A vague treatise on influence

[daal]

Aren't you the guy who sometimes starts the game with two random moves?

Usually my center moves (9-7 and such) are intentional. On rare occasions, I did play (almost) randomly though. I even didn't look directly at the board so that the only things I knew was 1) somewhere on the left / right half of the board, 2) neither first nor second line, 3) the second move is neither nobi or kosumi, 4) the opponent did not play close to the first move and 5) my second move is not close to the opposing move. With these conditions, any black opening is almost equally possible.

My point is, with such an opening, your first two moves are influential stones whose purpose can probably best be described as "to exert influence." What form this influence will take can only become apparent as the game develops.

[RobertJasiek]

Therefore my reasoning applied before playing such moves include the strategic options
- to make territory
- to create a sphere of influence in which opposing stones can be attacked
- to create large scale cuts for attacks
- to create footholds for reductions or invasions
- to create options of exchanges
- to offer the opponent strategic choices

[Go_Japan]

Hidden due to being off-topic
RobertJasiek:

Not who assesses findings matters but whether the findings and the assessment are correct. Genius is not void by means of the silence of the masses. When someone is asked to explain why his findings are superior (if they are) then that is not arrogance but revealing the truth. Am I proud of having created some superior knowledge? Yes. Does pride equal arrogance? No.

Instead of starting a meta-discussion about what arrogance or genius are, discuss the topics themselves, reveal the knowledge of others and compare it to my findings! The purpose of superior knowledge is not being buried in meta-discussion but revealed for the sake of application.

Actually, it is precisely who evaluates someone else's work that matters most. If you write a paper and say it is genius, and no one else finds it useful or agrees, than is it genius? Perhaps it is, but if no one else can understand it or acknowledge it than it is also completely useless.
My point was not to say that you have not done excellent work. I have no idea whether your work is good or not. However, I am more inclined to believe 5 other peer reviewers or even lower level players who find your work useful than to simply read the back of the book jacket.
This is the essence behind double-blind peer review methods. If you have high quality work, others will see that it is high quality.
And like I said, I have no idea whether you have found the answers to these questions. All I am saying is that if you have found such answers, then surely many other people will recognize it and say so.

Why don't you assess truth or falsehood of such claims by yourself but rely on third persons, who might or might not be able to make good judgements? I can understand that for advanced research in science where you might miss the relevant education. Much of my go findings is suitable for an average player's understanding provided he invests some effort on the contents rather than on meta-discussion. Make that investment!

The answer is so simple... because I am not arrogant enough to believe I know everything about all topics.
When someone publishes an academic or scholarly book, the publishers send the book out first, for peer review. The book is reviewed by three or four experts in the field to assess the quality and worthiness of publication. For academic journal articles, this process is double-blind, which adds further sincerity to the reviews. In books, often times it is only single-blind.
After satisfying experts in the field, the books is published and the publisher usually sends free copies to some of the highest journals in the same academic field. The purpose is to find experts who might be willing to offer a review of the book for the journal. Then, these book reviews are checked by the editor of the journal for problems as well before being published. Book reviews are not generally peer-reviewed.
The reason for all this process is two-fold: 1) To assess whether the new book/article contributes anything to the subject matter. 2) To assess whether there are any major errors or oversights in the work.
This model is a simple one, but based on the premise that accuracy comes from repeated measurement. If one person says the work is useful, that is one data point. If 1000 people say the work is useful, that is 1000 data points. IT is very difficult to draw a conclusion from 1 datapoint, but much easier to do it from 1000 data points.
In the case of a single data point, it is very possible that there are biases that enter into measurement. When an author discusses the value of their own work, there are obvious biases present. The fact that they want people to read their work and buy their book.

I have no idea whether the author has solved the problems of go and if these books are useful.
I do know that I am not going to buy anyone's book without reading at least one review from someone other than the author (who has obvious interests in touting the benefits of the work).

1) This requires the existence of flaws at all!

2) Since my research start in about 1996, I have shared much while doing research and pointed out many side conditions that might pose problems. When I noticed mistakes, usually I have pointed them out quickly or invited others to find and point out mistakes.

