Life In 19x19

Kim Sung Rae writes so concise and clear that I will probably buy every of his books (in English).

The titles with dogmas/principles/heuristics + their accompanying explanations are excellent (e.g. p. 110-113) IMO.

When entropi writes

"This book defines it as movements towards the center and clearly excludes side extensions and any kind of life&death situations. It might be a too restrictive definition for some players but it is something extremely useful for those who have not yet understood the concept."

and kirkmc writes

"it is said in the book that haengma cannot be translated. It is defined in several ways, as an "independent group" and a "moving group," but then it is said that it is "moving to the center." The author points out that in other books "the limits of haengma are not explained well and [...] the definition of haengma is confusing." [...] it seems that this is about nothing more than making good-shape moves while running into the center."

and Magicwand is having great difficulties to justify his liking og the book and his impression of the great importance of the concept by rather not explaining to us what haengma is,

then I wonder how the votes and opinions towards the very good to excellent side and Tommie's "concise and clear" can be justified. Does the book contain anything as conside and clear as my definition "Haengma is the local to global relation and development of all stones."? From all your descriptions, the book rather seems to miss it and kirkmc's citation from that book that "haengma cannot be translated" emphasises this fact.

Translation is difficult because even before definition is. I have needed a decade to find mine and it describes haengma as something pretty abstract and flexible. Professionals have had great difficulties with defining other terms of such a nature. So it is not surprising that defining haengma was too difficult, too.

Why not assess that correctly - why rushing ahead and calling the book excellent nevertheless? "excellent" means "cannot be better". But it could! It could have provided a good, concise definition! Therefore, although I have not read the book yet, it seems to me that those liking the book should have chosen "good" rather than "excellent" to describe the book's quality. Otherwise you won't have an appropriate ranking when another book really is excellent.

RobertJasiek wrote:When entropi writes
and Magicwand is having great difficulties to justify his liking og the book and his impression of the great importance of the concept by rather not explaining to us what haengma is,

fyi, i didnt read that book but i have read many many books on hangma.

if you start reading what other people are writing instead of criticize without reading comment you may be able to see what i wrote and may learn something.

what is your purpose in life? trolling on this forum?
if so you are very successful in your life.

RobertJasiek wrote:When entropi writes

"This book defines it as movements towards the center and clearly excludes side extensions and any kind of life&death situations. It might be a too restrictive definition for some players but it is something extremely useful for those who have not yet understood the concept."

and kirkmc writes

"it is said in the book that haengma cannot be translated. It is defined in several ways, as an "independent group" and a "moving group," but then it is said that it is "moving to the center." The author points out that in other books "the limits of haengma are not explained well and [...] the definition of haengma is confusing." [...] it seems that this is about nothing more than making good-shape moves while running into the center."

and Magicwand is having great difficulties to justify his liking og the book and his impression of the great importance of the concept by rather not explaining to us what haengma is,

then I wonder how the votes and opinions towards the very good to excellent side and Tommie's "concise and clear" can be justified. Does the book contain anything as conside and clear as my definition "Haengma is the local to global relation and development of all stones."? From all your descriptions, the book rather seems to miss it and kirkmc's citation from that book that "haengma cannot be translated" emphasises this fact.

Translation is difficult because even before definition is. I have needed a decade to find mine and it describes haengma as something pretty abstract and flexible. Professionals have had great difficulties with defining other terms of such a nature. So it is not surprising that defining haengma was too difficult, too.

Why not assess that correctly - why rushing ahead and calling the book excellent nevertheless? "excellent" means "cannot be better". But it could! It could have provided a good, concise definition! Therefore, although I have not read the book yet, it seems to me that those liking the book should have chosen "good" rather than "excellent" to describe the book's quality. Otherwise you won't have an appropriate ranking when another book really is excellent.

Excellent, in terms of a book of this type, is judged based upon its usefulness. The author acknowledges at the beginning that he is using a much more restrictive definition of Haengma than is commonly used. The book is very good at illustrating and facilitating the concepts covered. If this were a rules text or terms dictionary, the definition of the term would matter. As it is not, as long as the terms used are internally self-consistent, it makes no difference.

Magicwand wrote:
fyi, i didnt read that book but i have read many many books on hangma.

if you start reading what other people are writing instead of criticize without reading comment you may be able to see what i wrote and may learn something.

what is your purpose in life? trolling on this forum?
if so you are very successful in your life.

Robert is not trolling but his perspective is significantly different than the majority of the users of this board. (Not necessarily a bad thing.) Your definition is simply not precise enough to meet his standards. If you write a more precise definition, it might be good enough.

Tommie wrote:Kim Sung Rae writes so concise and clear that I will probably buy every of his books (in English).

The titles with dogmas/principles/heuristics + their accompanying explanations are excellent (e.g. p. 110-113) IMO.

Tommie, I fully agree that the definitions in the book are clear, concise and supported by the description and figures

RobertJasiek wrote:Translation is difficult because even before definition is. I have needed a decade to find mine and it describes haengma as something pretty abstract and flexible. Professionals have had great difficulties with defining other terms of such a nature. So it is not surprising that defining haengma was too difficult, too.

Language is by definition an abstract thing. Therefore, the broader a concept is defined, the useless it becomes. A definition for a specific teaching purpose should try to be as precise as possible. That is what Kim Sung Rae does.
Your definition (Haengma is the local to global relation and development of all stones.
) may be an aesthetically nice one and may cover the concept completely. But I find it way too broad for being usefull as a teaching tool.

Besides, how can you counter-argue if Kim Sung Rae says "well, my definition given in the book is precisely what I understand from the term". It's his mother tongue and as said, language is an abstract thing.

entropi wrote:the broader a concept is defined, the useless it becomes.

Utter nonsense.

