21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

DeaconJohn · Post by **DeaconJohn** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:39 pm

gaius wrote:
DeaconJohn wrote:There are also more advanced and more complete joseki dictionaries than the Ishida/Takao dictionary that stand between the Ishida/Takao dictionary and the study of joseki through the study of their use in pro games.

Really? Could you give me an example? I've never heard of any other dictionary that is even nearly as comprehensive as Ishida, be it in English or some other language.

You may well be right. Of course, Ishida is one dictionary in three volumes. One example of what I was talking about was the Nihon Kiin Joseki handbooks. These are not really advertised as "one" dictionary, but, I was considering them to be multiple volumes of what are really "one" dictionary. If I remember, they are referenced in the SL. One must be careful to distinguish between the "small handbooks" and the real thing. The "small handbooks" on joseki and fuseki are excellent imo and i have all three of them (Even Game Joseki, Star Point Joseki, and Fuseki). They are no way as complete as Ishida. I assumed the "big" ones, taken together, were more complete, but, I don't know for sure, because I have never looked at them. I have also heard of other more complete collections than Ishida, but I don't remember the exact reference, I believe they are in Japanese (not really a problem even if you don't know Japanese) and I am not sure they are more comprehensive.

It may well be the case, as you suggest, that there is no more single comprehensive reference that Ishida. That is an important side issue, but, not really what I was getting at. Certainly there are books on joseki that are more advanced than Ishida and that give more complete descriptions of the individual joseki than Ishida. One of them is often referenced in Kogo's joseki dictionary. Don't remember its name either.

They are all above my level.

ps

Of course, there are the Nihon Kiin "notebooks" that the Ishida/Takeo dictionary is derived from. The joseki in the dictionary are a subset of the josekis in the notebooks. You could argue that the Nihon Kiin noteboks are not books. Also, I do not know if the notebooks contain explanations or just the moves. So, even if you consider them to be books, they might not be comparable. In addition, the notebooks are not publicly available, as far as I am aware.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:14 pm

John, I agree that if it were indeed the case, it would not be very surprising, nor would it necessarily be a bad thing.
After all, if a variation was deemed "bad for White" 400 years ago and the current assessment remains unchanged, it is still "bad for White".

But my concern is (again, my emphases):

DeaconJohn wrote:MOST of the positional evaluation has been copied WORD FOR WORD from the previous edition.

DeaconJohn wrote:I found A LOT of the text from the old edition was "cut and pasted" into the new edition.
This was not suprising, and it is not a bad thing.

I will take the arbitrary numbers of (75% - 80%) for "most" and 60% for "a lot". I think these numbers are quite reasonable and lenient.
I don't think your evaluation is correct, that's why I'd like you to take Chapter 1, for example, to substantiate your claims.

DeaconJohn · Post by **DeaconJohn** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:33 pm

EdLee wrote:John, I agree that if it were indeed the case, it would not be very surprising, nor would it necessarily be a bad thing.
After all, if a variation was deemed "bad for White" 400 years ago and the current assessment remains unchanged, it is still "bad for White".

But my concern is (again, my emphases):
DeaconJohn wrote:MOST of the positional evaluation has been copied WORD FOR WORD from the previous edition.
DeaconJohn wrote:I found A LOT of the text from the old edition was "cut and pasted" into the new edition.
This was not suprising, and it is not a bad thing.
I will take the arbitrary numbers of (75% - 80%) for "most" and 60% for "a lot". I think these numbers are quite reasonable and lenient.
I don't think your evaluation is correct, that's why I'd like you to take Chapter 1, for example, to substantiate your claims.

EdLee,

I can not tell you how pleased I am to have received your rapid reply to my recent post. You are absolutely correct in the percentages you assign to my terms. That was exactly what I had in mind (well, maybe 66% instead of 60%, but that is a minor difference). These are the interpretations that I have found in the mathematical community. I wonder if you (like I) have a strong background in mathematics. Or, maybe it is the same in engineering?

Yes, those percentages are a subjective impression on my part and they are only based on my examination of the first 40 or so pages -- I guess that is the first chapter. I did not keep count.

