Tami's Way

[RobertJasiek]

also use intuition to mean a kind of heightened sensitivity that comes with years of experience.

I call that "quick application of knowledge":)

If that's what you were told by pros, then it seems to run against your whole, highly logical approach.

No, it means that they need to understand their thinking better in order to improve their teaching.

have to agree to have different opinions.

At the moment:)

[John Fairbairn]

Tami said:

Oh well, it`s interesting, but I think we`ll have to agree to have different opinions.

If people can bear another mention of Kahneman, he refers to Econs and Humans (his caps). Econs are apparently economists obsessed with rational-agent theories and have no time for psychologists who talk about intuition and so on. He makes several snide remarks about Econs - e.g. "Econs and their friends (if they have any)". But he also says it is extraordinarily difficult for people who believe in "rational" theories to unbelieve them even when they are proven to be wrong. He cites a case of Econs doing experiments to discredit psychologists (this was stated as the Econs' purpose in their research paper) but the experiments proved the psychologists right and I gather this result was published. But it seems that in such cases, the believers do not change. Instead they just chalk it up as a trivial anomaly and go on believing their core theory. Of course we see this often among a certain type of religious people, but it seems to be more widespread. Mind you, this anecdote also suggests a degree of hubris among psychologists.

So, it seems, as you say, that we'll have to continue accepting "different strokes". However, I also gather that the constant clashes between the Humans and Econs have eventually led to major inter-disciplinary work, so maybe it is not all in vain.

[Javaness2]

I really hate coming across people who need, nay beg, to have a rule they can apply to each and every situation in order to divine the next move. It really ticks me off. :p

[Joaz Banbeck]

I really hate coming across people who need, nay beg, to have a rule they can apply to each and every situation in order to divine the next move. It really ticks me off. :p

In spite of that, we still like you.

[lemmata]

A rant about Kahneman that is irrelevant to the main discussion is in the hidden. Read if you care and skip if you don't.

Tami said:

Oh well, it`s interesting, but I think we`ll have to agree to have different opinions.

If people can bear another mention of Kahneman, he refers to Econs and Humans (his caps). Econs are apparently economists obsessed with rational-agent theories and have no time for psychologists who talk about intuition and so on. He makes several snide remarks about Econs - e.g. "Econs and their friends (if they have any)". But he also says it is extraordinarily difficult for people who believe in "rational" theories to unbelieve them even when they are proven to be wrong. He cites a case of Econs doing experiments to discredit psychologists (this was stated as the Econs' purpose in their research paper) but the experiments proved the psychologists right and I gather this result was published. But it seems that in such cases, the believers do not change. Instead they just chalk it up as a trivial anomaly and go on believing their core theory. Of course we see this often among a certain type of religious people, but it seems to be more widespread. Mind you, this anecdote also suggests a degree of hubris among psychologists.

So, it seems, as you say, that we'll have to continue accepting "different strokes". However, I also gather that the constant clashes between the Humans and Econs have eventually led to major inter-disciplinary work, so maybe it is not all in vain.

I will just say that, Kahneman is being incredibly unfair and biased. We can see that he is making it personal by saying that he doubts that "Econs" have any friends.

When Econs do experiments they perform experiments that test particular axioms that generate certain varieties of so-called rational behavior. Unlike psychologists, Econs actually know how to draw proper statistical inferences and are careful about various endogeneity issues where they may exist. When experiments put certain axioms into doubt, these non-human Econs try carefully craft new axioms that may generate the experimental behavior. Unlike Psychologists, Econs do not like to craft axioms that assume the conclusion (where the behavior itself becomes the axiom), but prefer to craft low-level fundamental axioms wherever possible. There are many new theories that have been generated by the experimental refutation of certain axioms.

Kahneman may prefer to caricature these non-human friendless Econs as people who do not update beliefs, but that just reveals that Kahneman does not understand what those Econs mean by rationality (and he would prefer to misunderstand it in order to promote himself) and that he is not up to date on the state of the research being done by those friendless fools.

/EndRant

[Boidhre]

As an addendum to lemmata's point:

Econs have done more than anyone else, with their experiments to show the flaws in the old view of rationality perhaps mostly because they fully understand what is meant by rationality. In fact much time and effort is spent showing how humans are not rational in the economic sense and Nobel prizes have been handed out for such work if memory serves. It's been several years since I studied this stuff but I remember economic experiments to be a very different thing to what Kahneman describes. Where the problems lie are in these experiments not necessarily fully informing macro and micro econonmic theory models, mainly due to them making problems currently intractable or intractable within the time horizons available. Again, if memory serves, I was on a lot of medication at the time and the area I was doing my work in was pretty heterodox so I might be getting a few details wrong. I do vividly remember being told by a professor that at least in this country it was near impossible to find an economist who actually believed humans were rational anymore.

[Tami]

I spent today playing at Hiro Go Club. Hiro is just over the hill from Kure, and I like the go club there because it has a nice atmosphere and friendly players. The building looks like it was put up in the 1960s and seems not to have altered ever since.

My opponent was Mr Waki, who is (I think) Number 1 in Kure. I played with him a few times when I first visited Hiro Go Club five years ago, but playing him at two stones today I could begin to appreciate his strength much better than before. He is very skilful at sabaki, and finding the vital strategic points. I had to resign the first game, but the second was better and I lost by 14 points. I felt a peculiar mixture of frustration and pleasure. There was nothing that I could do against his positions, but I had to admire his flexibility. It will make me try harder to consider less obvious alternatives when reading. He said, quite unprompted, that I have become two stones stronger than last time, so that made me feel very happy. He then treated me to sashimi.