A concept with a very broad meaning requires a very broad definition to fully grasp all the concept's meaning. Such a very board concept and definition then also requires a very exhaustive breaking-down to its very great varieties of applications. Otherwise not the concept in its entirety is explained but only a specialized part of its meaning.

You argue as if the General Theory of Relativity would be useless while only the Specialized Theory of Relativity would be useful or as if the general definition of ko would be useless while only basic ko would be useful.

I find it way too broad for being usefull as a teaching tool.

I as a teacher find it appropriate to teach all instead of teaching only specialized parts. I as a go player have learned the more from haengma the broader and more complete I have perceived the definition.

Besides, how can you counter-argue if Kim Sung Rae says "well, my definition given in the book is precisely what I understand from the term".

1) What IS his definition given in the book?

2) I talked to some Korean professionals about what haengma is. They did not provide a definition but examples and hints from that I then could construct my definition. If Kim's understanding of a definition was considerably more specialized, then his understanding would be only a subset of what those Korean professionals have conveyed to me.

Magicwand wrote:hangma is literally translated to moving horse.
in baduk we represent group using horse so you can use group instead of horse.
in go piece nothing moves so "moving group" is akward.
you can use development instead of moving.
"group development" does that sound better?
[...]
hangma. it isnt subject to one move.
it is a combination of good move that give you flow.

This is only / mainly about a specialized part of haengma: (good) movement / development of one group considered alone.

but if you know your hangma you dont even have to worry about L&D.

This is like saying that sacrifice would never be a good thing.

[...] hangma is the most import skill you need to learn to become strong.

If it were only about one group's development or about not getting into life and death trouble, then it would not qualify as "the most important" concept.

i didnt read that book

My apology for having made the contrary assumption.

it is very vague concept that is not easily translated into Western Philosphy.

Not easily but well possible! The greatest difficulty is not translation into western thinking but clear and complete understanding within either eastern or western thinking.

maybe i am not qualifed to say that this concept is for koreans only.

The Koreans developed the concept in a much broader understanding of global inter-relation and dynamically changing process than I have seen in Japan or China for related concepts like Kajiwara's direction of play, shapes (or even Saijo's proclaimed beauty of shapes), Kageyama's struggle to get ahead or ideas of movement and development directions.

that koreans stress this concept to the beginner

In the dozens of beginner or kyu level books about haengma in Korean bookstores, almost all contents restricted itself to local movement and connection (one might say: efficient movement) of a group or its currently moving stones.

Robert, in my original post I quote the definition from the book.

If so, then that would not be a consice and clear but an ambiguous and incomplete definition attempt.

RobertJasiek wrote:If so, then that would not be a consice and clear but an ambiguous and incomplete definition attempt.

Which was, in fact, part of my point in quoting it.

Sure. I just don't get it why (so far) 67% of the poll voters issue an "excellent".

RobertJasiek wrote:

entropi wrote:the broader a concept is defined, the useless it becomes.

Utter nonsense.

A concept with a very broad meaning requires a very broad definition to fully grasp all the concept's meaning. Such a very board concept and definition then also requires a very exhaustive breaking-down to its very great varieties of applications. Otherwise not the concept in its entirety is explained but only a specialized part of its meaning.

You argue as if the General Theory of Relativity would be useless while only the Specialized Theory of Relativity would be useful or as if the general definition of ko would be useless while only basic ko would be useful.

Why does one define a concept at all? The final goal of the game is clear, i.e. making more points than the opponent. But an instruction like "make more points" is too vague and practically useless.

Then what you do is defining narrower concepts that help you develop your game step by step. An example is "good shape". You may find it still too vague, but it is a step forward.

Your broad definition of haengma (local to global relation and development of all stones) is also a step forward but I find it too vague.

What Kim Sung Rae does is interpreting the concept of haengma in a narrower sense so that it becomes more useful for beginners. He defines it as developments towards the center and gives clear examples of how to do it efficiently.

Some other professionals may want to include side extensions as well. OK! Going even further, some other utmost crazy pros may want to include even L&D situations (after all the life of a group affects the development of all stones both in local and in global sense). OK! But otoh, some others may also prefer to concentrate on something more specific like Kim Sung Rae does.
I honestly don't understand your problem with it.

entropi wrote:

Tommie wrote:Kim Sung Rae writes so concise and clear that I will probably buy every of his books (in English).

The titles with dogmas/principles/heuristics + their accompanying explanations are excellent (e.g. p. 110-113) IMO.

Tommie, I fully agree that the definitions in the book are clear, concise and supported by the description and figures :)

RobertJasiek wrote:Translation is difficult (...) I have needed a decade to find mine and it describes haengma as something pretty abstract and flexible. ...

That was an insider-joke referring to dull books (see picture):

ERROR: "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached."
Yes, his book would pass all tests.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert, from your first entry (#28) in this thread, it isn't even clear to me whether you have read the book.
viewtopic.php?p=46748#p46748

The problem is that he teaches you only a part and that you are satisfied with being taught only a part and improving only a bit. One should not - one should prefer being taught all parts so that one can improve a lot.

My definition is vague because it includes all parts. A general definition must be broken down to apply it to its parts. For each part, there can then be a definition that is relatively much more specific.

Forgoing the most general definition is an attempt to hide parts from you. Rejecting such a definition is your opposition to become yet stronger. It is like learning life and death while overlooking multiple threats on several local problems.

RobertJasiek wrote: (... hundreds of words ...)
although I have not read the book yet, it seems to me that those liking the book should have chosen "good" rather than "excellent" to describe the book's quality.

THIS QUOTE is exemplifying the meaninglessness of a contribution
in a thread where the reader was requested to evaluate a book.

Not having read the book, YET STILL advising others how they should have evaluated .... ttssss , tss