Is Japanese or Western literature more brilliant?

[illluck]

[admn]

*** Bit Shortage Wrning ***

L19 is runing out of bts. Pls do not mak unncssry psts.
Fr the durtion of the emrgncy, pls abbrvt all wrds lik xlnt + brllnt.
We expct mor bts nxt wk.

Thx,
JB

[/admn]

If you're going to pull the admin card out, then it least be serious about it.

this is stupid.

+1

This looks like an abuse of mod powers to me.

Edit: "This" refers to the changing of Robert Jasiek's username.

[RobertJasiek]

topazg, for letting influence assess what is going on elsewhere, there is my precise influence definition, which, however, is not compatible with my joseki evaluation method (you cannot devide a number by a 5-tuple).

You can ask Yilun Yang:)

daal has referred to some of my methods, I do not know if is already referring to the joseki evaluation method. Which is daal's real world rank?

Unlike you seem to suggest, I do not advocate to forget about joseki variations (just because of the joseki evaluation method); in fact J3D offers also them for learning.

Benchmark: My method could serve as one for some other approach. But is there any benchmark to assess my method (other than what I have described and you do not accept as benchmark)?

Can we confirm situations where a professional can agree that, in this circumstance, when a slightly biased outcome favouring one player happens, that professionals agree this to be the case.

We can: apply my method (or read the values created) and compare it with pro statements for such local positions. I have seen such but not written down the evidence.

There are a few josekis that are locally favourable for Black but globally favourable for White.

I would not call it joseki but standard variation for special circumstances.

How does a player know when to apply your method

Always when he thinks he can gain information from it.

and how to incorporate other factors to avoid applying it correctly and ending with a bad result?

How: consider the other factors. Judge for whom they are advantegous.

Avoid incorrect application: be careful with your judgement.

Judging end result: judge. Use my method and positional analysis methods. Use strategic planning. (Details: see J123.)

In these situations, what additional value did they have from using your method in the first place as opposed to using more vague general principles?

Precision. (At the moment, I lack time to find more. How does Bill say it? Gotta run!)

When you say that your method is the best yet, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate it, and I haven't yet seen it demonstrated

See previous posts. - There is not remotely a second similar generally applicable joseki evaluation theory at all. So already trivially mine is the best.

I don't think you can have a sound method without an incorporation of these in one system, particularly not when being used as instructional material.

By this argument, every other go theory book is worse. I make at least attempts of integrating the various aspects such as strategic concepts and analysis methods in the overall strategic planning. Where else do you see any such attempt?

The way I read this response of yours is "yes and no, to be honest the value you get out of my method is only useful in a wider context"

Decide. Before you complained that the wider context was missing.

Which josekis does your theory consider incorrect, and why?

I will repeat when my user name is correct again. Otherwise I better save bit width.

Great, can you please post some josekis in which your method has provided the answer to a controversial joseki area.

No. J3D teaches frequently useful josekis - not the latest controversies. Will be interesting future study.

(Gotta run. More later.)

[jts]

[admn]

*** Bit Shortage Wrning ***

L19 is runing out of bts. Pls do not mak unncssry psts.
Fr the durtion of the emrgncy, pls abbrvt all wrds lik xlnt + brllnt.
We expct mor bts nxt wk.

Thx,
JB

[/admn]

If you're going to pull the admin card out, then it least be serious about it.

this is stupid.

Oh come on, this is hilarious.

[oren]

oren, which strong plyrs/pros do have time for free reviews?

I would probably email any who speak English and teach regularly on KGS ( http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSTeachers ). Who knows, maybe some would be interested or maybe not. You would have nothing to lose. I think it's worth the effort for you to learn more from stronger players and be able to present even better material in the future.

[Javaness2]

Has Western literature ever delivered any innovations, or is it purely derivative?

[oren]

Has Western literature ever delivered any innovations, or is it purely derivative?

It somewhat depends on what you mean by innovation. I think Yilun Yang has written his own books that are great and Guo Juan has created a separate way of providing information all in the West.

You can always argue everything is derivative in some way.

[RobertJasiek]

(continuing earlier reply)

What value does your system have in evaluating a result, prior to the application of other information?

It determines stone difference, territory count and influence stone difference. These values are aleady interesting for themselves. It judges if something is a joseki. It assigns a corner result to a value type class, for which one knows a few more generally valid statements. It hints to which extent or in which way of further evaluation application of other information could be useful.

If there are excerpts that demonstrate your point, I'm sure you can post them accordingly

Short citations I make or have made. I won't copy substantial parts.

[RobertJasiek]

In which book is this process described?

Joseki 3 Dictionary, chapter 3.

how strong would the player have to be to make professional quality joseki choices using your method?

In my earlier messages, I have tried to indicate that other methods are more relevant for strategic choices. Here is the decryption, now that I do not need to save bits any longer:

J2S = Joseki 2 Strategy
ch. 6 = chapter 6
J3D = Joseki 3 Dictionary
chapters 2 and 4

The latter are particularly useful.

