Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:However - the more important question is: don't you need to define "weak" and "important" in your principles?
These principles are meaningless unless the reader knows the exact meaning of those two terms. On the other hand, it seems to me that if the reader knows the meaning of those terms, then the principle itself is trivial, if not redundant. Regardless of which of the two versions of the principle you pick.

Yeah, Defend your strong stones, and Defend your unimportant stones, are unlikely principles.

Bill Spight wrote: Yeah, Defend your strong stones, and Defend your unimportant stones, are unlikely principles.

I'm waiting for Attack your undetermined if strong or weak or important or trash stones but maybe they can have a ko so decide later.

Bantari wrote:the more exact the principle, the more general it sounds, and the more knowledge and experience is required from the user to fill in the blanks and make the principle actually usable.

Like "Notice cuts.". This is a 100% principle, but to notice all cuts, quite some reading can be necessary.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:the more exact the principle, the more general it sounds, and the more knowledge and experience is required from the user to fill in the blanks and make the principle actually usable.

Like "Notice cuts.". This is a 100% principle, but to notice all cuts, quite some reading can be necessary.

And this is the problem with high-accuracy principles. To cover more cases more accurately, and still be confined to the size of one sentence or so - they need by necessity to assume a lot of knowledge, experience, reading and whatnot from the user. This is why we usually stop at the low-accuracy principles for teaching. Once the reader has the necessary skills to understand the issues involved in high-accuracy principles, he might not need the principles anymore.

Your insistent quest for more accuracy in every word, as admirable as it might be, misses the point slightly - for exactly the reason I give above.

When you look from top down, as we do here, talking about principles we understand but would like to teach to weak(er) players, more accuracy makes sense. But when you look from bottom up, such added accuracy often only confuses the issue and renders the principles useless.

For example, a low-accuracy principle like "defend your stones" might make sense for a beginner. On the other hand, "defend your weak stones" can be meaningless unless the beginner knows how to tell weak stones from strong stones - which requires background knowledge and experience which is not that easy and should not be assumed. When you add the word "important" to that, the problems for beginner get multiplied and the principle even more meaningless. And so on...

And this is why most "proverbs" are low-accuracy.
And contrary to what you say, they might actually be better so, or at least - there is a good and valid reason for them to be so. Not sure if trying to change it is all that good.
Accuracy can have its disadvantages as well, so I am not sure you should generalize as you do when you say "more accurate is always better than less accurate."

Bantari wrote:To cover more cases more accurately, and still be confined to the size of one sentence or so - they need by necessity to assume a lot of knowledge, experience, reading and whatnot from the user.

You let this sound negative, as if exploration of the nature of strategy and tactics should not dare to reveal systematic insights.

This is why we usually stop at the low-accuracy principles for teaching. [...] And this is why most "proverbs" are low-accuracy.

No. The reason is that previously too few have studied generalised knowledge carefully. Without careful study, only very weak forms of principles or proverbs can be created.

I do not stop there but go far beyond it.

Once the reader has the necessary skills to understand the issues involved in high-accuracy principles, he might not need the principles anymore.

Without a replacement for another, equally successful and efficient approach, he would not abandon their use.

When you look from top down, as we do here,

How so, for which sample principle? I prefer to develop bottom up principles. I do not find the time to do so for each principle explicitly, but there is close relation between lowest (rules) level via basic level (such as connection status) to higher level (such as typical, somewhat advanced strategic concepts, e.g., influence).

when you look from bottom up, such added accuracy often only confuses the issue and renders the principles useless.

The lowest levels can be encapsulated to avoid confusion. E.g., strategy depends on left-parts of move-sequences, but this low level can be hidden.

how to tell weak stones from strong stones - which requires background knowledge and experience which [...] should not be assumed.

A distinction of weak from strong stones should be assumed, but not every player can make this distinction easily.

When you add the word "important" to that, the problems for beginner get multiplied

No. A beginner can use an easy approximation for "important": "many stones" or "visually big".

Not sure if trying to change it is all that good.

