sandbox thread without proper context, let me at least repeat the intersection of Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries to give some sense to the thread title:

excellent = extremely good

[mohsart]

Personally, I think that, in a review thread, two things are (most) important:
1. The quality the reviewer experienced, eg excellent.
2. The level of the reviewer, eg 4 dan.
There are of course sub-levels of this. Are only parts of the book excellent, or is the reviewer from a country with overranked players?
Also the level of the book makes some difference - if many 5 dan thinks a book stinks, but many 10 kyu thinks it helped them, if I was 20 kyu I'd buy it rather than a book where the reviews were the other way around.

Another thing: excellent does not mean complete, a book can be excellent in what it wants to teach, that can be a subset of eg Go, or Haengma, so stating that a book on Haengma that only deals with a subset of Haengma cannot be excellent is IMHO just bull.

/Mats

[Javaness]

An idiot can try to learn Go one move at a time, I see some people trying to do this, they are idiots.

Without general advice like, e.g., principles, teaching remains on a level of teaching by examples and giving specific comments per example only. Since extremely many shapes / positions exist, the reader is left with these choices:

a) read very many examples so that he knows those or very similar examples occurring in his games by heart

b) develop general advice (e.g., in the form of principles or as subconscious knowledge, depending on his preferred thinking style) by himself, i.e., complete the teaching work, which the book author failed to provide, by means of auto-didactic teaching.

Explaining most positions is better than explaining only a couple of example positions. Providing general advice is better than leaving the work of developing general advice to the readers.

Therefore it is essential for each book and each review whether or not the book does teach also the general or only the specific.

Teaching only specific examples might be excellent for itself but misses the other half of what good teaching should do, i.e., is also extremely poor concerning the generalization part.

However, so far we do not know yet IF the book does give generalized advice. Maybe it does?

[RobertJasiek]

excellent does not mean complete, a book can be excellent in what it wants to teach, that can be a subset of eg Go, or Haengma

Yes. That's why my book reviews have a third rating "aims achievement". However, the book in question carries the title This is Haengma, which promises to teach haengma fully and not partially. That the author tries (apparently hard) to define haengma as well as he can confirms the intention to teach it fully.

[RobertJasiek]

An idiot can try to learn Go one move at a time, I see some people trying to do this, they are idiots.

They are learners in how to learn better.

[RobertJasiek]

Word meanings are a great deal more variable and fuzzy

Sure - but, in the context of a quality stating poll and related review thread, the standard meaning must be assumed because it is the only obvious meaning in such a context (until a meta-discussion mentions also other usages in other contexts like John then did; then new meanings could occur due to those other contexts).

[pwaldron]

To possibly find out that there might not be such a generalized advice at all? This is a review thread, so the reviewer should explain why he calls something excellent.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

[RobertJasiek]

If the internet translates correctly as "If you had remained silent, you would have been a philosopher.", then what do you want to tell with that?

[mohsart]

the book in question carries the title This is Haengma, which promises to teach haengma fully and not partially.

Consider, for example...
Go - A Complete Introduction to the Game by Cho Chikun
The Chinese Opening by Masao Kato
The Endgame by James Davies and Tomoko Ogawa

Reading a title, I'd take "This is" or "The" or "A complete" etc as a indication of the book being rather a introduction to the subject than something that intends to cover all aspects, unless maybe it comes in 3+ volumes.
Before buying a book, I prefer to not only read the title and guess what it's about, but also read a couple of rewievs, the back of the book and browse the content of it to see what it's about.

As for This is Haengma, the preface says:
"I want to make it as simple as possible so that everyone can understand it easily" which gives me the impression that it is a introduction.
I also get the impression that Haengma is to wide a subject to be fully covered in one book of 250 pages.

I haven't yet read the book myself, but I've been to a seminar Mr Kim held on Haengma, and though not at all complete, not even a complete introduction, I consider it quite excellent.

/Mats

[John Fairbairn]

Evaluative words in languages are fuzzy for good reason. Fuzziness allows us to superimpose social behaviour, such as compromise, politeness, humility, humour, encouragement, disengagement, etc. Nuances also develop which are sensed naturally by most native speakers but which are missed by dictionaries and many foreigners.

In contrast, number systems, lists or strict definitions, while useful in contexts such as scientific research, are tyrannical in normal social intercourse (e.g. L19). The tyrant in question is, of course, the person trying to impose his own system on the rest of us.

Out of respect for freedom-loving fellow L19ers, I would never normally attempt to define excellence.

[RobertJasiek]

Suggesting to use clearer language is not tyranny but advertisement for easier factual understanding.

[kirkmc]

Suggesting to use clearer language is not tyranny but advertisement for easier factual understanding.

Troll.