On the other hand, the actual percentages are not really a matter of burning personal interest, so I must demur (hopefully politely) and not accept your invitation to verify my subjective impression. Yes, if I was going to write a formal review, I would be more careful, but, I still don't think I would bother to publish my "back-up calculations".

Respectfully Yours,

Deacon John

ps

If you are the same EdLee who is a KGS admin, I thank you for your contributions to the KGS room monitoring functions. I really like KGS and it is people like you who help make it such an enjoyable experience.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:56 pm

Hi John,

DeaconJohn wrote:I wonder if you (like I) have a strong background in mathematics. Or, maybe it is the same in engineering?

Yes, both.

Yes, the same person.
And my subjective evaluation is I agree with the back-cover: it is a "complete rewriting."

Thanks.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:33 am

The following is the correct diagram for Diagram 41 on page 8 of 21st Century Dictionary. It was kindly provided by John Power. He apologises for the lapse and takes the blame, even though there was actually a technical, layout reason why it happened.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W New Diagram 41, page 8 $$ ------------------------- $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . O a O . . . . | $$ . . 3 1 . . X . . X . . | $$ . . . 2 X . . . X . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

But John has read the thread here and says he takes issue with several comments. In particular he would like to refute the idea that the Takao text is in any way a cut and paste version or otherwise a copy of the Ishida book, beyond stereotypical phrases such as ‘The result is favourable for Black’. This applies to both the Japanese and English texts. He says, "When I started translating, I looked at the Ishida version and found that the text was significantly different. So I put it aside and did my translation from scratch (as I write in my preface). This can easily be confirmed by comparing page 2 of Takao with the first page and a bit of Ishida."

Like several people here, he was interested in just how many changes there were between editions, and initially he tried to keep track of them, but soon gave up as there were so many.

The idea of combining the two books would have been too great a task, and would have violated the copyright of two pros, he says. There was also the problem of Takao's wishes. Although some diagrams were dropped by the Japanese editor for space reasons, Takao himself rejected many diagrams from the Ishida book.

Both amused and exasperated by the conspiracy theory about Kiseido trying to market both versions, John does point out that there are a few remaining copies of Ishida in stock, if anyone wants to get in quick. But he adds, "For nearly three and a half decades we have been urged to update the book and when we finally do we get this reaction."

I imagine most readers on this forum are of a moderate, friendly disposition. It might surprise them to hear how much their less moderate colleagues have a go at authors and publishers. I've posted a few examples already from my own experience, but usually I protect the guilty with my silence. John Power does, too, but he says it does get wearing when "year after year I heard criticism for not including josekis invented after Ishida was written."

He also told me a funny new story on this theme - shortly after the Ishida came out, a top European player told him the book had ruined a European championship. Another player (name omitted here) in the championship had come up with his own twist on the Magic Sword and rode it to a win that year. But his rival attacked the Ishi Press as "reprehensible" because people who had memorised that section of the book couldn’t handle the new (and, obviously, omitted) variation. John was so gobsmacked that he said he couldn’t come up with a retort.

All go writers and publishers I know have similar experiences with readers, sometimes much worse ones. Why? Is there a hunting season we don't know about? Are supposedly intelligent go players really stupid? T Mark reminded me the other day of Einstein's remark that there were only two things in the world that were really infinite: the universe and human stupidity. But E was having doubts about the first one.

I hasten to add that I'm less pessimistic than Einstein. I know many go book readers who are absolutely wonderful people, and they more than make up for the other lot.

DeaconJohn · Post by **DeaconJohn** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:42 am

John Fairbairn wrote:John ... says he takes issue with several comments. In particular he would like to refute the idea that the Takao text is in any way a cut and paste version or otherwise a copy of the Ishida book ...

John, please convey my apology to John if I have in any way offended him. I would be glad to discuss this subject with him in more depth through private emails if he is interested. My address is in my KGS profile.

I am very glad to have purchased a copy of the Takao/Power edition. I view it as an essential addition to my Go library. I recommend purchasing a copy of the Ishida edition too, while it is still available, if you do not already own it.

It is just too difficult to work from printed out copies of the on-line versions of Go books. It is even more difficult to work with the on-line version itself for the kind of study that I like to do. I often buy a hard copy Go book instead of printing out a softcopy version. The cost of the ink is usually a large percentage of the cost of the book, and a nicely bound volume is vastly easier to carry around.

