21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki

[John Fairbairn]

But it could have had better diagram numbers. Rather than Diagram 1.2.4 for variation 4 of variation 2 of diagram 1, it simply uses consecutive numbers. So diagram 25 can follow from diagram 13, for example, but it would not be obvious.

I for one wouldn't see 1.2.4 as an improvement. I'd regard it as ugly, amateurish, an attempt to control my order of reading and an unwelcome reminder of certain types of writing. Such over-signposting may have a place on highways where safety is paramount (though there I'm sure it's overdone), but I think most of us have learned how to read books, and some of us enjoy doing so at our own leisurely pace, surrounded by words not numbers.

As for highlighting one diagram error (blindingly obvious to any reader, so it's hardly a discovery) in a huge book, would you shout out to the world that the nice new friend you just made has a pimple on his nose? A good new book can be like a good new friend. Just as a quiet word in your friend's ear may be more appropriate, an e-mail to the publisher seems more appropriate in this case, with the big added benefit that they'd probably tell you what the diagram was meant to be.

You see, there is an aggressive tone in "as early as page 8", implying there is a spate of errors to come (but there isn't, is there?). Earliness has no obvious relevance here. If the same mistake occurred on page 500 it would be of no different statistical significance.

[DeaconJohn]

So far, I am immensely impressed by the information contained. It really looks in depth at joseki, explaining the meaning of the moves and why sub-joseki sequences fail.

Interesting to compare this book with the previous edition. I'm only 1/3 of the way through the book, but, so far, there is only a small amount of material that is not in the earlier edition. Most of the positional evaluation has been copied word for word from the previous edition.

On the other hand, the in-depth positional evaluation given in the example game fuseki in the previous edition is completely missing from this edition because there are no example game fuseki.

For the serious kyu player, this is an essential book because the joseki and variations that are new are important. It is sad to think how much more valuable this book would be if it had been published as an update to the the previous edition. Surely there could have been better use for all the pages wasted in word-for-word repetition. One needs the previous edition anyway for the example games, and because the joseki that are omitted often occur in kyu-level games.

Since this book is written on a kyu-level, it is not clear that it is a useful investment for the dan player. Most of the joseki analyzed stop short of what the dan player needs in a reference dictionary. And there are many joseki in commmon use in 21st century dan-level play that are not even mentioned in this book imo.

As a 6-kyu, I am glad to have purchased it. It is a good review for me as I go through and compare the joseki given in this book with the joseki given in the previous edition. It fills in some of the holes in my kyu-level joseki reference books. The new joseki that it does have are in common use on the kyu level, so they are important to me.

Note: In this review, "new joseki" refers to joseki, or variations of joseki, that are in this edition but not in the previous edition.

[aconley]

I'm curious if the second volume will have more new joseki, since the 4-4 joseki have probably evolved more since the Ishida dictionary.

[CardiffGo]

Gosh my post incited a lot of assertive responses.

If I am looking at diagram 63 and want to know what it relates to, it is far easier in a myriad of diagrams to have a clue. So I defend the numbering as supplying that. Of course, it will not suit everyone.

'As early as page 8' is in no way aggressive. It certainly was not meant to be aggressive. As to the relevance of such an early error (the diagram is copied from the previous unrelated diagram, so it is hard to work out any meaning) any proof reader failing to spot an error this early should feel a little uncomfortable. A certain tiredness sets in after a few hundred pages.

But I really do not understand why such an aggressive response was generated.

The book, I should add, aside from any minor technical shortcomings is excellent so far.

[TMark]

John and I had a joke about a rather testy monk at a Japanese temple, that perhaps he had been asked the same question too many times that day. The problem is that we and many other authors, book publishers and, my case, database compilers, see a posting made on a newsgroup like this rather than a note that an error has been spotted with the possible tone "Aren't I clever, I spotted this and the proof-readers and publishers didn't!" We do actually get told about our own errors quietly so that we can correct them as soon a possible and our thanks go out to eagle-eyed readers. Some seem a little embarrassed that they are showing us up as being still human, even though it may be an outside contributor's error, but I hope you will forgive two grumpy old men who snap a bit when prodded.

Best wishes.

[imabuddha]

Gosh my post incited a lot of assertive responses.

{snip}

But I really do not understand why such an aggressive response was generated.

Don't mind JF, he's just grumpy & bad with numbers.

[John Fairbairn]

As to the relevance of such an early error (the diagram is copied from the previous unrelated diagram, so it is hard to work out any meaning) any proof reader failing to spot an error this early should feel a little uncomfortable.