I take this tongue-in-cheek. As the Persians note when creating the "Persian Flaw", only God is perfect.

[Magicwand]

To answer your question more specifically, knowledge about my superior methodical knowledge being superior where it is comes from comparison with conveyed knowledge by everybody else incl. those that (can) beat me in playing go. For example:

- Prior vicious circle of rules and life / death: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.

Really?? people played this game 5000 years and didnt even bother solving this important "vicious circle of rules and life / death ?
does that help you get stronger? if so, i am sure people studied it already.

- Distinction of ko versus non-ko stones: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.

distinction of ko and non ko stone... wow. really?? is that a topic you should write a book about??? almost everyone understands the rule and play them everyday. i am sure they know what ko is. Again.. that will not make you strong at all.

- Capturing races: The best I have heard from stronger players ("one eye beats no eye", as has been regularly used by professionals in public teaching and in a frequently applied semeai proverb) is 1) a falsehood and 2) a tiny fraction of what my book explains.

professionals can count faster and more accurate than you. let me know if you disagree. then how is it possible that you write a book about capturing race and say it is the best way???

- Influence / thickness (in their most frequent conceptual meanings of these words): It was very ambiguous what these concepts actually meant. I have provided an unambiguous explanation.

i find it hard to believe that you made the term not ambiguous while everything you say is ambiguous.

- Efficiency: For what was a mystery, I have shown a measure to calculate and compare it.

do i need to comment on this??? i think i have found a method to measure sanity and your level is 0.02 which is 89.7 point lower than mine. do you see my point?

- Playing elsewhere: AFAIK, there is no second discussion with such a general scope of explanation for the middle game.

are you talking about tenuki? i am sure you know that term..and didnt use it.. so i am thinking you are refering to something else and i dont know what that is.

- Unsettled group average: What was possible only for the endgame or only for special case application like a basic ko, I have made more general for the middle game. As an approximation, it is not the final solution but you don't find something equally mighty, in particular also not players who can beat me in playing.

group average <-- you have not define this term so i have no idea what you are talking about but there are people who study go and they are much smarter than you and stronger than you. by saying you have done what other could not, you are being arogant.

- Etc. (See my research papers and books).

to sum what you are saying..
"I did many years of research on xxxxxx(terms that was never defined) which was unsolved for centuries and wrote a book.
everyone needs to read this because it will give you an understanding of go and make you stronger."
Wake up from LIMBO world and smell the coffee.
you are not qualifed to write a go book that will make others stronger.

[daal]

do i need to comment on this???

No.

Tell us how to use influence.

[Go_Japan]

Tell us how to use influence.

This is just my opinion, and not an enlightened one.
For me, influence is about whole-board positioning. It is about understanding when you play one move in the top right corner that it affects the bottom left life and death problem.
It is about understanding when your opponent plays an approach on your 3-4 stone on the bottom left, you play a forcing move on the top right to create a ladder breaker before you play the joseki you want in the bottom left.

I am terrible at this, but that is how I think about it. Every stone affects/influences all the other positions on the board. The better one understands these effects, and consequently the importance of influence. I think the idea of "using" influence is not well stated. It is really about understanding the influence of particular local stones on the whole board.

I could be entirely wrong, and perhaps I am even talking about something else completely. I still think this is an important part of go, even if it is not called influence.

[daal]

I think the idea of "using" influence is not well stated.

By whom? This seems pretty well stated:

- to make territory
- to create a sphere of influence in which opposing stones can be attacked
- to create large scale cuts for attacks
- to create footholds for reductions or invasions
- to create options of exchanges
- to offer the opponent strategic choices

Perhaps Magicwand, whose abilities to use influence are probably on a similar level as Robert's might offer his own explanation of what influence is and how to use it. Contrary to what he says, many of us are in fact quite interested in what a mere 5d (or a 1d for that matter) has to say on the subject.