In addition, it is likely that the Ishida edition will soon become unavailable from the retail booksellers imo. My experience is that a high quality Go book like Ishida usually doubles in price as soon as it it transitions from the retail market to the out-of-print market. If future students of joseki find it even half as beneficial to work with both editions as I have , the price is likely to continue to rise long term. In other words, I think the Ishida edition is a good investment even if you never open it! (Now, imagine my red-face if I turn out to be wrong! Nevertheless, that is my opinion.)

I expect to continue to profit from working with both editions at the same time. Seems to me that any serious student can get more that way than by working with the Takao/Power edition alone. I have listed five specific benefits of this approach in my previous posts.

As one author in this thread mentioned, the development in the star point joseki theory has been much greater than the development in the even game joseki, and we can expect the second volume of Takao/Power to be even more exciting than the first. Personally, I can not wait to get a copy!

DeaconJohn

http://senseis.xmp.net/?DeaconJohn

p2501 · Post by **p2501** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:23 am

Where can I get the Ishida from please? I have never seen it anywhere. :study:

(of course I already have the Takao Shinji one - just want to fill a gap in my library ^^)

oren · Post by **oren** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:25 am

p2501 wrote:Where can I get the Ishida from please? I have never seen it anywhere. (of course I already have the Takao Shinji one - just want to fill a gap in my library ^^)

http://kiseido.com/go_books.htm

Still lists Ishida here.

I bought the Takao set in Japanese a while ago. When the Takao set came out, the Ishida became unavailable as a new book in Japan. I haven't really felt there's much of a reason to get both.

LocoRon · Post by **LocoRon** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

John Fairbairn wrote:He also told me a funny new story on this theme - shortly after the Ishida came out, a top European player told him the book had ruined a European championship. Another player (name omitted here) in the championship had come up with his own twist on the Magic Sword and rode it to a win that year. But his rival attacked the Ishi Press as "reprehensible" because people who had memorised that section of the book couldn’t handle the new (and, obviously, omitted) variation. John was so gobsmacked that he said he couldn’t come up with a retort.

Obviously, that player lost the game because he lost two stones strength by memorizing joseki.

CnP · Post by **CnP** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:35 pm

I think we all owe John Power and others like him a lot. I for one appreciate the new edition, never felt I had the right to demand it and have a lot of respect for his efforts.

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:30 am

There are those who act and then those who don't but criticize. You only learn about how much noise the critical bystanders can generate until you act.

So as a mostly bystander who may sometimes criticize: John Power is one of the most fabulous contributors to the Western go world.

John Power is one of the most fabulous contributors to the Western go world.
"Invincible" is probably the greatest go book ever written.
"The treasure chest enigma" is a very entertaining go book.
"The dictionary of basic joseki" has been a friend to most serious go players.
(...)

John: don't listen to what people say. Look at what you've done.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:02 am