I am sure it is very good. Nothing has helped my understanding of go theory more than my principles. Before them, everything was confusing and unclear. With them, everything is clear (as far as the principles reach) up to the point, where principles have dynamic input (such as "[the status] determined and verified by reading"). Without principles, reading (or other dynamic input) often is clueless - with principles, reading focuses on relevant aspects.

Accuracy can have its disadvantages as well

Only if you lack the imagination to ignore more accurate details where, by principle, they may be ignored.

Well, I will let most of the below pass, since you are continuing on your usual path of insisting you are correct and everybody else is wrong. We have been there before, and it led nowhere - you learned nothing. So for now just a few remarks about accuracy, since I don't think we have discussed it before:

In theory, perfect levels of accuracy are good.
But then - in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, however... they often diverge.

In real life - the level accuracy has to be selected according to the need, not expected to be arbitrarily high or even perfect. Most of the time there is no need to be perfectly accurate (as a matter of fact, it is not even possible) and it is not desirable. Pretty much everything around you runs based on some approximation of accuracy, and the trick is not to make it more accurate but to pick the *appropriate* level of accuracy.

Same with teaching Go.
You simply cannot regurgitate all the details and intricacies of everything you know with 99% accuracy to a beginner or you will drawn him. Knowledge needs to be presented step-by-step, and accuracy increased over time.

For example:
You yourself say that "A beginner can use an easy approximation for 'important': 'many stones' or 'visually big'." - but this in itself is just an approximation with low accuracy, might as well say "defend all visually big groups" since this is what this translates to for a beginner. You seem to admit yourself that such loss of accuracy is needed, and apparently have no problem with that. And this is exactly what I am saying - such loss of accuracy is not only needed when teaching, but unavoidable, and with progress this accuracy gets refined.

The question is - what is the *appropriate* level of accuracy?
Personally, I like "Defend weak groups" better than "Defend weak and visually big groups" as you suggest. Both statements are not very accurate, although you might say that the latter is slightly more accurate. The difference is - the former statement needs to get eventually *refined* while the latter, more accurate one, needs to be *unlearned*. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

This is why "proverbs", which are nothing more but stepping stones to refined accuracy on the path of very low-level learning, are left not very accurate. And I think this is on purpose, backed by centuries of trial and error.

But go ahead, and prove me wrong.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:To cover more cases more accurately, and still be confined to the size of one sentence or so - they need by necessity to assume a lot of knowledge, experience, reading and whatnot from the user.

You let this sound negative, as if exploration of the nature of strategy and tactics should not dare to reveal systematic insights.

This is why we usually stop at the low-accuracy principles for teaching. [...] And this is why most "proverbs" are low-accuracy.

No. The reason is that previously too few have studied generalised knowledge carefully. Without careful study, only very weak forms of principles or proverbs can be created.

I do not stop there but go far beyond it.

Once the reader has the necessary skills to understand the issues involved in high-accuracy principles, he might not need the principles anymore.

Without a replacement for another, equally successful and efficient approach, he would not abandon their use.

When you look from top down, as we do here,

How so, for which sample principle? I prefer to develop bottom up principles. I do not find the time to do so for each principle explicitly, but there is close relation between lowest (rules) level via basic level (such as connection status) to higher level (such as typical, somewhat advanced strategic concepts, e.g., influence).

when you look from bottom up, such added accuracy often only confuses the issue and renders the principles useless.

The lowest levels can be encapsulated to avoid confusion. E.g., strategy depends on left-parts of move-sequences, but this low level can be hidden.

how to tell weak stones from strong stones - which requires background knowledge and experience which [...] should not be assumed.

A distinction of weak from strong stones should be assumed, but not every player can make this distinction easily.

When you add the word "important" to that, the problems for beginner get multiplied

No. A beginner can use an easy approximation for "important": "many stones" or "visually big".

Not sure if trying to change it is all that good.