[RobertJasiek]

people played this game 5000 years and

Whether they played this game or predecessors is an open question. Say "at least about 500 - 2000 years" and it is still impressive.

didnt even bother solving this important "vicious circle of rules and life / death ?

They tried and failed. Stone scoring at least circumvented the problem. The more serious attempts were made in 1949 and 1989 (years of the Japanese rules versions). Failures.

does that help you get stronger?

Yes. The necessary work increased my tsumego. For regular players, reading the solution offers only a fraction of a stone though. The greatest benefit is for all those non-players in countries with a sparse go population. If they have it now easier from 100k to 20k, then that is a great success.

if so, i am sure people studied it already.

Some did. They told me. Practically speaking, the BGA has adopted a reasonable ruleset and Italians are interested in a translation of the Japanese 2003 Rules.

distinction of ko and non ko stone... wow. really??

Really. For cycles of arbitrary length with or without passes given arbitrary positions, wow indeed.

is that a topic you should write a book about???

No. Rather it is a topic I should write several books about.

almost everyone understands the rule and play them everyday. i am sure they know what ko is.

Unlike you, they at least know that there is more than then 2 play cycle ko.

Again.. that will not make you strong at all.

Correct. Understanding the general ko theory does not make anyone strong. Strong in an absolute sense. It can make players relatively stronger though. IMO, the greatest advantage is an understanding of the nature of when ko is worth fighting in a functional sense.

professionals can count faster and more accurate than you.

Faster: yes. More accurate in case of liberties - I do not know. For the capturing races I (and now similarly Thomas Wolf) have already solved, 100% accuracy is possible for me or every reader of the book given sufficient thinking time (in lightning games, mistakes are possible). So for those semeais the professionals cannot be "more accurate". At best they can be as accurate as I am. (Psychologically unforced errors are another point of discussion, of course.)

then how is it possible that you write a book about capturing race and say it is the best way???

Let me repeat: So far it (or Thomas Wolf's more recent alternative approach) is the best way for those classes of semeais explained in the book. How it is possible? Because the theory does not (strictly: only marginally) depend on fast reading or accurate game tree walking. The theory is about recognising conditions (like "has an eye"), counting liberties and conditions (like "Black has more fighting liberties than White"). Now a serious 15 kyu can acquire the same basic semeai skill as a 9p professional.

i find it hard to believe that you made the term not ambiguous while everything you say is ambiguous.

I do not cite every sentence of my book because it is written for commercial reasons - not as a source of punishment in the form of writing it twice (once in the book, a second time here).

do i need to comment on this??? i think i have found a method to measure sanity and your level is 0.02 which is 89.7 point lower than mine. do you see my point?

I do not see your point because sanity is irrelevant for Go strategy while avoiding overconcentration is relevant.

are you talking about tenuki?

Yes.

i am sure you know that term..and didnt use it.. so i am thinking you are refering to something else and i dont know what that is.

Can you even imagine the intention of avoiding superfluous Asian terms in English texts? I also would not like to read a Korean phrase in an English text; I would not understand it. Texts should be made easy for the readers. Ok, tenuki is a borderline case because it is already pretty well integrated in English go terminology. There are some readers with Chinese background though and not all of them know all the Japanese terms.

group average <-- you have not define this term

It is defined in my book.

by saying you have done what other could not, you are being arogant.

Either that or you because you think you would not learn it from the book without trying.

you are not qualifed to write a go book that will make others stronger.

Actually some HAVE BECOME stronger from reading my books.

[RobertJasiek]

For me, influence is about whole-board positioning. It is about understanding when you play one move in the top right corner that it affects the bottom left life and death problem.
It is about understanding when your opponent plays an approach on your 3-4 stone on the bottom left, you play a forcing move on the top right to create a ladder breaker before you play the joseki you want in the bottom left.

I am terrible at this, but that is how I think about it. Every stone affects/influences all the other positions on the board. The better one understands these effects, and consequently the importance of influence. I think the idea of "using" influence is not well stated. It is really about understanding the influence of particular local stones on the whole board.

I could be entirely wrong, and perhaps I am even talking about something else completely. I still think this is an important part of go, even if it is not called influence.