Professional quality joseki choices? No. Professionals (or already high dan amateurs) can sometimes complicate decisions a lot. Presuming that there are no high level complications or rarities, I think that every SDK has a good chance to apply the decisions with the book in his hand, presuming he has already read the book and therefore a rough understanding of what he supposed to think about when trying to make correct strategic decisions.

Are you convinced that a month or so studying your book would enable him to do so?

Since the task does not require learning move sequences, I think that an eager reader with much time for book reading could do it after maybe 2 weeks. Learning a good fraction of the variations takes 1 to 2 months for a 5k or stronger having read the first two volumes (which ease understanding greatly), I'd guess. (I needed 3 months day and night for my first Ishida reading and variations learning, but there is much less supporting structure and no preliminary go theory explanation at all in the Ishida, so I had to work out some basics while trying to understand and memorise.)

[RobertJasiek]

Has Western literature ever delivered any innovations, or is it purely derivative?

University style research: a lot.

Go book style: uh, to start with, see my books. Then there is Hunter, not much, but he started semeai and semeai tesuji innovation, leaving the Asian path. Wilcox sector lines were almost common sense though (that is, among a few similarly minded players in the West). Oh, and what about Davies' 5x5 examples? Also an innovation at his time, or not?

I think, one must not overlook journals of go associations.

[hyperpape]

Wait, did Robert's username really get changed by a mod? I am beyond baffled.

[xed_over]

Wait, did Robert's username really get changed by a mod? I am beyond baffled.

yeah... you can still see it in some of his quoted posts

[Javaness2]

Go Association journals/yearbooks cannot, to my imagination, be called innovative.
The mathematics produced by Berklekamp could be, so lets turn to the next question - Is it brilliant? I'm not convinced.
I am given to understand that Wilcox's sector theory was original, but was it really so? Maybe somebody with more knowledge of Oriental literature could answer that. Haven't read his book, so I can't comment on it.

Joseki dictionaries wouldn't fall into the brilliant category for me, they're just textbooks.
Hunter's books are accurate, but overdone, studies of basic techniques.

Has Western literature ever delivered any innovations, or is it purely derivative?

University style research: a lot.

Go book style: uh, to start with, see my books. Then there is Hunter, not much, but he started semeai and semeai tesuji innovation, leaving the Asian path. Wilcox sector lines were almost common sense though (that is, among a few similarly minded players in the West). Oh, and what about Davies' 5x5 examples? Also an innovation at his time, or not?

I think, one must not overlook journals of go associations.

[RobertJasiek]

Go Association journals/yearbooks cannot, to my imagination, be called innovative.

Not the entire journals, but a few articles in them! E.g., I recall a few about endgame maths in DGoZ. Small contributions but innovative.

The mathematics produced by Berklekamp could be, so lets turn to the next question - Is it brilliant? I'm not convinced.

I have not studied CGT carefully enough to judge about Berklekamp's CGT work to say whether it is very good or brilliant. Innovative for sure. (His rules work is good, but not brilliant.)

Another candidate for brilliancy is Conway, although his work is much more general than Go.

I am given to understand that Wilcox's sector theory was original, but was it really so?

Several came up with this idea independently from each other, among them me. It is a straightforward invention. (Theory is an exaggeration. It is just drawing outer lines.)

Joseki dictionaries wouldn't fall into the brilliant category for me, they're just textbooks.

LOL. Everything is "just textbooks", even the bible.

Hunter's books are accurate,

This shows you have neither really understood the contents of Counting Liberties nor read my corrections in Capturing Races. (It is easy to overlook Hunter's mistakes if one reads his book while trusting the contents. I also fell into that trap during my first reading.)

but overdone, studies of basic techniques.

What about reading the Kageyama once more? You might become stronger when you stop underestimating the basics!

[Javaness2]

A joseki dictionary is just a reference. Your theory, whilst taking the work beyond that level, is simply too badly presented to be described as brilliant.

Capturing Races Workshop & Monkey Jump Workshop are just puzzle collections with some obvious theory. No pro would ever recommend reading those. There may be some obscure formula you can apply, but they are just that. If you want to read puzzles, read life and death collections.

[RobertJasiek]

topazg, you have made me wonder why my joseki evaluation method is so successful in distinguishing (non-)joseki, although it counts each significant outside influence stone as 1 while different stones can have (slightly) different impacts for the influence. Average alone is not a sufficient explanation of that mystery.

Unlike arbitrary shapes in the middle game, josekis have special properties. In particular, each involved stone makes good sense (even if it is a sacrifice). Those joseki stones representing significant outside influence make good sense by (per player altogether) doing so in their (idealised) most efficient manner. Not suboptimal, but most efficiently. Each stone brings in all its value. All a stone's value is 1.

It is like a pro game move's commentary "strive to get all out of your stones".