Life In 19x19

Maybe we should move this discussion about Takao's book over to the thread about Robert's book.

I don't think it's off-topic for Robert to defend his book in a thread explicitly comparing his book to another. The posts do sound a bit defensive, but I suppose it's hard not to feel that way about one's own work. I will say that I don't think John's initial comparison was particularly negative towards it, essentially saying "both books are good but I think Takao's is better."

emeraldemon wrote:I don't think it's off-topic for Robert to defend his book in a thread explicitly comparing his book to another. The posts do sound a bit defensive, but I suppose it's hard not to feel that way about one's own work. I will say that I don't think John's initial comparison was particularly negative towards it, essentially saying "both books are good but I think Takao's is better."

Given the difference in the scope of the two books, the credentials of the authors, and the publishing apparatus behind them, I took JF to be praising with faint damnation.

jts wrote:Given the difference in the scope of the two books,

That would be hard to measure, but maybe you mean the difference in contents topics?

the credentials of the authors,

Top performer when applying classical go theory versus top performer in researching formalized go theory.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Top performer when applying classical go theory versus top performer in researching formalized go theory.

We know that someone is "Top performer when applying classical go theory" because of his/her success in playing go. How do we know that someone is "top performer in researching formalized go theory"?

tj86430 wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:
Top performer when applying classical go theory versus top performer in researching formalized go theory.

We know that someone is "Top performer when applying classical go theory" because of his/her success in playing go. How do we know that someone is "top performer in researching formalized go theory"?

Because he is. Do we have to go there here now?

daal wrote:

tj86430 wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:
Top performer when applying classical go theory versus top performer in researching formalized go theory.

We know that someone is "Top performer when applying classical go theory" because of his/her success in playing go. How do we know that someone is "top performer in researching formalized go theory"?

Because he is. Do we have to go there here now?

Of course not. I was just curious. Maybe I'm such person without even knowing it?

No offense intended, RJ. I assumed that anyone would take it as a brilliant compliment to be compared to Takao Shinji, even if the comparison were unfavorable. Clearly you do not.

tj86430 wrote:How do we know that someone is "top performer in researching formalized go theory"?

Read and understand his works and compare it with others'! If the works are beyond your understanding, educate yourself first! In my case, here are a few samples:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search? ... k&safe=off

There you find also links to proofs for the results in the next linked paper:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko_types.pdf
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/external.pdf
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

I took RJ's response to be a clarification, not a defense. And I think he has a right to that if his book is being specifically compared to this one. He places his book in a different genre.

I have not read his book, but it would appear to be a problem for him if his book is being represented as a joseki dictionary, (and tossed into competition with the Meijin's), when in reality it is offering new mechanics. (As good as Takeo Shinji is, I would probably look for a book from one of go's mathematical researchers rather than him for a quantitative analysis of the game)

Just to let you know- both volumes are already available in Japanese. I bought them yesterday and they look great.

Volume 2 deals with 4-4, 5-3, 5-4 and 3-3 joseki.

My initial impressions (I cannot write a proper review yet of course) are that the work is very well arranged and indexed. The index is very thorough and systematic, and that makes it easy to find those pesky sidelines you sometimes meet. Each joseki is introduced with an explanation of the various possibilities and their meanings, plus common mistakes to avoid. After that comes a more detailed discussion of each line.

So far, it is suprisingly enjoyable just to sit and read through a section, and of course it is extremely useful for reference. It would have been nice had there been a section about unusual joseki (6-3, 6-4, tengen etc.), but you can always delve into Kogo's dictionary for that kind of thing (there are some interesting "Easter Eggs" there, such as the coverage of the 2-2 opening!).

If you can get by in Japanese, you might do well to consider buying these because a) the whole work is already available and b) it's somewhat cheaper (2400 Yen plus tax for each volume).

新版　定石事典上　ISBN 978-4-8182-0592-5
新版　定石事典下　ISBN 978-4-8182-0593-2

著者　高尾　紳路
Nihon Kiin 2010, 2011

Tami wrote:It would have been nice had there been a section about unusual joseki (6-3, 6-4

85% of those are just reversions of other joseki. So with that idea you come pretty far for 6-3 and 6-4.

you can always delve into Kogo's dictionary for that kind of thing

Kogo is not sufficiently reliable for that. It has a few variations not found elsewhere but that doesn't make it complete on the basics of the scarce josekis.