The things you are talking about are 1) haengma, 2) direction of play in the sense of which region to play next in, 3) (ladder) conditions / relations. Influence as a go term has a different meaning. Summarising the best ideas prior to my definition, it was described about as "impact of strong(er) stones on weak(er) stones and empty intersections, such as the impact of a wall of thickness on the formation of moyo" and had an implicit context of possible degrees that stronger, nearer groups create greater influence. It was, however, unclear what the nature of such impact was and how to assess and compare degrees.

[RobertJasiek]

if no one else can understand it or acknowledge it than it is also completely useless.

Not even that is right. Science had excellent works neglected for long times and centuries later came remarks like "the researcher was centuries ahead of his time".

I have no idea whether your work is good or not.

Seeing your other post, I guess you first need to understand what the English go term influence is about. At your rank, one starts learning such things. So I cannot know if are already aware of the concept at all.

I am more inclined to believe 5 other peer reviewers or even lower level players who find your work useful than to simply read the back of the book jacket. [...longe discription deleted...]

What you describe may be a useful process in, say, science but is not easily and regularly possible in the too small Western go world, which is so small that most(?) go books never get any serious review...

I have no idea whether the author has solved the problems of go and if these books are useful.

Of course, if you don't read them:)

I do know that I am not going to buy anyone's book without reading at least one review from someone other than the author

http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=4393.60

YinYangDD, 24.07.2011:
"Das Buch reiht sich nahtlos an den ersten Teil an, der Robert's Go-Systematik präsentiert. Darüber kann man jetzt herrlich streiten, wie universell es ist, ob es für alle Spieler passend ist, ob es wissenschaftlich ist oder nicht - ich finde, das sollte jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Mir liegt diese Art Systematik, nun muss ich sie nur noch in Spielstärke umsetzen Cheesy

Im Buch werden verschiedenste strategische Elemente durchgegangen, wonach man die aktuelle Brettsituation bewerten kann. Dazu zählen dann Dinge wie "Wie bewertet man Dicke?" "Wie bewertet man den Punktestand?", die Bedeutung von Schnitten usw.
Der Zusammenhang zu Josekis ist nicht unbedingt immer gegeben, dennoch finde ich die Darstellung der Prinzipien sehr klar und einhellig. Ein kleiner Schwachpunkt ist aus meiner Sicht, dass die Prinzipien beschrieben sind, aber offen bleibt, wie man die Bewertung nutzt, um die Brettsituation weiter entwickelt. Das letzte Kapitel "Strategische Planung" weißt da einen guten Weg, ist allerdings sehr kurz gehalten. Ich hoffe, dass der dritte Band hier weiter ansetzt und weitere Hinweise gibt!

Aus meiner Sicht ist es das bisher umfassendste Buch, worauf Strategie während des Spiels fußt. Ich denke, mir hilft es, in Zukunft meine Spiele besser zu planen und dann Entscheidungshilfen zu haben, welche Gruppe man wie entwickelt."

