This may also help illustrate why at beginner levels the game is usually not decided here -- on a bigger scale, the two rough areas are not so different in size:
This may also help illustrate why at beginner levels the game is usually not decided here -- on a bigger scale, the two rough areas are not so different in size:
Bantari wrote:Hmm... so the less-flat triangle/shape is intuitively better than the flatter one? Why is that intuitive or obvious?
Because it's bigger. That's my intuitive answer. But if you ask about the infinite number of variations if the opponent starts a fight locally, then I give up.
Follow-up questions: - do you find one intuitively better than the other ? - if yes, which one ? - if no, does it mean you find them equal, or you don't know which is better ?
Re:
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:58 pm
by Bantari
EdLee wrote:
Bantari wrote:Hmm... so the less-flat triangle/shape is intuitively better than the flatter one? Why is that intuitive or obvious?
Because it's bigger. That's my intuitive answer. But if you ask about the infinite number of variations if the opponent starts a fight locally, then I give up.
Hehe... The triangle is bigger, but the area is not necessarily so... And is it really bigger, or only visually so? Hat off to geometry, no? And - what does it mean and why should it be good that the shape itself is 'bigger'?
Anyways - another argument can be made that in the flatter shape, the stones are closer together, and thus give each other more support and make it harder to attack.
What I am trying to say that regardless of the picture you draw, there need to be some solid practical reasons to validate it. Especially when you teach.
Re:
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:01 pm
by Bantari
EdLee wrote:Follow-up questions: - do you find one intuitively better than the other ? - if yes, which one ? - if no, does it mean you find them equal, or you don't know which is better ?
Not sure... Intuitively, I am in agreement with both you and Bill - the less-flat shape looks better and clearly indicates the direction of play.
However - I am pretty sure I am looking at it through the prism of many years of experience, so what does it matter what I find intuitive? I would know which is the proper direction even without the pictures. Its the beginners and weak(er) players we need to ask - they are the ones who matter here, not me or you.
And I would assume that for the beginners, without any experience, both diagrams would be confusing without some kind of explanation. Especially since quasi-logical case can always be made for both.
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:17 pm
by John Fairbairn
I think the old box and tray comparison is a red herring here. True the shimari has directionality, but then we should speak specifically of the direction of development of the shimari rather than the direction of play. The difference becomes apparent best if we look at the directionality of all the stones on the board. So if Black can make a box at the bottom of the board but has a weak group at the top, completing the box, and so giving White easy reducing moves which also create a wall and a remote threat to the upper group, may be asking for trouble.
Obviously all other things being equal a box shape will be preferred, and furthermore the player in the process of making one will have already tried to ensure he has no weak groups or other problems around that would be affected if he ploughs on with his boxification. We can thus expect to see the box-making plays more often than tray moves in practice. Yet when we look at a database, we see that tray-making moves make up about one-sixth of the first developing moves from a small, low shimari, and that is not an insignificant proportion. It does seem to indicate that factors other than size of prospective territory are being called upon. I'm suggesting that all these other factors come under the heading of assessing the directionality of all the stones over the whole board.
Does it help to point out that "stones" and "groups" are the same thing in Japanese? It's deceptively easy to concentrate on the single-stone shapes of the early fuseki, but actually the late fuseki and middle game can be easier to understand simply because there is more information - i.e. defined groups - at hand.
I don't think it goes amiss either to recall that when pros were faced with the problem of rethinking their opening theory (daal, you have never been alone!) in the New Fuseki period, they did not talk about quarter boards, but about the opening as a whole. Of course that led them to re-examine the corner plays, but you will recall that some players concluded that 5-5 was the best move there, because of directionality, adaptability and the theory of equilibrium (or averaging). In other words, because of global factors and not grubby factors such as corner/side territories.
Take Wang Runan's advice and go up in a helicopter and then draw a map of what you see. That is the best way to decide where to dig for treasure - or play a good move.
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:23 pm
by Bantari
John Fairbairn wrote:Obviously all other things being equal a box shape will be preferred
Why?
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:29 pm
by topazg
Bantari wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:Obviously all other things being equal a box shape will be preferred
Why?
My brain is telling me that 2x10 is smaller in volume to 3x9, which is smaller than 4x8, which is smaller than 5x7 etc etc etc
It could be telling me misdirectional fibs though.
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:47 pm
by Bantari
topazg wrote:
Bantari wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:Obviously all other things being equal a box shape will be preferred
Why?
My brain is telling me that 2x10 is smaller in volume to 3x9, which is smaller than 4x8, which is smaller than 5x7 etc etc etc
But, since we have already agreed on the fact that the size of 'shape' does not necessarily denote the size of the mapped-out area - what does the size of the shape really matter? The shapes you mention denote center areas, but longer and leaner shapes stretch more along the side - and as we all know sides are more efficient in making points than the center is.
