Life In 19x19

daal wrote:The pitfall I suspect is thinking about the meaning of the words, when in fact they should be viewed as terminology. I think the key distinction is that an urgent move affects the stability of groups, whereas a big move simply stakes a claim in an open area of the board.

I think this is on the right track but does not go quite far enough. IMHO, big and urgent are just ordinary words. As such, they provide mental traps for Go players. There is no such abstract dichotomy between "big" and "urgent" plays on the Go board. We may choose to create one in our heads and thereby confuse ourselves but other people may not. Specifically I do not think that pros use such terms in assessing the board. Instead they count. Of course their counting encompasses both the static and dynamic aspects of the game and will naturally consider and reject various alternative ways the game will develop before choosing the most likely. The title of the book by Ishida, which Bill excerpts above, is a true look at the professional heart - "Kono Te Nanmoku". Ishida may resort to using oba and kyusho in explaining the example to the target audience of amateur Go fans, but I am certain that he simply sees that move A changes the game situation more in his favor than move B based on his reading of the future development of the game.

So in fact big and urgent are the same - pablum for the masses!

Urgent: If you don't play this move, you will most likely lose the game.
Big: You stand to gain a lot of points.

Which looks bigger?

ez4u wrote:I think this is on the right track but does not go quite far enough. IMHO, big and urgent are just ordinary words. As such, they provide mental traps for Go players. There is no such abstract dichotomy between "big" and "urgent" plays on the Go board. We may choose to create one in our heads and thereby confuse ourselves but other people may not. Specifically I do not think that pros use such terms in assessing the board. Instead they count. Of course their counting encompasses both the static and dynamic aspects of the game and will naturally consider and reject various alternative ways the game will develop before choosing the most likely. The title of the book by Ishida, which Bill excerpts above, is a true look at the professional heart - "Kono Te Nanmoku". Ishida may resort to using oba and kyusho in explaining the example to the target audience of amateur Go fans, but I am certain that he simply sees that move A changes the game situation more in his favor than move B based on his reading of the future development of the game.

So in fact big and urgent are the same - pablum for the masses!

You have almost completely summed up my current opinion, and did so far better than I could have done, and with more credibility - thanks!

ez4u wrote:

daal wrote:The pitfall I suspect is thinking about the meaning of the words, when in fact they should be viewed as terminology. I think the key distinction is that an urgent move affects the stability of groups, whereas a big move simply stakes a claim in an open area of the board.

I think this is on the right track but does not go quite far enough. IMHO, big and urgent are just ordinary words. As such, they provide mental traps for Go players. There is no such abstract dichotomy between "big" and "urgent" plays on the Go board. We may choose to create one in our heads and thereby confuse ourselves but other people may not. Specifically I do not think that pros use such terms in assessing the board. Instead they count. Of course their counting encompasses both the static and dynamic aspects of the game and will naturally consider and reject various alternative ways the game will develop before choosing the most likely. The title of the book by Ishida, which Bill excerpts above, is a true look at the professional heart - "Kono Te Nanmoku". Ishida may resort to using oba and kyusho in explaining the example to the target audience of amateur Go fans, but I am certain that he simply sees that move A changes the game situation more in his favor than move B based on his reading of the future development of the game.

So in fact big and urgent are the same - pablum for the masses!

I think your conclusion means that big and urgent are the same for those of us who can accurately calculate the value of moves (all pros, raise your hands). For the rest of us however, to take a "big" point and allow a group to be trashed elsewhere is often a game losing decision. Sure, this isn't always the case, but I think that the terms are there to help us (amateurs) get a handle on a situation. Having two words (big and urgent) instead of one (best) helps us to understand and evaluate a position.

My point is that in the long run, it may only be important to make the moves that win and don't lose the game, but many roads lead to Rome, and there are a few that don't. Therefore, it is not invaluable to have some road signs. By differentiating between big and urgent, we can better discern which path we're on.