http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=4393.80
Nagu, 29.07.2011:
"
Ich habe das Buch zwar schon relativ früh von Robert bezogen, bin aber erst vor kurzem dazu gekommen, mich eingehender mit dem Buch zu befassen. Und nach einem halben Jahr der Stagnation bei 6 kyu gewinne ich nun auch als 5Kyu so viel Spiele, dass ich mich steil den 4Kyu (KGS) nähere. Und das obwohl ich zuvor stetig Probleme gelöst habe.
Eigentlich ist noch ein ausführliches Review angedacht, aber so viel kann ich schon sagen:
Roberts Sinn für Genauigkeit hat zwei Seiten. Zum einen dazu, dass er ein Konzept nicht unter den Tisch kehrt, nur weil es aus der Sicht von starken Spielern trivial ist. Seine Definition von Stabilität zum Beispiel war nicht vollkommen überraschend für mich, aber ich habe eine größere Aufmerksamkeit für Entwicklungsrichtungen bekommen. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass mir seine präzisen Definitionen bei meinem Spiel das Gefühl geben, ein größere Sicherheit darüber zu haben, was ich gerade tue.
Es stimmt allerdings, dass das Buch mehr von einem Nachschlagewerk hat, als von einem Lehrbuch hat. Und zwar in dem Sinne, dass es nicht auf eine bestimmte Spielstärke zugeschnitten ist. Bei manchen Themen wie zum Beispiel Sente & Gote habe ich gemerkt, dass ich die entsprechenden Aspekte bisher zu wenig gewürdigt habe und ich gerne weitere Beispiele und Ausführungen gesehen hätte. Ich fände es psychologisch vorteilhafter, wenn sich der behandeltete Stoff insgesamt auf einem ähnlichen Niveau bewegt hätte. In diesem Buch variert es sehr: Konzepte wie Schneiden und Verbinden sind beinahe zu leicht verdaulich. Sehr interessant wiederum ist der Themenkomplex Stability/Investment/Urgency/Tenuki/Timing. Sehr präzise wird auch das Thema Forcing Moves behandelt. Auch der Spezialfall Induktion. ( Habe ich bisher sonst nur in Attack & Defense ) gesehen. Diese Themen hat Robert sehr gut dargestellt, seine Beispiele sind immer sehr gut gewählt.
Bei einem Thema wie Stärke ist schon etwas problematisch, da die vorgestellten Modelle hauptsächlich dabei helfen, verschiedene Qualitätsgrade von Stärke zu erkennen.
Bezüglich Stärke liegen meine größten Fehler aber oft in Wahl eines falschen Josekis, die Wände passen also nicht zum restlichen Brett. Das Buch behandelt zwar das gute Sprichwort "Play away from thickness", aber es gibt noch viele andere gute Prinzipien für den Umgang mit Stärke, die ich einem fundierten theoretischen Modell vorgezogen hätte. Zum Beispiel wird nur indirekt darauf eingegangen, wie Stärke entwertet wird. Nach einer 3-3-Invasion zur falschen Seite zu blocken, ist bei vielen Kyu-Spieler noch sehr beliebt. Allerdings ist es auch mMn nicht einfach zu beantworten, wo man bei einem Lehrbuch für Josekis die Grenze ziehen sollte, wenn man auf Stärke und Einfluss eingehen möchte. Na ja..
Von diesem Punkt mal abgesehen, finde ich die konzeptionelle Darstellung der strategischen Konzepte ( also abgesehen von Stärke und Einfluss) ausführlicher als in anderen Büchern. Wenn ich das Gefühl hätte irgendwo nachschlagen zu müssen, würde ich ohne Überlegen dieses Buch zur Hand nehmen.
( Bezüglich Stärke gibt es schönes Buch aus der Mastering the Basics-Serie. Smiley )
Zum Analyseteil kann ich nicht so viel sagen, da ich in meinen Partien nicht so genau zähle, meistens nur grobe optische Checks. Smiley
Einiges meine ich aber schon aus anderen Bücher zu kennen, zumindest in ähnlicher Form. Schön fand ich auf jeden Fall auch, dass einen Abschnitt zu Tewari gab, obwohl ich zugeben muss, dass ich noch nicht sicher bin, ob es da nicht auch ein paar Beispiele getan hätten, um diese Methode zu erklären.

Wieder sehr interessant fand ich die Abschnitte, in denen die globale Brettsituation betrachtet wurde und der strategische Bewertungs- und Entscheidungsprozess dokumentiert wurde. Zum einen gab es hier hilfreiche Prinzipien, aber es wurden auch die vorgestellten strategischen Konzepte in den globalen Kontext eingefügt.
Na ja, man kann noch viele Punkte ansprechen, aber... die ändern auch nichts an meinem Eindruck.