Still, let me rephrase the question in this light: Why is it 'obvious' that a bigger triangle you can draw makes a better play?
It does *not* necessarily mean safer or more points, so what? Or it *does* mean safer or more points... and then *this* correlation is what we have to define. Saying that this is 'obvious' is not always sufficient, I think. Even if it may be obvious to you and me.
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:59 pm
by EdLee
Bantari wrote:What I am trying to say that regardless of the picture you draw, there need to be some solid practical reasons to validate it. Especially when you teach.
Bantari wrote:for the beginners, without any experience, both diagrams would be confusing without some kind of explanation.
This gets into ideas about teaching, which are interesting.
Two scenarios. P=Player. X=beginner X. Y=beginner Y.
Case 1 wrote:P. This direction is better. X. Why? P. This triangle looks bigger. X. Why is bigger better? P. It's intuitively obvious to me. Not to you? X. No. P. I can only say with my experience and maybe the experience of pros, this direction is better. X. But pros can be wrong. P. Definitely. In fact, Go history is littered with major changes in pro thinking every so often. X. So you cannot prove to me, from first principles, 100% that this direction is better. P. I cannot. I can only offer my intuition and experience. X. But I don't have the intuition or the experience yet. P. That's correct. X. That's not enough for me. I must have "solid practical reasons to validate it," or else I won't just take it based on your experience. P. That's quite OK. You are free to experiment and play any way you want. X. OK.
Case 2 wrote:P. This direction is better. Y. OK. P. On to the next thing...
Often, it is one reason (among others) why little children (Y) can make high dan in a few years, whereas why some adults (X) get stuck at kyu levels for many years.
Of course, YMMV.
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:10 pm
by RobertJasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:the direction of development [...] the direction of play.
Exactly. Different concepts better have different terms, instead of continuing the earlier ambiguity of the same term for different concepts. (But for reading old texts, one still needs to be aware.)
Re:
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:27 pm
by Bantari
EdLee wrote:
Bantari wrote:What I am trying to say that regardless of the picture you draw, there need to be some solid practical reasons to validate it. Especially when you teach.
Bantari wrote:for the beginners, without any experience, both diagrams would be confusing without some kind of explanation.
This gets into ideas about teaching, which are interesting.
Two scenarios. P=Player. X=beginner X. Y=beginner Y.
Case 1 wrote:P. This direction is better. X. Why? P. This triangle looks bigger. X. Why is bigger better? P. It's intuitively obvious to me. Not to you? X. No. P. I can only say with my experience and maybe the experience of pros, this direction is better. X. But pros can be wrong. P. Definitely. In fact, Go history is littered with major changes in pro thinking every so often. X. So you cannot prove to me, from first principles, 100% that this direction is better. P. I cannot. I can only offer my intuition and experience. X. But I don't have the intuition or the experience yet. P. That's correct. X. That's not enough for me. I must have "solid practical reasons to validate it," or else I won't just take it based on your experience. P. That's quite OK. You are free to experiment and play any way you want. X. OK.
Case 2 wrote:P. This direction is better. Y. OK. P. On to the next thing...
Often, it is one reason (among others) why little children (Y) can make high dan in a few years, whereas why some adults (X) get stuck at kyu levels for many years.
Of course, YMMV.
In other words: we have no clue why we do what we do, we just follow what the pros do or say - like a mantra, and who cares about understanding? And out teaching method is: do what I say, it is correct, and if you want to try something else - its your problem? And good student is one who does not ask questions we cannot answer, he just follows?
I grant you that children have more intuitive approach to things than adults, but you are not talking to children here, and is certainly not a child which asked this question.
Also - even if we assume that less explanation and more 'blindly follow' is more suitable for kids... This does not mean its OK for the teacher not to know the explanation. Regardless of the fact that he finds the situation suitable to go into details or not. Dogmatic approach and lack of understanding is never a good thing, in my book.
Re: What is "the direction of play
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:32 pm
by GoRo
daal wrote:I think in Kajiwara's mind, the stones are practically talking to you. I wish they wouldn't all talk at once.
I always think about it in the terms of two cage fighters. If you think you can knock him out with a punch, you wouldn't try to get into kicking range.
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:10 pm
by topazg
@Ed, I agree, but I'm not sure I'm happy with it either
Case 1 sounds like an adult wanting to understand as a guide to feeling like he's improved.
Case 2 sounds like someone wanting to get better, but doesn't feel the need to really "get" why moves are good, as long as he can remember that they are.
Case 2 may offer quicker improvement, but case 1 feels more satisfying to me afterwards!
