Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:it is in fact the only use you generally consider.

Wrong. Apparently, you confuse other terms invented and defined by me with "proper move = honte", which is NOT invented, but approximately defined by me. "Proper move" and "honte" both have been used in English go terminology for decades, while my definition is of 2011. Therefore, I do not overlook the use of "proper move" and "honte" excluding my own use of it before and since 2011. Hence, my own use is not the only use I consider. Similar things can be said about my observation of use of other terms, so that generally the opposite of what you suggest above is correct.

Furthermore, I have also observed unfortunate use of "proper move" and "honte" by kyu players (ca. 3 kyu or weaker) not having a good understanding of the concept yet. (In recent years, with online information being available, this problem may have decreased.) Again, this is another use that is not my own use and that, contrary to your suggestion, I consider.

Instead of making an unjustified, wrong claim about my considerations, it would be much more interesting if you could discuss suggested definitions. E.g., can you show us a proper move called so by a dan player that violates conditions of the definitions? Would you call that move "proper move" or "honte"? Why do you think that a particular definition is (not) useful for improving strategic understanding? Let's have discussion instead of meta-discussion!

I am not saying that you are wrong, nor that a definition is not useful. I'm just observing that John has quoted 8 strong players to arrive at a definition of honte, while you have quoted none. You claim you have in fact considered the use by others, so can you give a list of the people/sources you consulted and their definitions of honte? Perhaps with some specific game examples as John did?

Kirby wrote:I can see that commentary that a move is honte may be rare. But in itself, this doesn't imply that honte is rare.

I'm with Kirby on this. I think that there are a lot of garden variety honte that escape commentary, precisely because they are garden variety. John Fairbairn's first example of a hanging connection in a joseki is a case in point. I also think that honte is to some extent a matter of style, that a player with a thick style will make more honte than a player with a different style. I am also reminded of Go Seigen's remark that an old man who plays honte, honte, is hard to beat. (Unfortunately I read that a long time ago and tracking it down would take some time. )

See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/本手 . Even if you do not read Japanese you can dig the examples.

Also, Otake wrote a book, 本手指南 (Honte Instruction, or maybe The Honte Coach), which has 5 stars on Amazon Japan ( http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-langu ... uage=en_JP ).

For your amusement.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073691/

Herman, for an etymological study in Japanese, John's quotes are useful, and maybe his concluded definition amounts to the average conveyed meaning of honte in those quotes. However, those quotes were not meant to provide a clear definition of honte.

I have quoted none, because a) I am not doing an etymological study (in English), b) I have made my observations only mentally and c) I have better use for my time than recording all informal evidence I collect firstly for myself while listening to go talk / speeches or reading go texts, or for doing retrospect historical study. Of course, this is a bit unfortunate, because you need to believe me about what I claim to have observed instead of having access to carefully collected evidence.

I have looked at John's examples and found that they fit my definition.

It fits also every example (for some, or in particular the, term) I recall explicitly or, much more often, subconsciously. Why? Over the years, when I see some example, I compare it with my current draft of a definition. When necessary, I update and improve the draft, so that it fits all earlier and the latest seen examples. At some time, I proceed a step further and write a definition.

And this is my way of coming to a definition. (For other terms, I might also add specific research. For proper move, it was a matter of a few dozen minutes of actually formulating the definition text suitably.)

When formulating my definition, I looked at joseki examples, after I had first filtered hundreds of josekis for those with proper moves. You find such examples in every joseki dictionary. (Of course, honte occurs also outside josekis, but historically it was like this that I checked joseki shapes during the formulation process. From experience, I was aware that things are very similar in non-joseki shapes.)

EDIT: when I define a go term, my aim is not etymology, but is greatest usefulness for go theory.

RobertJasiek wrote:My definition of proper move would apply only to such slack moves that "postpone the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape."

I'm actually not sure whether this makes sense, despite re-reading it 4 or 5 times now. A local move is necessary or not. You can't postpone something if it is necessary now, and you don't have to postpone it if it isn't. I'm not sure that you can "postpone the necessity for yet another..." at all.