Der wäre: Die Darstellung des Stoffs ist häufig etwas heavy. ( Mein letztes Textbuch war "This is haengma". Auch ein sehr lehrreiches Buch, aber im Vergleich zu diesem sehr viel leichter zu verdauen.) Aber wer sich durch die Seiten arbeitet und sich ernsthaft damit auseinandersetzt, kann mit diesem Buch sehr viel lernen. Allerdings bin ich auch der Meinung, dass das Buch sehr davon profitiert hätte, wenn es stärker auf ein bestimmtes Zielpublikum ( vorzugsweise Kyu-Spieler Tongue )ausgerichtet wäre und das Wissen etwas dosierter präsentiert hätte.
Aber: Momentan scheint es mir den richtigen Anstoß zu geben. Zumindest für meine Person sehe ich die These widerlegt, dass man nur Spielen und Leben&Tod-Probleme lösen muss, um sich verbessern."

Translation of the sentence "nach einem halben Jahr der Stagnation bei 6 kyu gewinne ich nun auch als 5Kyu so viel Spiele, dass ich mich steil den 4Kyu (KGS) nähere.": "After half a year of stagnation at 6 kyu, now as a 5 kyu I win so many games that I approach 4 kyu (KGS) quickly."

[RobertJasiek]

BTW, the method "unsettled group average" determines almost precise approximations of these values of an unsettled group (a group that is neither unconditionally alive, a seki nor unconditionally dead): the count (territorial value) and the miai value (per move value of an attacking or defending move). A requirement for the method is the possibility of a locally restricted judgement.

[Kirby]

Thanks for explaining your position more, Robert.

It seems to me that your approach is to delve into go in a very methodical way, trying to systematically explain the essence of go.

A contrasting approach is a more intuitive one, which I believe Magicwand adopts. The intuitive approach probably does not try to systematically explain go in a structured way. However, it may have the benefit of "knowing" that a particular way of playing is correct based on feeling and experience.

These two approaches, while not necessarily exclusive, are quite different, and it is hard to "prove" that one is better than the other.

However, in my opinion, the best indicator of which method is better can only be seen by who wins more games.

In other words, if having a more intuitive approach leads to more wins than a systematic one, I feel that that approach is probably better for getting stronger.

Looking at the data - you have claimed to have solved certain areas of study that pros don't bother to try to get better at - I would venture that it's probably more useful to focus on the same things that pros do.

If pros win more because of experience and intuition, then by golly, I think that experience and intuition is the way to go. Studying other stuff is interesting, but it's probably not the best way to get better if pros don't adhere to those methods.

[Bill Spight]

Moving on to the 18th century, in this castle game White demonstrated a better understanding of outside influence that Black. White used his walls to attack and make territory elsewhere. Black's early attack produced territory, but then fizzled. Note that White's first wall is not particularly strong.

[RobertJasiek]

it is hard to "prove" that one is better than the other.

In the long run, only the methodical approach (or maybe alternatively sheer computer calculation power applied to some yet to be discovered methods) can win, i.e. solve the game some centuries later.

the best indicator of which method is better can only be seen by who wins more games.

There are more indicators. An important other indicator is: Formally proving the truth of a theorem.

In other words, if having a more intuitive approach leads to more wins than a systematic one, I feel that that approach is probably better for getting stronger.

Why? The alternative explanation is: It has been more popular in the past and this still shows in the present.

I would venture that it's probably more useful to focus on the same things that pros do.

Be patient! Method requires understanding the fundamentals first before the laurels can be collected. BTW, in the meantime also professionals can learn from methodical insight for both playing and teaching.

If pros win more because of experience and intuition, then by golly, I think that experience and intuition is the way to go. Studying other stuff is interesting, but it's probably not the best way to get better if pros don't adhere to those methods.

Wait another 30 to 50 years and you will see that your guess is wrong:)

[daal]

@Kirby

While RJ is a go player interested in arcane theoretical matters, he is also a teacher. He doesn't write books to get stronger, he writes them so that people wishing to get stronger can do so by reading his books. While there may be many methods of improving, in order to teach you do need to be able to verbalize your thoughts and it's probably not bad if you can back up your opinions with something more than your excellent intuition. Winning games is utterly irrelevant to the validity of his ideas. Also, there are many pros who not only read but also write books about go.