I am sure it is very good. Nothing has helped my understanding of go theory more than my principles. Before them, everything was confusing and unclear. With them, everything is clear (as far as the principles reach) up to the point, where principles have dynamic input (such as "[the status] determined and verified by reading"). Without principles, reading (or other dynamic input) often is clueless - with principles, reading focuses on relevant aspects.

Accuracy can have its disadvantages as well

Only if you lack the imagination to ignore more accurate details where, by principle, they may be ignored.

Bantari wrote:your usual path of insisting you are correct and everybody else is wrong.

Wrong.

you learned nothing.

Wrong. The problem is not that I would learn nothing, but the problem is that I learn unfortunately little on average from others' go theory, which is too weak on average.

Pretty much everything around you runs based on some approximation of accuracy, and the trick is not to make it more accurate but to pick the *appropriate* level of accuracy.

Same with teaching Go.

No. In go theory (and go teaching), there can be a variety of degrees of accuracy up to "always correct", but some aspects of go theory are easy enough to allow learning and application of truths.

You simply cannot regurgitate all the details and intricacies of everything you know with 99% accuracy to a beginner or you will drawn him. Knowledge needs to be presented step-by-step, and accuracy increased over time.

No doubt about that. However, I do not take this as a necessity to present beginners with incorrect advice to be unlearned later. Incomplete or approximative in details, yes - incorrect, no.

such loss of accuracy is not only needed when teaching, but unavoidable,

No. Even a beginner (old enough to be able to count at all) can, e.g., count numbers of physical liberties. There is no need for him to be imprecise about that.

what is the *appropriate* level of accuracy?

It depends on purposes, contexts and ability for dynamic factors (such as reading).

"Defend weak and visually big groups" as you suggest.

This is not what I suggest. I suggest "...important...", and if a beginner (with apparent problems of progress) wants to know what "important" is, I explain to him "many stones" or "[visually] big" (or, in other contexts, there are other aspects of important, such as for important cutting stones). (A more interested beginner I also tell that an intersection with a captured stone is 2 points.)

while the latter, more accurate one, needs to be *unlearned*.

Since I suggest "...important...", the principle remains the same. Also the means of approximation need not be unlearned, because they are still useful for other applications. The assignment of these approximations need to be replaced by more accurate approximations and later by accurate calculations. This is not the same as "unlearning", because from the beginning it should be clarified that the initially used methods of approximations for a principle are temporary until the player is ready for methods of greater accuracy. The idea always is to be as accurate as one already can and wants to be.

Really? Every sentence I wrote was incorrect?
My my... next time how about you split it by words, maybe some of those were right.
You don't want to break my spirit like that each time. Give me some points at least... A right word somewhere? Heh.

But seriously... I think your worldview is much too simplistic. Still, whatever rocks your boat.
I can point you towards wider horizons, but the journey you need to make yourself.
Until then, "rigid" and "inflexible" is as valid a dogma as any, I guess...

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:your usual path of insisting you are correct and everybody else is wrong.

Wrong.

you learned nothing.

Wrong. The problem is not that I would learn nothing, but the problem is that I learn unfortunately little on average from others' go theory, which is too weak on average.

Pretty much everything around you runs based on some approximation of accuracy, and the trick is not to make it more accurate but to pick the *appropriate* level of accuracy.

Same with teaching Go.

No. In go theory (and go teaching), there can be a variety of degrees of accuracy up to "always correct", but some aspects of go theory are easy enough to allow learning and application of truths.

You simply cannot regurgitate all the details and intricacies of everything you know with 99% accuracy to a beginner or you will drawn him. Knowledge needs to be presented step-by-step, and accuracy increased over time.

No doubt about that. However, I do not take this as a necessity to present beginners with incorrect advice to be unlearned later. Incomplete or approximative in details, yes - incorrect, no.

such loss of accuracy is not only needed when teaching, but unavoidable,

No. Even a beginner (old enough to be able to count at all) can, e.g., count numbers of physical liberties. There is no need for him to be imprecise about that.

what is the *appropriate* level of accuracy?

It depends on purposes, contexts and ability for dynamic factors (such as reading).

"Defend weak and visually big groups" as you suggest.