I must admit, after reading John's OP I sat here feeling like I'd just read a superb explanation and definition of a commonly used but poorly understood term.

Not only did I feel a bit confused after your definition Robert, and felt some of the same criticisms that John made, but have found that my confusion is now worse after seeing your defense of the defition.

I suspect not being a native speaker of English probably doesn't make things easy for you, but it's probably best not to label your definition as "more precise" when it seems anything but.

On the subject of definitions:

RobertJasiek wrote:"_Aji_ lies in the latent, bad possibilities in a player's imperfect shape that the opponent might exploit to his advantage at a suitable moment." [10]

I have a suspicion that this is simply not correct, although I hope John will tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Aji simply points towards the possibilities inherent in a local part of a position does it not? Even if a player's shape is truly excellent, there may well still be some remaining aji that can be exploited.

daal wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:'proper' has just too many rather different meanings and nuances, none of sit well with go.

In English go terminology, the phrase "proper move" is used in the same function as "honte" used in English go terminology. Therefore, there are not too many rather different meanings and nuances. Too many rather different meanings and nuances can occur when "proper" is used as a non-go-term word (in go texts); this is not what I suggest. I suggest to continue using the full phrase "proper move" (or its grammatical derivates, such as "the move is proper") or "honte" by those preferring more Japanese words in English go terminology.

Despite defining a phrase such as "proper move" as a go term, the word "proper" exists independently in the minds of any English speaking person. I am not sure, but I suspect that even when clearly defined as a go term, most people are not capable of eliminating from their minds other known meanings of the word, such as in this case: "correct according to social or moral rules" or "respectable." Is is not a legitimate concern that such nuances could influence the reader's interpretation of a go text?

The term "proper move" is a nightmare. I'd distinguish between "That is proper" and "That is the proper move" in meaning as someone eluded to earlier as linguistic hair splitting. They don't mean the same thing to me. I'd be very wary of taking a technical term from go and using an English phrase like "proper move" to sum it up. Proper is a word that doesn't even have the same connotations everywhere, it can be used rather negatively here and I imagine in other countries. It's just not a word that's useful to tight definitions.

Boidhre wrote:It's just not a word that's useful to tight definitions.

Again, it is not the word alone that constitutes the term. It is the phrase "proper move".

topazg wrote:I must admit, after reading John's OP I sat here feeling like I'd just read a superb explanation and definition of a commonly used but poorly understood term.

Not only did I feel a bit confused after your definition Robert, and felt some of the same criticisms that John made, but have found that my confusion is now worse after seeing your defense of the defition.

I suspect not being a native speaker of English probably doesn't make things easy for you, but it's probably best not to label your definition as "more precise" when it seems anything but.

From a mathematical point of view you can define everything as you want and it is true by definition (provided it is not contradicting itself).
However in practise you are calling for trouble if you redefine common words or make the definition more strict or wider.

For me it seems better to use a new term else nobody knows what a word means. Especially for Robert it shouldn't be that difficult to use a kind of substitution to get unambiguous terms instead of expecting that others use the terms as he has defined them.

topazg wrote:I'm not sure that you can "postpone the necessity for yet another..." at all.

Due to a proper move, yet another [local reinforcing defense] move is needed 'not soon', but 'later'. The proper move shifts the moment from 'soon' to [much] 'later'. I.e., the proper move 'postpones' the moment when yet another move is needed.

An improper move would fail to postpone at all or that well.

I must admit, after reading John's OP I sat here feeling like I'd just read a superb explanation and definition of a commonly used but poorly understood term.

His explanation is similar to my weak understanding when I was a kyu. I had some idea of "safe" and "doing well in achieving safety", but did not know what that safety or otherwise missing safety was all about. When reading only "safe and sound", it does not tell what 'safe' and 'sound' actually are.

RobertJasiek wrote:"_Aji_ lies in the latent, bad possibilities in a player's imperfect shape that the opponent might exploit to his advantage at a suitable moment." [10]

I have a suspicion that this is simply not correct [...] Aji simply points towards the possibilities inherent in a local part of a position does it not?