I admit I was being deliberately feisty to try to breathe some life into the L19 corpse - 4 real posts when I last logged on - I'm one of those that strip out the Malkovich rubbish, so I don't count that.

Nevertheless, my tongue was not entirely in my cheek. I think I said somewhere earlier in the thread that John Power had not only translated the text but had also done all the diagram-making and layout. It has been pointed out several times here that go publishers cannot afford to pay proofreaders. Authors generally do it themselves. After several hundred pages of (very badly paid) translation you get to a state where you feel like screaming if you see the text again. Sometimes there are volunteer proofreaders but as they usually only get something like a free copy for their work, it's unrealistic to expect perfection from them.

So I do think it is very unfair to pick on one small error, and publicising it here while admitting in the same text that you haven't read the whole book yet, so that you have no way of knowing if this one error is typical of the technical standard (and it isn't), comes over to me as either just plain mischief-making or "look at clever me" or lack of care. If it's the latter, then you are as guilty as you claim the proofreader is.

The comments from Deacon John, in contrast, while not uncritical, come over as informed, balanced, relevant and useful for an outside audience. That's more like what I'd prefer to see in a review, not personal preferences which you admit others, i.e your readers, won't always share (though they can have a place if clearly labelled and they don't detract from the main business of the review).

Don't mind JF, he's just grumpy & bad with numbers

Actually I'm good with numbers. I just hate them.

[CardiffGo]

I apologise.

It was, in hindsight, flippant of me to point out the minor error, and make it out to be seen by some as catastrophic. I underestimated the nature of the audience.

I too have written Go books and know the difficulties involved. My reviewers are all too happy to point out mistakes such as this.

The reaction was justified, but seemed a little tetchy, that is all. But I apologise for treading on toes.

I had, naively, assumed that a book published a step above the self-publishing world, would have had proof readers. It does seek to be a reference, so accuracy would seem to be that bit more vital.

I still maintain that the diagram numbering used makes it more arduous to see the trees of variations, but it too is a minor point in the context of such a wealth of material the book contains.

To try to reclaim balance, I have to state that the book is, indeed, a treasure trove of Go reference and education material. I cannot believe that a 6 kyu can see the material aimed only at kyu players - show me some 1 dan and 2 dan players who know even 20% of just the joseki (rather than also the near-joseki the book also offers) in the book, and I will be suitably amazed. There are about 250 ** (fully fledged) joseki in the book. Many would look far too scary for most kyu players to even think about playing.

From just the 40 pages or so I have read so far, I would strongly recommend it for all Go players who have a concerted desire to improve their game.

[Javaness2]

Well I think the diagram errors in Go books are one of the things which really mark them down as amateur hobbyist works.

[CardiffGo]

If it helps, it is worth noting that I plan to buy volume 2 (non 3-4 joseki) when it is released in 2012.

[John Fairbairn]

Well I think the diagram errors in Go books are one of the things which really mark them down as amateur hobbyist works.

My experience is that amateur hobbyists are the ones who really take care, because they love the subject. That does not make them immune from mistakes, of course, but I think they make fewer mistakes than the pros. At least, just as qualified surgeons sometimes saw off the wrong leg, media pros do make egregious mistakes.

I was watching a major British TV detective series episode last night (Jonathan Creek). From the sets, locations and number of actors used, it clearly has a big budget. One scene purported to show a museum exhibition on Shinto. Apart from all the ridiculously wrong names and attributes of the gods, the highlight was an area marked in huge letters suidou (written gauchely by a non-native and with the last letter back to front), which was presumably meant to refer to a mystical "way of water" even though there were no water-related elements around. What it really meant in that context was "Water Mains". For those who think I really am grumpy, I can assure you this had me in stitches and I have no intention of sending a "Disgruntled from Tunbridge Wells" letter to the BBC. But, just as qualified surgeons sometimes saw off the wrong leg, pros do make mistakes.

In fact, many years ago I saw a new book by a major publisher as the centrepiece of a window display. It had a single Japanese character for the cover. It was upside down (unintentionally). After that, I started to keep track of the use of CJ characters by non-CJ natives and discovered, over a fairly large sample, that there were a huge number of mistakes, although it was extremely rare for anyone to use the character sideways. My hypothesis was that a random choice was going on and so I expected a 50-50 split, but in fact the odds of it being upside down were about 8 times of 10 (that's a probability of 0.8 for imnotreallyabuddha).