For me personally, "trashed" is the end of my evaluation, and when I read that far, my answer is invariably "prevent it." (Yes, it's usually me about to get trashed). While this is perhaps short-sighted and may in fact contribute to losing games, it represents the current end of my decision branch. This is probably a case of blindly following a proverb (insofar as I even recognize that a group could potentially become unstable). However, allowing it to happen or not does make for different games, and as such legitimizes a distinction between the words.

The proverb is originally Japanese, but the discussion here is clearly based on a non-Japanese approach.

There's nothing inherently wrong in that, but if you accept as a separate topic for discussion the question why westerners have failed for so long and so often to make much of a dent in the world ratings, it's worth considering whether the western approach is wrong. What I see here is excessive concern with numbers and with making things static so that they be turned into lists and numbers and be counted. In practice, that translates into excessive interest in good shape, josekis, tewari, endgame plays and counting. These are all valid elements in go, and are of concern to Japanese players. But the mix in the Japanese approach seems completely different to me. They emphasise the dynamic more. I've banged on about this many times before. E.g. katachi (good shape) is dynamic because katachi + suji = haengma, and also the fact that we tend to ignore too much concepts like choshi.

Now it just so happens that earlier this week the Japanese press has been discussing their renewable energy problem. Since their prime minister Kan Naoto is a go nut, it's no surprise that some of the discussion has been framed around the go proverb "urgent points before big points" - except, of course that it hasn't.

It has been framed around the phrase 大場より急場. The tenor of the discussion has been about whether to continue hobbling Japanese energy companies by insisting that they buy a big proportion of their energy from renewable sources (solar, wind energy) or to give them free(er) rein to buy in any sort of power urgently. The urgency of course comes from the shortfall in domestic energy after the Fukushima nuclear calamity.

The discussion there makes the point that the 大場 (the green policies) are about the future. The 急場 is about providing energy NOW. In other words it is not a question of size (something static). It is a question of timing (something dynamic).

It just so happens that 大場 does not have to be translated as "big point". In fact it probably shouldn't be. 大 means "important" as well as "big". The Chinese have imported the Japanese term, but one definition in a Chinese book does not mention size at all. It says "strategically important" point. An alternative, native term in Chinese, 大意, reinforces this point, referring as it does to points of "great significance".

The "future" aspect of 大場 is also brought more into focus if you recall that the term is almost entirely a fuseki term. In other words, it relates to the part of the game where you are mapping out the future. Of course, you can easily find examples in Japanese texts where "bigness" seems part of the context, but the beauty of the Japanese synthetic approach is that it can absorb all these nuances. The western analytic approach instead wants to isolate it all to a single definition or list. It's a thing of the past now, but someone once made a nice distinction: westerners want to pack everything neatly into a suitcase, and if things don't fit you leave them out (and lose the benefit) or you do violence to the suitcase (and maybe lose the suitcase); the Japanese used to use a furoshiki cloth and tie everything up into a bumpy bulging but bumper bundle.

It is therefore possible to conclude that "urgent points before big points" is not a Japanese proverb at all, but a bastardised western one, and one that just happens (in my view) to symbolise much that is wrong with the western approach to go.

If we want to reflect the Japanese meaning, we need to rephrase the proverb. "Urgent points before speculative points that may or may not be important in the future" is a little de trop. Maybe we should just start saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

If, being a westerner, you really can't get away from size one way or another, try changing it into money terms. It's pointless making an investment for the future if you don't pay your bills now and end up paying more interest on them than you gain for your shares.

Yes, yes, to forestall the tiresome forum policemen: the distinction westerners/Japanese is simplistic and not all westerners think the same, numbers are occasionally useful, yadda yadda yadda. But this is a discussion group and the idea of a difference seems worth discussing. You do in any case have to explain the different interpretations of the proverb in L19 this week and the Japanese press this week.

John Fairbairn wrote:... some of the discussion ... has been framed around the phrase 大場より急場. The tenor of the discussion has been about whether to continue hobbling Japanese energy companies by insisting that they buy a big proportion of their energy from renewable sources (solar, wind energy) or to give them free(er) rein to buy in any sort of power urgently. The urgency of course comes from the shortfall in domestic energy after the Fukushima nuclear calamity.

