What is "the direction of play?"

[Kirby]

@Ed, I agree, but I'm not sure I'm happy with it either
...

I feel the argument for supporting Case 1 lies in the philosophy of thinking for yourself. You make your own evaluations, use your own brain, and... think! I'm quite used to this type of idea, and it can be seen by some of my strong opinions, perhaps.

But I think the argument to support Case 2 lies in the philosophy of trusting and learning from another person. Not that you can't learn via Case 1, but Case 2 is more open to receiving information from another individual rather than filtering with your own thought process.

Perhaps some sort of balance is best. Go for Case 1.5, maybe.

[daal]

P. This direction is better.
X. Why?
.
.
.

P. This direction is better.
Y. OK.
P. On to the next thing...

I'm not incessantly asking "why," I'm incessantly asking "what." As in: What does "the direction of play" mean? "This direction is better" is meaningless if I don't understand what you mean by the word "direction."

I suppose I have no recourse but to get the book back down from the shelf.

Here is a diagram from the book I would like to offer up for discussion (beware, it's a trap):

$$B White to play - how should black respond?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . . . O . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . O . O , X . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . O X X X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O O O . O . . . X . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B White to play - how should black respond?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . . . O . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . O . O , X . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . O X X X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O O O . O . . . X . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

[EdLee]

Per Daal's request, pulled to here -- ideas on teaching

[daal]

$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Is your reply...
- (a);
- (b);
- "I have no idea";
- "I would play (a), but I have no idea why";
- "I would play (b), but I have no idea why";
- "I would play (a), and I can give you some quasi-logic explanation, but you're not going to be satisfied";
- "I would play (b), and I can give you some quasi-logic explanation, but you're not going to be satisfied";
- None of the above (something else -- please explain.) ?

My reply would be that I am starting to resent this off-topic discussion, and I'd like to request that you take it elsewhere, and I can give you some quasi-logical explanation as to where I would play, and I expect you will be satisfied with it.

[John Fairbairn]

The position above is an excellent example of the flaw of thinking about the direction of play only in small regions.

It is true that White will predominantly play on the central lower side (and never on the left side), but in passing it might be noted that there is database evidence that they are not entirely sure which point to play there. That uncertainty may also explain the few, but still pro, experiments in this position such as E3 (attachment) or D6 (shoulder hit), or playing a kakari in the upper right first (either side). Perhaps the pros in these cases were seeking some definition in the position before deciding exactly where to play on the lower side.

However, if you make an apparently small change and put the upper right black stone at R16 (komoku) there is a massive change in where to play next. Almost exclusively White's next play is the low approach in the upper right. There is only one case of a play on the lower side (but tantalisingly it was Go Seigen who deemed that worth a try!).

So if you were to look at these two positions in terms of shapes (the shimari) or in terms of a simple count (stones and points in local areas, or number of groups) you would get an identical result, yet there is something in the position that clearly overrides that. It's too simplistic just to say "corner sides, centre" because this something is also telling pros to play specifically the LOW approach, and in any case there are many pro examples in other positions of not rushing too play a corner approach against komoku.

I'm not sure that direction of (the run of) play explains this difference either, mind you, but that's what a discussion forum is for. Um?

[EdLee]

I'm not incessantly asking "why," I'm incessantly asking "what." As in: What does "the direction of play" mean?
"This direction is better" is meaningless if I don't understand what you mean by the word "direction."

Daal, I'm curious: do you mean you don't understand what "direction" means only in that book,
or, in another specific usage (another book, article, webpage, thread, etc.),
or just in general you have no idea what people mean when they talk about "direction" in Go moves ?
After the discussions so far, what is your current understanding of "direction" ?

(For example, your experience could be that you have no problem when so-and-so talks
about "direction," but are at a complete loss in a particular book/article.)

[daal]

I'm not incessantly asking "why," I'm incessantly asking "what." As in: What does "the direction of play" mean?
"This direction is better" is meaningless if I don't understand what you mean by the word "direction."

Daal, I'm curious: do you mean you don't understand what "direction" means only in that book,
or, in another specific usage (another book, article, webpage, thread, etc.),
or just in general you have no idea what people mean when they talk about "direction" in Go moves ?
After the discussions so far, what is your current understanding of "direction" ?

At the risk of repeating myself, the term I am unsure about is "direction of play," specifically as used in this quote:

"The most fundamental point was said to be deciding where to play and for this the essential mindset to ingrain was 'First, direction of play; second, the actual point.'"

My current understanding of the word "direction" in this context is: "The place where the stones currently on the board would prefer to develop."

[John Fairbairn]

My current understanding of the word "direction" in this context is: "The place where the stones currently on the board would prefer to develop."

But again this is changing Kajiwara's words, so it's no surprise if his message does not get through. Why the emphasis on development?

He starts of his book by an even higher principle than stones/groups having directionality - stones/groups represent power. Therefore power has directionality.

But he does not say directionality has to mean direction of development. He specifically distinguishes between "direction of development" (hatten houkou) and "direction of power" (chikara no houkou).

