Nakade

[RobertJasiek]

Bantari,

Can I get stronger by reading a formal definition of 'nakade'?

Probably not, you are too strong for that to notice an effect on your strength. Nakade definition is ca. 30k level of go theory understanding. Related applied research can make you stronger (unless you already know it), such as semeai theory, which relies on a definition of semeai-eye.

However, as a follower of Kageyama, I believe in the power of the fundamentals. The clearer one's understanding of the fundamentals (such as knowing what is vs. is not a nakade), the more accurately / faster one can apply it (e.g., to solving LD problems). Probably, you cannot figure the effect. As little as you can figure the effect of having solved a few more LD problems. The effect is too small to be measurable, but IMO it exists.

See also
viewtopic.php?p=147287&sid=e6b97b2012c20bf0ba3c096525787571#p147287

[Bantari]

Bantari,

Can I get stronger by reading a formal definition of 'nakade'?

Probably not, you are too strong for that to notice an effect on your strength. Nakade definition is ca. 30k level of go theory understanding. Related applied research can make you stronger (unless you already know it), such as semeai theory, which relies on a definition of semeai-eye.

So... those who are able to understand it are too strong to benefit from it. And those who could benefit from it are too weak to understand it... All we can say for sure that whoever is interested in formal research might find it interesting.

Research for the sake of research? Or what are we talking about?

However, as a follower of Kageyama, I believe in the power of the fundamentals.

Something tells me Kageyama would turn in his grave if he knew you use his name in this context...

[RobertJasiek]

those who are able to understand it are too strong to benefit from it.

This is an unkind implication, which I have not suggested. That you are too strong to measure an effect on your playing strength does not imply that you could not benefit from it, if you wanted.

And those who could benefit from it are too weak to understand it...

Nobody is too weak to understand "can fill", "cannot partition", "without seki".

All we can say for sure that whoever is interested in formal research might find it interesting.

It does not require interest in formal research to understand "can fill", "cannot partition", "without seki".

Research for the sake of research? Or what are we talking about?

Research for the sake of a) research and b) application.

Something tells me Kageyama would turn in his grave if he knew you use his name in this context...

Read his Lessons again. He would be happy!

[daal]

Defender's aim: almost-fill.
Attacker's aim: prevent the defender from almost-filling.
The opposite of either aim is the other's aim.

Funny, in my mind, what you are calling the defender is what I would call the attacker.

In any case, since "can necessarily" is awkward to the point of being confusing (the uncertainty implied in "can" stands in apparent contrast to the necessity expressed in "necessarily"), I would suggest "the defender moving first can force all but one of the intersections of the region to be filled..." or perhaps "If the defender moves first, the attacker cannot prevent him from filling all but one of the intersections of the region..."

[RobertJasiek]

In a life and death situation about one group, the 'defender' is the defender of the life of the group.

[John Fairbairn]

However, as a follower of Kageyama, I believe in the power of the fundamentals.

RJ likes to quote Kageyama but I think it's based on a misconception: the use of the word 'Fundamentals' in the English title. This is from James Davies. The Japanese title means "Amateurs and Professionals" and, as far as I can recall, Kage doesn't use the word 'fundamentals' in his book at all. I think his main theme was about players reaching certain plateaus at which they get stuck and he suggested ways to get unstuck. But the plateaus included fairly high ones (shodan?), which hardly count as fundamental, and in neither the process of reaching the plateaus nor the breakthrough process does Kageyama use anything remotely like RJ's proposals - or am I having a senior morning?

[RobertJasiek]

How, in a Japanese edition, does the Kageyama read in texts similar to "What really turned me from ama to pro was a firm grip of the fundamentals?"?

[daal]

Defender's aim: almost-fill.

In a life and death situation about one group, the 'defender' is the defender of the life of the group.

Not trying to be intentionally stupid, but in the following diagram, both the black group and the marked white stone are groups wanting to stay alive, but it is the white stone that is in the process of almost filling, and he seems to be the one doing the attacking, is he not?

