Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
Good question. Could be a pedagogical thing -- one wonders about the similarities and contrasts between Eastern v. Western traditions (the Greeks?) in this regard.Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental?
I also thought about this east vs west thing earlier in the thread but did not post about it. I was wondering if this discussion would even take place in the east.EdLee wrote:Good question. Could be a pedagogical thing -- one wonders about the similarities and contrasts between Eastern v. Western traditions (the Greeks?) in this regard.Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental?
In my attempt to apply the idea of the trivium to the study of go, I think that the question of which option to choose, at least on the level of what people are calling fundamental, would fall under the classification of dialectic. Basic patterns would fall under grammar.John Fairbairn wrote:I wouldn't dispute in the slightest that instilling such patterns as second nature is useful or that they are common. They are so common, in fact, that I suspect people who ask about the fundamentals know about (and perhaps even know) them already.These shape patterns being second nature is part of what I would call having a mastery of the fundamentals.
But my sense of what they are really asking is how do you know when to choose between the various options: which White 1 in the above case.
I am not sure who you are talking about. If anyone is associated with mathematical go, I am. But I raised cain on Sensei's Library about the treatment of shape as static. (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?DynamicNatureOfShape ). As you say, shape is dynamic.I also have a sense that the problem is something of a western one in that too many people here try to reduce shapes (or other facets of the game) to some sort of essence as an exercise in mathematical elegance. Good shape becomes a static concept when it should be dynamic; people want help on what shapes do (and don't do), not what they are.
Gaps is an interesting way of putting it. One can imagine go fundamentals as a net, the gaps through which the lost games slip.Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental? To me, learning fundamentals is about establishing a good foundation. When you have gaps in your knowledge, no matter how "basic" the topic is, fill them. That's why I responded the way I did earlier in the thread - somewhat as a joke, but also seriously.
If you want to learn the fundamentals, study the gaps you have in your own understanding. Does it matter if you enumerate what this means for each individual?
I dunno. Certainly there are a whole lot of Japanese go books with kihon in them, but I don't know of many English go books with basic or fundamental in them. OC, I could be wrong about the English go books.EdLee wrote:Good question. Could be a pedagogical thing -- one wonders about the similarities and contrasts between Eastern v. Western traditions (the Greeks?) in this regard.Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental?
I wouldn't assume it is so well known among mid-sdk, I have found quite a broad spectrum of knowledge among players of the same strength. Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them? It depends a lot on how they learnt: did they read books, sensei's library, have a teacher and what did their teacher teach, hack about online etc? I have come across dan players who didn't know what an L group was: and I don't just mean didn't know the term; they didn't recognise the shape as a commonly-occurring one that was worth remembering it was a dead shape but treated it as just another life and death problem to read from scratch every time.John Fairbairn wrote:I wouldn't dispute in the slightest that instilling such patterns as second nature is useful or that they are common. They are so common, in fact, that I suspect people who ask about the fundamentals know about (and perhaps even know) them already.These shape patterns being second nature is part of what I would call having a mastery of the fundamentals.
Doesn't Attack and Defense say that it's better to play at a than where White has played?
Know about: 90%Uberdude wrote:John Fairbairn wrote:I wouldn't dispute in the slightest that instilling such patterns as second nature is useful or that they are common. They are so common, in fact, that I suspect people who ask about the fundamentals know about (and perhaps even know) them already.These shape patterns being second nature is part of what I would call having a mastery of the fundamentals.
I wouldn't assume it is so well known among mid-sdk, I have found quite a broad spectrum of knowledge among players of the same strength. Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them?
Yes, lots of land mines.DrStraw wrote:but did not post about it.
Yes, if white was the last one to play in this position, then the 4th line "invasion" is rather unusual and the 3rd line is often better if you want to invade (however, see http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/74056/). I think Attack and Defense does point out though that this 4th line invasion can be a powerful splitting move with support nearby (like that c). But who said white played last? Maybe it was like this: Or this: Or this:Fedya wrote:Doesn't Attack and Defense say that it's better to play at a than where White has played?
Funny you should mention this. I just had another recent game where a 3-3 invasion failed and I wound up with a bunch of dead stones. I was wondering why I hadn't learned anything from that post and everybody's following comments, but as it turns out in this game, I didn't have an approach stone, so the position was totally different. (Specifically, it was this one.) And, of course, I didn't notice how it was different and what the implications of those differences were.There was a recent post from Fedya (6k) in which he expressed surprise about this technique (it would have been better than what he played in order to increase his eyespace more in sente, I seem to recall he essentially just played 3 at 5): it wasn't a standard part of his Go vocabulary.
Apparently, the invader isn't supposed to live in this one, or at best get a seki. One of several games I've been thinking about commenting about at length and posting in my study journal.Well, I can say thatPerhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them?
at a or b instead:Turns out this is not uncommon, at all.My first thought would be to try to find a way to get an eye on the side
kosumi feels more like "get out, split B into two groups, let's fight":
Usually the points marked are considered best, but that does not mean that the others cannot be considered, depending on the surrounding conditions.Fedya wrote:dit
Doesn't Attack and Defense say that it's better to play at a than where White has played?
The context for this discussion are conversations like this:Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental? To me, learning fundamentals is about establishing a good foundation. When you have gaps in your knowledge, no matter how "basic" the topic is, fill them. That's why I responded the way I did earlier in the thread - somewhat as a joke, but also seriously.
If you want to learn the fundamentals, study the gaps you have in your own understanding. Does it matter if you enumerate what this means for each individual?