[jts]

After that, I started to keep track of the use of CJ characters by non-CJ natives and discovered, over a fairly large sample, that there were a huge number of mistakes, although it was extremely rare for anyone to use the character sideways.

I assume you've seen this?

http://hanzismatter.blogspot.com/

[John Fairbairn]

I assume you've seen this?

I hadn't seen it (and hadn't even thought to look). It's a nice corrective to all those jokes about funny Oriental English. I have noticed that the scene where a tough lowlife wearing a tattoo in characters is arrested by a police officer who eventually tells him it means something like "I've got piles" has become something of a cliche in tv and films, but when I walk down Oxford Street on a sunny day, which prompts lots of bare skin, I see it's pretty close to real life. Are tattoo artists playing with fire? I suppose it would be fun to be a fly on the wall at a tattooists' convention.

[DeaconJohn]

Regarding the relation between Takao's 21st Century Dictionary of Basic Joseki with the previous edition (Ishida's Dictionary of Basic Joseki) Kiseido writes,

"Although [Ishida's dictionary] has now been superceded by Takao Shinji's dictionary, it does not render Ishida's dictionary useless. One of the features of Ishida's work is the numerous references to professional games in which many of the josekis listed were used, a feature that does not exist in Takao's compilation."

Yes, and, Ishida's edition also diagrams the fuseki where the joseki are used, gives further analysis of the joseki in the context of the those games, and gives further variations of the joseki relevant to the choice and use of the joseki in those games. Hopefully a reviewer of the Takao edition will comment on the relation between the two editions.

http://www.kiseido.com/Dictionary.htm

I cannot believe that a 6 kyu can see the material aimed only at kyu players - show me some 1 dan and 2 dan players who know even 20% of just the joseki (rather than also the near-joseki the book also offers) in the book, and I will be suitably amazed. There are about 250 ** (fully fledged) joseki in the book. Many would look far too scary for most kyu players to even think about playing.

Thank you for your interest in my post. I will do my best to give you what little data I have at me fingertips to support my opinion. After 47 years of playing Go, it is difficult to say exactly how you came to know the things you know, and one can always be mistaken.

The 1k KGS player "emerus" seems to know a lot of joseki. Emerus is the coach for the 1-5k players in the KGS room called "The Study Room". I go to him with my joseki questions and have been extremely impressed with the breadth of his knowledge. The Study Room manager, revtaro, tells me that emerus knows over 350 joseki. I'll bet it is a lot more than that. (I am talking about "fully fledged" joseki here. And, I am not counting the variations you have to know to really know the joseki.)

It seems to me that most of the serious 1k+ players on KGS make extensive use of the game data bases (like gobase.com) to study joseki. There are also more advanced and more complete joseki dictionaries than the Ishida/Takao dictionary that stand between the Ishida/Takao dictionary and the study of joseki through the study of their use in pro games. It seems logical to me that the importance of the Ishida/Takao dictionary to the study of joseki would diminish once one is in the KGS dan level.

Like the title says these are "Basic Joseki". Yes, some, though my no means most, are a little scary to play in my games. But, they are easy to understand when working through them in the book, so, I play them every chance I get. So far, this has both helped me make progress in the ranking system, and it has helped me win games.

I knew most of the joseki in the Ishida edition when I was 1d AGA in 1991. Most of the joseki in the Takao edition come straight out of the Ishida edition (at least, that is my current impression). This means that I used to know most of the joseki in the Takao edition. And, the 1d players on KGS today are a lot stronger than the 1d AGA players in 1991.

I now am relearning the joseki that I used to know. I have had to re-learn a lot of things after my brain injury in 2003. After my brain injury, I dropped from 1d to 10k.

Even back in 1991, most of the American 3d+ players that I knew had exhausted their study of the Ishida dictionary and were mining the Japanese Go journals to continue their study of joseki.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?DeaconJohn

[CardiffGo]

John,
Many thanks for enlightening me.

My experience is based on laying and observing KGS games. I have seen only very basic joseki used in most kyu games I have watched. It may simply be that upon reaching 1 dan that most player study joseki intensely. But I strongly feel that there are many also reach dan level mostly by adopting good shape. For many, such as myself, my memory is so incredibly unreliable, that learning joseki is a painfully slow process. I am 3k on KGS an expect I know maybe 20 or 30 joseki. But that may explain why I do not progress of course, although failure to concentrate and getting too emotional are the normal reasons.