$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . Q . X O . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . Q . X O . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

[RobertJasiek]

$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | C W C X O . . . . |
$$ | C C X X O . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | C W C X O . . . . |
$$ | C C X X O . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

When the status of the black group is considered, Black is the defender and can almost-fill, but cannot partition the marked region. (Nakade for the black group.)

$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | C W C B O . . . . |
$$ | C C B B O . . . . |
$$ | B B B O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | C W C B O . . . . |
$$ | C C B B O . . . . |
$$ | B B B O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

When the status of the white group is considered, White is the defender and can almost-fill and can partition the marked region. (This part of the eyespace of the white group is not a nakade for the white group.)

[Cassandra]

How, in a Japanese edition, does the Kageyama read in texts similar to "What really turned me from ama to pro was a firm grip of the fundamentals?"?

Where to find in the English edition ???

[quantumf]

How, in a Japanese edition, does the Kageyama read in texts similar to "What really turned me from ama to pro was a firm grip of the fundamentals?"?

Where to find in the English edition ???

page 28

[Cassandra]

How, in a Japanese edition, does the Kageyama read in texts similar to "What really turned me from ama to pro was a firm grip of the fundamentals?"?

Where to find in the English edition ???

page 28

Thanks !!!

I would guess that the Japanese original might say the same, with "fundamentals" being "kihon" = 基本 in the Japanese edition.

I suppose that the main source of misunderstanding might be the usage of 基本 in Japan (please be aware that I am no linguist).
"kihon" also means "basis", "standard", "guideline".

I do not think that "fundamentals" is understood in a meaning that comes near to approximately what Robert has in mind, when using this term. When I let my Japanese books on "xxx no kihon" = "fundamentals of xxx" pass in review, there is one thing that all these books have in common: examples, examples, examples.

[Cassandra]

...

Although he was only a Japanese 9-dan, the Meijin Inoue Dosetsu Inseki (of Igo Hatsuyoron fame) produced a huge collection of problems which were designed less for solving and more as ordered and graduated tuition sets on various life & death topics. Unfortunately only about a tenth of the book survives, but this includes the basic work on nakade (properly used) and sekis.

...

Thank you very much for this insight.

Now I unterstand even better that Igo Hatsuyoron 120 is the final result of a long, and thourough, research, including the very deep knowledge of which moves are counter-intuitive for players near Dosetsu's strength. The latter being the reason for professionals' immens difficulties to find the solution yet.

[Bill Spight]

am I having a senior morning?

Here's wishing you many more.

[jts]

However, as a follower of Kageyama, I believe in the power of the fundamentals.

RJ likes to quote Kageyama but I think it's based on a misconception: the use of the word 'Fundamentals' in the English title. This is from James Davies. The Japanese title means "Amateurs and Professionals" and, as far as I can recall, Kage doesn't use the word 'fundamentals' in his book at all. I think his main theme was about players reaching certain plateaus at which they get stuck and he suggested ways to get unstuck. But the plateaus included fairly high ones (shodan?), which hardly count as fundamental, and in neither the process of reaching the plateaus nor the breakthrough process does Kageyama use anything remotely like RJ's proposals - or am I having a senior morning?

Not to defend RJ, but it may be a senior morning. Kageyama hammers away at the idea that you can improve immensely simply by being true to fundamentals again and again. He connects it to baseball (what separates professional American players from amateur Japanese college ball isn't some racial affinity, but continually drilling in the fundamentals of fielding, throwing, and batting), to cooking (to prepare a solid soup you need to follow a recipe to get a good taste - I think there's a horrible pun on aji, honte, and katachi in there) and shogi (he modelled his own NHK broadcasts on the shogi broadcasts that helped him the most, i.e., the ones that emphasized basic principles).

He gives lots of examples of go "fundamentals" (don't know if it's always the same word in Japanese), of which the most explicit example is firm captures versus loose captures. This is where he discusses one loose capture he made that was heavily criticized, and gives it as an example of his own amateurish instincts. The basic idea is that amateurs play all sorts of nonsense (and think they are being efficient or advanced - reminiscent of the title of an article you once posted, "Professional tactics, amateur delusions"), but you don't reach simple fidelity to the fundamentals until you achieve a very high level of play.