topazg wrote:Can something really be objectively brilliant?
Yes, given an agreed upon definition and subject to its specifications.
yet where you place a book on this scale is based on your own value judgements as to what constitutes quality.
Yes, but I discuss and explain my ratings when necessary. This makes it possible to verify whether they are chose reasonably.
there's the subjectivety of choosing which of those [...] assessments are important.
Yes. Weighing criteria is a factor. I have explained my weighing style. When will others start to explain theirs?
You like to see formulaic principles that can cover all possible cases, without exceptions, in a simple and clean manner.
This is an over-generalisation of my view. I want to see (also) generally applicable advice. It is of secondary importance in which form that advice appears. Principles are one possibility, methods are another etc. Covering all cases is not always possible but if it is possible in even a simple, clean manner, then, yes, it must be stated and explained.
To you, with respect to an issue like liberty fights or the outcomes of ko situations, these are so valuable that they are pretty much a necessity - much better than vague generalisations like "one eye beats no eye".
Of course. "one eye beats no eye" (as a pretended general principle) is one of the greatest and worst falsehoods of go teaching in history. True statements must correct that.
However, to other people, formulaic approaches are fundamentally bad, and make them not want to pick up the book.
So they continue to make mistakes such as possibly always trusting "one eye beats no eye".
People who dislike formulaic approaches also dislike endgame calculations or positional judgements. Their playing suffers.
just they turn the person off from reading a book and not want to touch it again.
Sure. I do not write books for people rejecting to learn or wishing to learn half-truths (i.e. half-falsehoods) but I write for those willing to learn correct (or almost correct) knowledge.
With respect to the quality of the book, that certainly demonstrated that the book has a low value in their mind.
And this lets you suggest factual falsehoods as a measure of book quality? Do not listen to such people but listen to those advocating factual truths!
On the contrary, some people love maxims such as "never push from behind", "never peep when you can cut", "one eye beats no eye", "atari? extend!" as these are the sorts of advice that people don't forget. For these people, even running the risk of applying them incorrectly is fine for the benefit of having something simple they can pick up, read, and learn (and teach!). For them, brilliance comes in utter simplicity.
This is DDK learning level. DDKs do not need precise principles when almost correct principles are available and simple. However, I would never teach big falsehoods such as "one eye beats no eye". Do not suggest desinformation of beginners (or anybody else)!
Why is your definition an objectively better one than theirs is?
Because (relative frequency of) truth is better than falsehood!
If person A considers a book brilliant for reasons M, N and O, and person B considers it rubbish for reasons X, Y and Z, who can put themselves in the position to judge objectively which of the factors M, N, O, X, Y and Z are more important? How can this be anything other than subjective?
By relying on fundamental insights such as "truth is better than falsehood" or "knowledge is better than no knowledge".
