Life In 19x19

topazg wrote: So, what is influence?

See the general definition in Joseki 2 Strategy.

In many ways, I think it's reasonable to say that any stone exerts influence on the board around it, even a 1-1 stone. The problem is, we all know that a) influential play is reasonable, and b) playing on the 1-1 is bad pretty much all of the time

Apply my definition and you don't have a problem with the 1-1: Its influence aspect on making additional territory is marginal.

Thickness is easiest thought of as an accumulation of influence

Such a rough and misleading thought is for the history books. Now thickness is defined in the aforementioned book by its connection, life and territory aspects.

Note the difference between influence (property of an intersection) and thickness (property of a stone or group of stones). Therefore thickness is NOT an accumulation of influence!

Bill Spight wrote:I think that there are two different senses of influence that are in common use. One is a translation of seiryoku or gaisei, which could also be translated as power or outside strength.

Ambiguous translations from the past do not help us. Maybe what was being meant is the influence created by a group of thick(ness) stones?

The second sense comes from computer go (as far as I know), and means the effect that a stone or group of stones has on empty points or stones.

This does not come from computer go. CG tried some extraordinarily rough influence map models, but you might as well have guessed values of influence. The "second" (I say: only) sense of influence, which can also be considered rather independently of the cause (the thickness etc.), as the property of empty (or not empty) intersections could be seen on a level of intuitive usage in various books. It was ambiguous though with no precise values because nobody could define it, until I did last year.

This kind of influence could even be negative.

Rather every connection or life degree of influence can be also negative. (Whether territory becomes negative depends on how territory is inserted in the influence definition. E.g., by convention white territory could be expressed by negative numbers.)

Very few people really understand the second kind,

There is no reason not to understand influence now: Just refer to my definition. What can remain difficult though is practical application of the exact degrees at each intersection. Such is often not necessary though. It suffices to understand roughly which intersections are, e.g., 0- or 1-connected.

Which is one reason that current computer programs have pretty well abandoned it.

Thomas Wolf thinks that my definition now provides a different reason: It requires too much calculation power. Therefore for computers he suggests some static approximation; it is in one of his papers. Oh, didn't you proofread that one? I dislike such rough approximations though because one can never really be sure whether the values are calculated well or badly.

Takagawa says that there are two kinds of walls, those that need an extension, and those that do not. That classification is fuzzy

Rather it is very rough. Instead n-connection and m-life values provide precise degrees.

P. S. There is a good chance that I will give a presentation of my research into influence of the second kind at the U. S. Go Congress this summer

Oh. Why reinvent the wheel? Simply apply my existing definition! (I knew you'd better read my book. :) ) Or is your research about application of influence?

Out of interest Robert, may I ask (if you are aware of this) what percentage of non-mathematician players that have read your book, with a skill level between 2k and 10k, understand your definition of the value of influence?

mw42 wrote:Perhaps the determination of thickness is the fuzzy area,

Not any more. Now it is a simple application of its general, formal definition.

but it at least gives you a criterion for choosing whether or not to extend.

For that, fuzzy approach is not good enough.

topazg wrote:Out of interest Robert, may I ask (if you are aware of this) what percentage of non-mathematician players that have read your book, with a skill level between 2k and 10k, understand your definition of the value of influence?

The book provides three models. I think the first two should be understood by every serious reader. The second I have summarised at Sensei's. The third and theoretical, that is the precise model requires a prior understanding of the concepts n-connection, m-alive, t-territory. Since I give both extraordinarily simple examples and then ordinary shape examples, every serious reader (in that rank range) has a good chance of understanding. The theoretical influence definition itself is pretty dry though. I guess if somebody only looks at it without first understanding the mentioned terms, then he understands nothing. It would be like trying to understand influence before trying to understand connection and life. So the first effort is an understanding that influence is a second level concept, which relies on the fundamental concepts of connection, life and territory. The second effort then is trying to determine actual degrees in practice.

Mathematics for influence is almost elementary school level, except that also logical thinking is suitable.

Another chapter of my book (Unsettled Group Average) uses slightly more advanced maths: some very basic algebra in the form of two simple formulas. There I have really doubts whether every reader can understand that (or even much worse: related information at Sensei's).

Bill Spight wrote:thickness and strength are similar.

Can't you just abandon strength as a separate concept?

RobertJasiek wrote: Can't you just .......

Pls be kind, Robert

cyclops, eh? The kindness lies in the simplification: Use only one concept instead of two concepts. Then usage will be easier!

Uberdude wrote: I wonder how long it will be until Robert Jasiek extols the virtues of n-Connection .

