Life In 19x19

gowan wrote:And, by the way, too many people use the word joseki for any sequence of moves, ignoring the real meaning of the term as a sequence of moves generally considered (by pros) to give an equal local result.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. In corner josekis, the results would generally be equal on an empty board, but when one takes into account other stones, one side should end up better off. As for invasion and reduction josekis, they are more patterns, and I don't think the idea of equal result comes into it.

kirkmc wrote:

gowan wrote:And, by the way, too many people use the word joseki for any sequence of moves, ignoring the real meaning of the term as a sequence of moves generally considered (by pros) to give an equal local result.

In corner josekis, the results would generally be equal on an empty board, but when one takes into account other stones, one side should end up better off.

Hmm.. for this to be true, doesn't it imply that as soon as one corner is played, the game is decided, assuming perfect play. I.e. if one reasonable joseki has been played in the first corner, the second joseki (chosen with regard to the first) will inevitably result in one player ahead? It just doesn't feel right.

CarlJung wrote:Hmm.. for this to be true, doesn't it imply that as soon as one corner is played, the game is decided, assuming perfect play. I.e. if one reasonable joseki has been played in the first corner, the second joseki (chosen with regards to the first) will inevitably result in one player ahead? It just doesn't feel right.

And this is why pros don't play out corner josekis before going to another corner. Everything is a race to get moves in each corner better for them than the opponent, and at the end of the fuseki the point is that the game is close to even.

Of course, it isn't quite true either. In reality, some josekis are definitely bad for one side, but they are intended with supporting stones, or a successful ladder, or a number of global considerations that can make them at least equal or better. If Go was any easier than this, would all be high dans

Of course joseki depend on the over-all board position. In that sense all joseki are "situational joseki". But there is an accepted sense in which joseki, as we see them in dictionaries like Ishida's or the book Jungsuk in Our Time are "sequences of rational moves and giving an equal or near equal result" (Ishida) or "if we follow jungsuk we should at least end up with a balanced result" (Jungsuk). I was protesting the use by many amateurs of the term "joseki" to describe any arbitrary sequence of moves. For a sequence to be termed joseki it has to be recognized (Ishida's word) as such by the pro community. Of course new joseki are introduced all the time and sequences that were once regarded as joseki are abandoned because of new thinking. Pros are humans and subject to the imperfection that implies. Bringing perfect play into the discussion is fruitless because the game is over before it starts. Human judgement is part of the determination of whether a sequence is joseki or not. It is an interesting study to see how joseki evolve over time. It reflects the go community's concept of the game. Just as with many words, technical go words may also have general use e.g. nerai, aji, kakari, atsui, etc. Topazg's mention of joseki in general use probably evolved from its go use and has no effect on the use of the term in go.

gowan wrote:Plenty of pros play moves that aren't joseki and are criticized for it. You can't go by what has been played in pro games a few times.

How many times do you think pros have to play a sequence before we can be reasonably certain it's joseki?

gowan wrote:Topazg's mention of joseki in general use probably evolved from its go use and has no effect on the use of the term in go.

Yes, most likely, but the justification for it happening in Japanese parlance is still relevant. For a corner joseki to be "accepted", and for example, to end up in Ishida, as you say it would be expected to have passed up-to-date scrutiny of professional Go players.

However, to stretch the analogy slightly, joseki can have a very subjective usage too. If I always open on diagonal 4-4s and then respond with a low close pincer to a kakari, I could describe my behaviour as adhering to joseki from a personal perspective. Even though it has a specific usage with regards to acceptable corner sequences, it isn't the precise meaning of the word itself, just its typical application in Go terms. As such, to tell an amateur they are misusing it may be too strong a chastisement.

CAVEAT: Although Kageyama also touches on exactly this in fundamentals, I am getting this second hand from a Japanese amateur player who I had this exact fun discussion with, and so my interpretation may not be completely accurate.

Can you say any pro game, which ended with 1/2 points difference, I mean the complete kifu, is joseki?

daniel_the_smith wrote:

gowan wrote:Plenty of pros play moves that aren't joseki and are criticized for it. You can't go by what has been played in pro games a few times.

How many times do you think pros have to play a sequence before we can be reasonably certain it's joseki?

How many times must a sequence be played
Before it becomes joseki?
I feel in my bones
It's under the stones.
The answer is under the stones.

daniel_the_smith wrote:How many times do you think pros have to play a sequence before we can be reasonably certain it's joseki?

The answer is 42.

Bill Spight wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:

gowan wrote:Plenty of pros play moves that aren't joseki and are criticized for it. You can't go by what has been played in pro games a few times.

How many times do you think pros have to play a sequence before we can be reasonably certain it's joseki?

How many times must a sequence be played
Before it becomes joseki?
I feel in my bones
It's under the stones.
The answer is under the stones.

Actually my own, personal, opinion is that we have to make our own decisions as to whether a sequence of moves is "joseki" for us. That's what pros do, I think. They have a much stronger grasp of positional judgement, etc., so their judgements are closer to whatever absolute correctness there may be, but they are still judgements. The thing is, if we toss out the dictionaries, databases and pro game records and only use our own judgements, it might take a very long time before our "mistaken" judgements get corrected. Studying the results of pro analysis of move sequences and understanding why they make the judgements they do can be very helpful in developing our own powers of evaluation

daniel_the_smith wrote:For my purposes, it only counts as a joseki if more than one pro has actually played it in a game.

Which leads to an interesting question: What's the longest sequence played by more than one pair of pros? (To be technical, We could say we require all four of the players to be different, and say two sequences are the same if all stones played prior to the sequence in the "smallest rectangle containing all moves in the sequence" were the same in both games, for example.)

All those criticizing the poster seem to have missed the point. I doubt the poster is interested in memorizing these long sequences. They're more of a curiosity. Another variant of the question: what's the longest sequence that is (more or less) forced? That is, that all pros (or maybe 95% of them) play in a given situation (which maybe we require to have come up at least 10 times or so).

Read about a slightly different approach here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?WidestPath

Bill Spight wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:

gowan wrote:Plenty of pros play moves that aren't joseki and are criticized for it. You can't go by what has been played in pro games a few times.

How many times do you think pros have to play a sequence before we can be reasonably certain it's joseki?

How many times must a sequence be played
Before it becomes joseki?
I feel in my bones
It's under the stones.
The answer is under the stones.

Oh, I get it, Blowing in the Wind.

... why do I suddenly feel old...