Different definitions of 'aji' exist. I use mine, because, essentially whenever I apply it to more advanced theory, I need my more specific definition of aji with its "bad" possibilities and "suitable moment". OTOH, one can imagine also other advanced applications, where your simplistic kind of definition is advantageous. I avoid this problem of multiple possible definitions of aji by then not speaking of 'aji' but simply of 'possibilities'.

asura wrote:for Robert it shouldn't be that difficult to use a kind of substitution to get unambiguous terms instead of expecting that others use the terms as he has defined them.

When a term has a commonly accepted meaning, I keep the term. When a term has a commenly accepted rough meaning, I keep the term and clarify the meaning. When a term has several meanings, I might make the term more specific. When a term did not exist, I invent some term as necessary.

"Proper move" is a term having had a commonly accepted rough meaning among most dan players, so that I have kept the term and clarified its meaning. I have discarded the much rougher kyu level meaning of the term, because my intention is not to keep kyus kyus - instead, they shall share dan level meaning.

quantumf wrote:There's some cavalier use of the word "slack" here as though it's a widely understood word. I would venture that it might be as badly understood or defined as "honte". John, Robert (or anyone else), can you define this word? Preferably in a way that does not refer to "honte" at all

The word slack is usually used to describe moves which do not accomplish as much as they could, do not do enough work, etc. The words "luke warm" (nurui in Japanese) have the same meaning in go. Since nurui comes from ordinary Japanese, a precise definition of the go meaning might not be possible. Look in commentaries for moves described as slack and compare with the move recommended instead to see the meaning. Once again some pros might call moves nurui that other pros don't. Was it Fujisawa Kuranosuke (Hosai) who said he lost a match with Takagawa because he couldn't deal with Takagawa's luke warm play?

RobertJasiek wrote:When a term has a commenly accepted rough meaning, I keep the term and clarify the meaning. When a term has several meanings, I might make the term more specific. When a term did not exist, I invent some term as necessary.

For some terms it is a feature that the meaning is only rough or that it can have different meanings. If you make the definition more specific some statements using this term change from true to false.
Don't get me wrong, i think this way is often useful, but OTAH many things that you say reqires exactly your definitions and when you prove other statements wrong you do it under the assumtion that your definitions apply.

Creating new terms is the only way to be sure that people apply your definitions.

"A _proper move_ postpones the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape." (RJ)



Black A postpones the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape. Is it a honte? Of course not. Is it a proper move? Of course not.



Both Black A and Black B save the group but the "proper move" (i.e. so used in perfectly good English) to do this is A. But is A a honte? Of course not (unless you want to debase the currency).

Is it a good idea to believe in "run-of-the-mill" hontes? Of course not, unless you want to debase the term, and also want to regard every other move as a run-of-the-mill tesuji.

John Fairbairn wrote:"A _proper move_ postpones the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape." (RJ)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Black [circle] postpones the necessity for yet another local move until much later by eliminating aji and creating thick shape.

My definition says: "MUCH later". Your example is not honte, because a white peep can occur fairly early, and Black would need to play another local move earlier than "much later". Therefore, your example is not a counter-example for my definition.

My definition says: "creating thick shape". Your example is not honte, also because the black move does not create thick shape. Also for this reason, your example is not a counter-example for my definition.

My definition works well for your example.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

is A a honte? Of course not

According to your description "safe and sound", Black A is honte. Of course, you do not intend your description to have this side effect and similar side effects (e.g., a biggest gote endgame). Unfortunately, your description is not precise enough to exclude such side effects.

With my definition, there is at least a chance to exclude your position: the "creating thick shape" condition is not fulfilled convincingly, because the "thick shape" definition considers also "cannot [...] play painful forcing moves against it". Such implicitly presumes a local shape that is not tightly surrounded and almost settled; otherwise forcing moves could not be available even in principle.

I somehow feel there's an implicit thing in honte moves (as we usually understand them,) separating them from this example. A is not honte because A (or B) because A (or B, again) is a clearly needed move. Honte moves, as I see them, can be discussed, or even omitted for a small loss. A move like A instead is needed for the life of a group, and thus not honte.