5 days, 11 hours, 25 minutes.

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:Out of interest Robert, may I ask (if you are aware of this) what percentage of non-mathematician players that have read your book, with a skill level between 2k and 10k, understand your definition of the value of influence?

The book provides three models. I think the first two should be understood by every serious reader. The second I have summarised at Sensei's. The third and theoretical, that is the precise model requires a prior understanding of the concepts n-connection, m-alive, t-territory. Since I give both extraordinarily simple examples and then ordinary shape examples, every serious reader (in that rank range) has a good chance of understanding.

I can corroborate this. Robert's definition provides a reader of my strength (and lack of mathematical background) with an adequate handle on the concept. To paraphrase his definition (which can be read here): influence is the degree to which live outside stones help friendly stones connect, live and make territory, and hinder the opponent's stones from doing the same. In his more thorough 3rd definition, he specifies the degrees of connectedness, life and secure territory, and although I couldn't imagine trying to apply it, it is not hard to understand.

Uberdude wrote:5 days, 11 hours, 25 minutes.

90% of the reason for this duration is having been busy writing the book Joseki 3. The reason for this delayed message is excessive SQL database problems of L19 earlier this morning.

daal wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:Out of interest Robert, may I ask (if you are aware of this) what percentage of non-mathematician players that have read your book, with a skill level between 2k and 10k, understand your definition of the value of influence?

The book provides three models. I think the first two should be understood by every serious reader. The second I have summarised at Sensei's. The third and theoretical, that is the precise model requires a prior understanding of the concepts n-connection, m-alive, t-territory. Since I give both extraordinarily simple examples and then ordinary shape examples, every serious reader (in that rank range) has a good chance of understanding.

I can corroborate this. Robert's definition provides a reader of my strength (and lack of mathematical background) with an adequate handle on the concept. To paraphrase his definition (which can be read here): influence is the degree to which live outside stones help friendly stones connect, live and make territory, and hinder the opponent's stones from doing the same. In his more thorough 3rd definition, he specifies the degrees of connectedness, life and secure territory, and although I couldn't imagine trying to apply it, it is not hard to understand.

Ok, thanks, and good job Robert!

The next question of course (to Robert) is: Why can those that understand the principle not apply it, and how could further articles give them the ability to apply the knowledge in an actual game?

topazg wrote:Why can those that understand the principle not apply it,

I would not call it a "principle" but "the definition".

Strict application of the definition requires effort for recalling the more fundamental terms n-connection etc. correctly (i.e. not confuse 0- with 1-connection etc.). For that, one needs a bit of practice. The real effort though is to construct and imagine move-sequences, which can be used for assessing particular values. Furthermore a multi-step test can be necessary: E.g., if 0-connection turns out to false, then 1-connection needs to tested and approved. The next effort is application for each relevant intersection (of, e.g., a moyo boundary to see where the next best moyo reinforcement is) because influence can differ from intersection to its neighbour intersections. Furthermore both players' views are required. Finally influence changes dynamically from move to a game's next move. (Like connection or life and death status can be dynamic.) So the best application requires reevaluation every move and - even better - every imagined move of every imagined variation.

and how could further articles give them the ability to apply the knowledge in an actual game?

By giving more examples demonstrating application. (Now that was easy:) )

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:Why can those that understand the principle not apply it,

I would not call it a "principle" but "the definition".

Strict application of the definition requires ...(n-connection etc.,)... reevaluation every move and - even better - every imagined move of every imagined variation.

And this is ... hard. Which reminds me: Go is hard.

What becomes apparent when reading Robert's definition, is that influence stones have several (six?) functions, some or none or all of which, depending on the situation, they can hope to achieve. Being able to use them to one's best advantage is for those who don't follow Robert's method, a matter of skill.

To quote Haley from Modern Family, "If it was easy, everyone would be popular."

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:and how could further articles give them the ability to apply the knowledge in an actual game?

By giving more examples demonstrating application. (Now that was easy:) )

In my opinion, you give more than enough examples. What might have helped me to get on closer terms with some of your concepts would have been problems to test and improve my comprehension and judgment.

daal wrote:What might have helped me to get on closer terms with some of your concepts would have been problems to test and improve my comprehension and judgment.

When some time I write a book specialised in influence and thickness, I can do that in great detail. In Joseki 2, there has not been any space for problems or I would have had to split the book into two or more volumes. (Un)fortunately, there are other planned, more urgent books in my pipeline at the moment. karaklis wish list

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 846#p91846

is also interesting but I cannot write several books at the same time, too bad...