Imagine a well-made wall. It clearly (Bantari notwithstanding) has directionality. But how would you use that wall? You could develop from it, yes. But you could also use it to drive the opponent towards it.

Much of what Kajiwara says is not so much about missing the direction of play from a given position but about, before that, getting your stones aligned properly so that they can exert their true power in various directions (inwards and outwards).

Even if it's ugly, you might find the phrase "directionality of power" more useful than "direction of play". In short, the "what" you seek is "power".

[EdLee]

My current understanding of the word "direction" in this context is...

I don't know if this is too obvious. I went back and re-read all the posts a few times.
Some people mentioned "flow"; some people mentioned "from" and "to" in different contexts.
To me, one meaning of "direction" here involves "from" and "to." The "from" and the "to"
change in different situations -- for example, mentioned so far --
- a group running from (obviously) its current location, to a friendly group, to connect up;
- pushing an enemy weak group toward your strength; this means your moves have to flow "from" a certain region "toward" another region;
- "from" a friendly group "toward" an unclaimed region (say, to develop a moyo);
etc.

But in some cases, another meaning of "direction" does not have to have a "from" and "to":
for example, your opponent is building a big moyo, and it's urgent that you do something about it --
in this case, it could be a placement.

[Bantari]

My current understanding of the word "direction" in this context is: "The place where the stones currently on the board would prefer to develop."

But again this is changing Kajiwara's words, so it's no surprise if his message does not get through.

I lost track of all that, heh...
Are the words in question, the quote, directly from Kajiwara, or is it something John came up with, or the translator?

And, in either case, are we interested what Kajiwara means (or would mean) by that, or what was that John meant when he quoted what he quoted? Was it even a quote, or not?

I think all this needs to be cleared between daal and John first. Or at least - it would help *me* understand what is going on here.

It might all be repetitive, but I really lost track, and my head is buzzing from all kinds of other threads now...

[shapenaji]

Hehe... The triangle is bigger, but the area is not necessarily so... And is it really bigger, or only visually so? Hat off to geometry, no? And - what does it mean and why should it be good that the shape itself is 'bigger'?

Base and Height are both 1 unit smaller.

However, the real reason I think the larger one is better is that you have 2 lines of "time" in which to confine an invasion rather than just 1.

[Bantari]

Hehe... The triangle is bigger, but the area is not necessarily so... And is it really bigger, or only visually so? Hat off to geometry, no? And - what does it mean and why should it be good that the shape itself is 'bigger'?

Base and Height are both 1 unit smaller.

However, the real reason I think the larger one is better is that you have 2 lines of "time" in which to confine an invasion rather than just 1.

Hey, this is actually a pretty good reason! Thanks.

To be a devil's advocate, how about this then:
More stretched triangle offers less space to confine invasion, but, since the area is less condensed, a successful invasion can potentially do less damage?

[Tryss]

I guess, you could explain it like that: Put a stone as an extension, draw lines, and see what area is bigger :

$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . O . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
$${LN A5 C5}
$${LN C5 K4}
$${LN K4 K1}
$${LN A16 K16}
$${LN K16 K19}

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . O . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
$${LN A5 C5}
$${LN C5 K4}
$${LN K4 K1}
$${LN A16 K16}
$${LN K16 K19}[/go]

40 intersections on the top
43 intersection on the bottom

Obviously, it's kinda crude reasonning, but it also explain why the komoku direction is in the 4 line direction, and not the 3rd line direction

[daal]

My current understanding of the word "direction" in this context is: "The place where the stones currently on the board would prefer to develop."

But again this is changing Kajiwara's words, so it's no surprise if his message does not get through.

I lost track of all that, heh...
Are the words in question, the quote, directly from Kajiwara, or is it something John came up with, or the translator?

And, in either case, are we interested what Kajiwara means (or would mean) by that, or what was that John meant when he quoted what he quoted? Was it even a quote, or not?

I think all this needs to be cleared between daal and John first. Or at least - it would help *me* understand what is going on here.

It might all be repetitive, but I really lost track, and my head is buzzing from all kinds of other threads now...

Mine too The impulse for this thread came from this quote:

But someone did make a comment recently about there being no books on go psychology, and I found three at once.

The most "fundamental" of these was a Go Super Book, Go Psychology for Fun by Mihori Sho. It has a chapter relevant to a couple of current threads here, on the psychology of mastering go theory. The most fundamental point was said to be deciding where to play and for this the essential mindset to ingrain was "First, direction of play; second, the actual point". Ignoring this is the commonest reason amateurs are admonished by professionals, apparently.

It sounded to me like getting this mindset might be a good idea, so I got Kajiwara's The Direction of Play off the shelf, in the vain hope that I might get a handle on this apparently common concept and be able to start thinkin' right.

[shapenaji]

Hey, this is actually a pretty good reason! Thanks.

np, always the way I thought about it

To be a devil's advocate, how about this then:
More stretched triangle offers less space to confine invasion, but, since the area is less condensed, a successful invasion can potentially do less damage?

Well, it's true, if you have less to take, they can't take as much