Life In 19x19

Actorios wrote:Funny, my understanding of shinogi is that it is the contrary of sabaki: one is die hard, live within, the other is play light and erode, given a situation, you may want or play one or the other. A simpler way of stating it is invade vs. reduce even if the meaning is not the same. Of course, it's not invade or reduce but some player would invade in positions where others would not.

Well, there is something like "daring" or "risk-taker" , and "careful" or "thoughtful"

I agree with your recommendation : something like secure vs. daring.

By the way, I like a lot your idea of defining styles by scale. It looks like a Myers-Briggs of go players.

I do not think secure vs. daring can be mapped to shinogi. After all, attacks can be daring or secure (restrained).

kill <=> preserve

cut <=> connect

Archivist wrote:kill <=> preserve

cut <=> connect

Those arent styles..they are actions.

Kaya.gs wrote:

Archivist wrote:kill <=> preserve

cut <=> connect

Those arent styles..they are actions.

and sabaki is a skill, not a style. what is your point? most of what has been suggested so far is just an extension of moyo vs territory

Kaya.gs wrote:knowledgeable(wisdomy?) - intuitive

If you are referring to this kind of division, then I would go with something like "analytical - intuitive", because an intuitive approach definitely requires a lot of knowledge. I just see it as a different way of processing that knowledge, focusing more on intuitive pattern recognition than scientific analysis.

Then again this is more of an approach to learning the game rather than a concrete playing style (how does it manifest itself on the board?), so perhaps you are referring to something else.

danielm wrote:

Kaya.gs wrote:knowledgeable(wisdomy?) - intuitive

If you are referring to this kind of division, then I would go with something like "analytical - intuitive", because an intuitive approach definitely requires a lot of knowledge. I just see it as a different way of processing that knowledge, focusing more on intuitive pattern recognition than scientific analysis.

Then again this is more of an approach to learning the game rather than a concrete playing style (how does it manifest itself on the board?), so perhaps you are referring to something else.

I like analytical, definitely goes in there.

By the book, Improvised

I think passive and aggressive can both have negative connotations too (particularly the former, which often has a positive connotation opposite of "calm") - I would instead have something like "traits", which can be graded on a scale.

1) Solid -> Quick .. For example, regarding speed of development through the fuseki
2) Light -> Thick .. For example, regarding middle game development

That way, a player can receive votes from an opponent at the end of the game (or whatever the purpose of it was), either with just "balanced" in the middle of whatever traits are used, or marked on a scale if that's used. That way the scores can be recorded for an amusing insta-assessment of the player.

However, I may consider an opponent to be a solid thick player who plays a lot of honte, _but it was only because he took an early lead and was maintaining it_ - had I got off to a great start he might have played like a crazy kamikaze assassin. I'm unsure how easy it would be to make great use of such judgements, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't still be fun to have in the system

topazg wrote:I think passive and aggressive can both have negative connotations too (particularly the former, which often has a positive connotation opposite of "calm") - I would instead have something like "traits", which can be graded on a scale.

1) Solid -> Quick .. For example, regarding speed of development through the fuseki
2) Light -> Thick .. For example, regarding middle game development

That way, a player can receive votes from an opponent at the end of the game (or whatever the purpose of it was), either with just "balanced" in the middle of whatever traits are used, or marked on a scale if that's used. That way the scores can be recorded for an amusing insta-assessment of the player.

However, I may consider an opponent to be a solid thick player who plays a lot of honte, _but it was only because he took an early lead and was maintaining it_ - had I got off to a great start he might have played like a crazy kamikaze assassin. I'm unsure how easy it would be to make great use of such judgements, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't still be fun to have in the system

You got what we are trying to do quickly . I agree that passive/agressive has connotation, in fact i believe both words depict a weakness. Calm/Quarrelsome might be more suited.