The discussion there makes the point that the 大場 (the green policies) are about the future. The 急場 is about providing energy NOW. In other words it is not a question of size (something static). It is a question of timing (something dynamic)...

John, I think you have hit the nail on the head. But is it exactly the way you intended? Yes, a group of politicians with an agenda have framed a discussion in terms of the abstract expression 大場より急場. The demonstration of how abstract these terms are is shown that they apply equally "well" to plays on a Go board and wind farms. Since the expression is normative, as long as the politicians are careful to correctly assign 大場 to those things they do not wish to do and 急場 to those that they do, the frame is perfectly aligned with their agenda. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Western versus Eastern thinking. The Times in the U.K. or the Washington Post in th U.S. will provide an endless supply of similar cases every day. Only the base language will be different (Uh, that is the base language of the Times versus that of the Washington Post of course ).

Like any other heuristic (e.g. tewari ). The expression has some value in decision making. Again, like any other heuristic however, it can be wrong or even abused. In this case there is the particular problem that "big"/"important" are not necessarily directly comparable to "urgent". This means that making either/or decisions based on them can be a chancy business, while trying to refine our understanding of what they mean can be extremely frustrating.

John Fairbairn wrote: In other words it is not a question of size (something static). It is a question of timing (something dynamic).

Which is what I think Joaz was trying to say with:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Urgent is bigger later. Big is big now.
...
Perhaps I should have said "big is countable now, urgent is countable later."

John Fairbairn wrote: Maybe we should just start saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

I like it.

xed_over wrote:...

John Fairbairn wrote: Maybe we should just start saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

I like it.

I kind of like it, but it seems possible that people could interpret this as saying, "This big move is not urgent, and give me lots of points, so I'll play it. It'll be points in my hand.".

From http://senseis.xmp.net/?KyubaBeforeOba:

Senseis wrote:I once heard James Kerwin define an urgent move as something like a move that prevents one of your previous moves from becoming meaningless.

Darron Shaffer: I can't remember where I read it, but I like the definition of the difference between urgent and big as something like the following: 'Imagine you are standing in front of a huge banquet which is all free, but you are desperate to go to the toilet..' Eating the food would be big, but the toilet is urgent.

John Fairbairn wrote:it's worth considering whether the western approach is wrong. What I see here is excessive concern with numbers and with making things static so that they be turned into lists and numbers and be counted.
[...]
The western analytic approach instead wants to isolate it all to a single definition or list. It's a thing of the past now

You miss the dynamic aspect in Western definitions as much as Westerners missed the dynamic aspect in Eastern terms when their translation lost the dynamic context. The Western definitions, with or without referring to current numbers, can be applied dynamically because they should be reapplied after every move of the game and every move of every variation. So of course the Westerns approach is not wrong - rather it fills a huge gap left by the Eastern approach as little as is seen of it here due to the very tight translation bottleneck.

RobertJasiek wrote:The Western definitions, with or without referring to current numbers, can be applied dynamically because they should be reapplied after every move of the game and every move of every variation.

Isn't this just an argument that any static definition is dynamic because it can be reapplied?

John Fairbairn wrote:大意...referring...to points of "great significance".

John, I like your post, but my understanding of 大意 is
(adj.) careless/reckless;
(n.) general/main idea (synopsis);
but not great significance -- perhaps you're thinking of another term?

hyperpape wrote:Isn't this just an argument that any static definition is dynamic because it can be reapplied?

In fact it is how nouns and more specifically terms are used in any language.

I like my distinctions, am I'm keeping this one.

John, I like your post, but my understanding of 大意 is
(adj.) careless/reckless;
(n.) general/main idea (synopsis);
but not great significance -- perhaps you're thinking of another term?

No, I'm thinking of the right term, but in classical Chinese. E.g. see the old Bu Gu Bian commentaries on Huang Longshi's old games, although I admit it's not a 100% fit - which is why modern Chinese uses the Japanese term.