This is not what I suggest. I suggest "...important...", and if a beginner (with apparent problems of progress) wants to know what "important" is, I explain to him "many stones" or "[visually] big" (or, in other contexts, there are other aspects of important, such as for important cutting stones). (A more interested beginner I also tell that an intersection with a captured stone is 2 points.)

while the latter, more accurate one, needs to be *unlearned*.

Since I suggest "...important...", the principle remains the same. Also the means of approximation need not be unlearned, because they are still useful for other applications. The assignment of these approximations need to be replaced by more accurate approximations and later by accurate calculations. This is not the same as "unlearning", because from the beginning it should be clarified that the initially used methods of approximations for a principle are temporary until the player is ready for methods of greater accuracy. The idea always is to be as accurate as one already can and wants to be.

RJ wrote:

Bantari wrote:your usual path of insisting you are correct and everybody else is wrong.

Wrong.

Best quote ever. This concludes the discussion. Thank you for participating everyone.

leichtloeslich wrote:This concludes the discussion. Thank you for participating everyone.

Wrong!

Actually this is a pretty confusing thread. Someone should make a few distinctions. While "axioms" for playing go would be valuable, we more often get "heuristics". Those are supposed to allow to find something (your next play, a direction or plan, for example). The one about defending weak groups is actually dependent for explanation on an actual English-language proverb ("a stitch in time saves nine"); because much of the point is that giving up a tempo now to help settle a weak group can save several tempi later when it is attacked strongly but still can be saved. It is certainly not just about life-and-death, which can often if not always be done on a just-in-time basis (''shinogi'').

And so on. The meta-proverb is that explaining a heuristic drags in further concepts. Obviously axioms are supposed to be free-standing.

The principle of defending one's, and the related principle of attacking the opponent's, weak (or more accurately: unsettled or unstable) important stones is not a truth because it has exceptions. However, one can reformulate to make it a truth:

Defend your weak important stones, unless you choose on purpose an at least equally good different strategy.

Examples of different strategies are: sacrifice the stones; defend the stones indirectly (e.g., by attacking nearby weak opposing stones to create a mutual running fight); postpone defense to do something else.

RobertJasiek wrote:The principle of defending one's, and the related principle of attacking the opponent's, weak (or more accurately: unsettled or unstable) important stones is not a truth because it has exceptions. However, one can reformulate to make it a truth:

Defend your weak important stones, unless you choose on purpose an at least equally good different strategy.

Examples of different strategies are: sacrifice the stones; defend the stones indirectly (e.g., by attacking nearby weak opposing stones to create a mutual running fight); postpone defense to do something else.

Perhaps we could reformulate this as "You need to either defend your weak stones, or follow a strategy that involves them being attacked or captured."

This strategy could be sacrifice, but it may also be a sort of amashi technique or something different. It also gets away from the need to determine if a stone is important or not in the formulation of the wording, since a strategy that makes stones important or unimportant will determine that. As far a good or equally good strategy, I think it's very difficult for a beginner to tell if a strategy is good or not without experience trying different strategies and failing or succeeding, though there are heuristics that help.

skydyr wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:The principle of defending one's, and the related principle of attacking the opponent's, weak (or more accurately: unsettled or unstable) important stones is not a truth because it has exceptions. However, one can reformulate to make it a truth:

Defend your weak important stones, unless you choose on purpose an at least equally good different strategy.

Examples of different strategies are: sacrifice the stones; defend the stones indirectly (e.g., by attacking nearby weak opposing stones to create a mutual running fight); postpone defense to do something else.

Perhaps we could reformulate this as "You need to either defend your weak stones, or follow a strategy that involves them being attacked or captured."

This strategy could be sacrifice, but it may also be a sort of amashi technique or something different. It also gets away from the need to determine if a stone is important or not in the formulation of the wording, since a strategy that makes stones important or unimportant will determine that. As far a good or equally good strategy, I think it's very difficult for a beginner to tell if a strategy is good or not without experience trying different strategies and failing or succeeding, though there are heuristics that help.

We?