Later I played with Mr Ito, but still can't beat him on 2 stones, either. But he speaks English and gives very instructive reviews. I asked him about some confusing go terms, and this is what he said:

利き (kiki) - forcing moves - these are forcing moves that you have not yet played, like money in your purse

利かし (kikashi) - forcing moves - these are forcing moves that have been used, like money spent

厚み (atsumi) - thickness - according to Mr Ito, atsumi means the strong area (near a wall, etc.)

厚さ (atsusa) - thickness - this means strong stones themselves, and it comes in several grades - a wall with two eyes in top grade thickness; if the wall has no weaknesses, but is not yet 100% alive, it is medium-grade thickness; if the wall has a defect, it is low-grade thickness.

I don't know to what extent Mr Ito was mixing in his own theories and opinions, but at least his remarks indicate that Japanese players

a) differentiate between a thick area (atsumi) and thick stones (atsusa)
b) do not view thickness in black and white (i.e., instead of just "thick" and "thin", there are degrees of thickness)

Point b harmonises with explanations made in Mimura`s Fuseki Bible* (pp. 82-3 if you have it), in which he notes how the strength of an enemy formation can vary according to whether there are weaknesses to aim for, and so on.

*三村流布石の虎の巻 (MyCom)

[RobertJasiek]

contents here viewtopic.php?p=116863#p116863

[daal]

(atsusa) - thickness - this means strong stones themselves, and it comes in several grades - a wall with two eyes in top grade thickness; if the wall has no weaknesses, but is not yet 100% alive, it is medium-grade thickness; if the wall has a defect, it is low-grade thickness.

This is much less informative than characterising thickness by degrees of life, connection and territory potential.

There's a balance here. While it may be less informative, it's also easier to understand.

[RobertJasiek]

contents here viewtopic.php?p=116863#p116863

[John Fairbairn]

A wall without any territory potential is not thickness so it's pointless to criticise those who use the Japanese definition for something they don't do. Furthermore, -sa and -mi imply a built-in degree indicator. In addition, Atsugi changes its meaning in a regular and predictable way according to the stage of the game, so that is another built-in modifier.

Also, although this may come as a shock, it is possible, and usual, in Japanese to add words like "with territory potential" when talking about thickness.

[RobertJasiek]

contents here viewtopic.php?p=116863#p116863

[Kirby]

The quest to try to quantify that which is not easily explained is an educational endeavor, but one which I fear can sometimes lead to over-simplification. Sometimes the meaning or feeling of a word can bring about a thought more complex than that which can be explained by words. Ideas such as love, wisdom, and knowledge, for example, can have dictionary definitions, but those definitions are shallow without experience, emotion, and the unique interaction that a person has with those terms in the course of their life.

Fundamentally, this is the problem I have with universal definitions of these terms. The process of defining them can be pedagogical, but seems narrow-minded at best.

[Cassandra]

In a tiny dictionary of Japanese Go terms, I found three definitions for atsui / types of "thick".

If I understand the definitions right (by translation kanji per kanji), ...

... the first one belongs to "shape", i.e. stones that need not fear their eye shape nor any aji against it.

... the second one belongs to "outside power". i. e. a shape, with this "outside power" being strong and solid, that develops threatening potential into it's environment.

... the third one belongs to "Go", i.e. the overall situation in the game is advantageous.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Further meanings associated with the kanji for "thick" seem to be "tall" and "deep".

+ + + + + + + + + +

In a saying that seems to be similar to a description of "do not advance near to thickness", there is used a combination of the kanji for "thick" and for "aji" to name that what you should not advance near to.

[Tami]

May I step in here?

As I was curious to know what Japanese people thought about Japanese terms, I thought I would ask a Japanese. Perhaps Mr Ito is not especially strong - maybe 4d or 5d by Hiroshima standards (which are quite severe by Japanese standards, or so I hear), but he is not weak and can speak English too, so it was possible for me to double-check what he was saying.

E.g., in the simpler model, a wall with two eyes can be useless if it cannot make any territory. A wall with two eyes but, after an opposing move, less than two eyes is not, as the simpler model claims, top grade thickness. A wall without weaknesses and not 100% alive need not be "medium-grade thickness" but can be just an attacked burden. Etc. The simpler model causes trouble without end. To defend it, you need to invest as much effort as you would need to invest in my proper model.

First, we`re not necessarily talking about walls.

Second, if a wall has two eyes, it has two eyes. If eyeshape can still be taken away, then obviously it does not have two eyes yet, but would have a defect instead, which would make the wall low-grade thickness, if it were thick at all.

Third, I don`t mind Robert sharing his ideas, but I would like to ask him to be more tolerant and respectful of others` opinions. His theory is not necessarily the "proper model", although it may - or may not - have merit.

厚み (atsumi) - thickness - according to Mr Ito, atsumi means the strong area (near a wall, etc.)

厚さ (atsusa) - thickness - this means strong stones themselves, and it comes in several grades - a wall with two eyes in top grade thickness; if the wall has no weaknesses, but is not yet 100% alive, it is medium-grade thickness; if the wall has a defect, it is low-grade thickness.

I admit my own English was a little bit careless here. I meant to use "wall" as an example of something that is usually thick, but not as a synonym for "thickness". Perhaps if I rewrite it like this there will be less chance of misunderstanding:

厚み　(atsumi) - thickness - according to Mr Ito, atsumi means a strong area (the area near a thick group)

厚さ (atsusa) - thickness - this means strong stones themselves, and it can be graded - a powerful, living group (for an example, a wall with two complete eyes) is top-grade thickness; a powerful group with no weakness (for example, a ponnuki), but which might yet die, is medium-grade thickness; a powerful group with a defect is low-grade thickness.

Speaking personally, I think this is a useful foundation to build on. There are all kinds of other considerations to take into account, such a nerai (aims), aji, influence and potential territory, but for a starting point it is simple, reasonable and easy to use.