Now that this book has been out for a while, would anyone care to comment on the change in content from the old version to the new? I do not have the book yet and haven't seen a copy of the English version. Today I was looking through a copy of the Japanese version after lunch at a local book store. I had a few tests that I wanted to run (i.e. a few biased expectations). Basically the Takao version failed on all counts. So I am wondering what others think that have been reading/studying in the meantime.
Things I checked:
First was the attachment below. As far as I can see from GoGoD, this has always been more popular in Korea and China than in Japan. Also it was in its infancy when Ishida came out, so I thought it was a good test of how serious the new editors were about including new material. In Ishida the joseki is mentioned under the high extension at "a" rather than the low. Meanwhile most of the actual practice has been under the low as in the diagram. However, as far as I could see the book analysis remained under the high extension. Since the lines of play are someone different, this seems unfortunate. This is especially true since the connection at "b", which has become the main line since 2007 if I look at GoGoD, is very rare with the high extension and does not seem to be mentioned at all in Takao. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B First Case $$ ------------------------ $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ . . . . 3 1 O . . . . . | $$ . . , . . 2 b . X . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . a X . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Second was the attachment below. Since the late 1990's this has become the main line in the position shown. This does not fit well with the format of corner joseki diagrams, so I wondered how it would be handled. Now at the time that Ishida came out, the diagonal connection followed by extending down the side (third diagram below) was clearly the main line. This was given a lot of coverage in Ishida. It seems to me that same coverage is just continued essentially unchanged in Takao with no mention (that I could find) of what is now the main line. Again can anyone confirm or deny?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Second case $$ -------------------- $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . X . . . . | $$ , . . . . . , X 1 . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ , . . . . . , . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . O . . | $$ . . . . . . O X . . | $$ , . . . . . , X . . | $$ . . . . . . X . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ --------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Final Joseki Position $$ -------------------- $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . X . X . . | $$ , . . . . . , X O . | $$ . . . . . . X O X . | $$ . . . . . . . O X . | $$ . . . . . . . O X . | $$ . . . . . . . O . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ , . . . . . , O . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . O O . . | $$ . . . . . . O X . . | $$ , . . . . . , X . . | $$ . . . . X . X . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ --------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Former Main Line $$ -------------------- $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . X . . . . | $$ , . . . . . , X . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . 4 . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ , . . . . . , . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ . . . . . . . O . . | $$ . . . . . . O X . . | $$ , . . . . . , X . . | $$ . . . . 2 . X . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . | $$ --------------------[/go]

Third was the diagonal reply to the two-space high pincer below. At the time Ishida came out, this was the most popular response to that pincer. In the meantime, it has almost disappeared. My understanding is that this was mainly due to the foot sweep at :b3:

. Yet as far as I could see, Takao keeps the old analysis without discussing the decline of the joseki. It even asserts that "a" is the normal response. This is no longer true in the 6.5 point komi era if I look at GoGoD. I might easily have missed some commentary on this in the text since I was flipping through while standing at the book case. Any comments?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Third Case $$ ---------------------- $$ . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ . , . 1 . 2 . , X . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . a . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

I loved Ishida when it came out, just as I started playing Go. It has remained the most often (re)used Go book that I own. I am a little hesitant to buy Takao due to the impression that there isn't really as much updating as there should be in order to properly reflect the current state of play. What is the thinking now that people have had their hands on it for a while?

gowan · Post by **gowan** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:36 am

The new book, as was the old, is a dictionary of basic joseki. There is no pretence of trying to be encyclopedic, and thus many "joseki" must be omitted, even some favorite ones of readers here. Takao says, as did Ishida, that he intends the book to be a work of instruction more than a comprehensive reference work, another reason for omitting sequences that some people might have wanted to see in the book. Takao states in his introduction that joseki are constantly changing. Because of that it is folly to try to include the very latest, still experimental, sequences. Basic joseki are those that are most commonly played, have the most basic and instructive features, and are least likely to change. It is interesting to me that after 50 or 60 years and the new ideas coming from Korea and China during that time so much of the basic material remains unchanged. Mention has been made of data bases. That is where people can find the innovative and experimental sequences. I think many people used the joseki dictionaries as a source of arcane variations to confound their opponents. Rather than use dictionaries of basic joseki for that I would suggest the books of new joseki or new patterns that used to be published every year, in the past ofetn edited by the late Abe Yoshiteru 9-dan. I bought the first Takao volume and pre-ordered the second. My copy of the Ishida dictionary is well worn and I'm not getting rid of it, mostly from nostalgia, but I expect I'll make just as much use of the Takao books.

oren · Post by **oren** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:35 am

ez4u wrote:I loved Ishida when it came out, just as I started playing Go. It has remained the most often (re)used Go book that I own. I am a little hesitant to buy Takao due to the impression that there isn't really as much updating as there should be in order to properly reflect the current state of play. What is the thinking now that people have had their hands on it for a while?

Interesting analysis you did. I didn't have the Ishida so I got the Takao version in Japanese. I honestly haven't spent much time on it. I usually use database lookup like you do to consider possible followups and then go to the dictionary when I just can't make heads or tails of a sequence.

Thanks for all the work.

gowan · Post by **gowan** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:46 pm

I'd be interested to know how the new book by Takao compares with Jungsuk in Our Time by Seo Bong-soo?

Life In 19x19

21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re:

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

Re: 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki