Nakade

[Bantari]

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.

As much as I like the book, I have always been bothered by this example, and some others like this in the book. What Kageyama is saying seems to be that the solid capture in that case was better *because* it was more fundamental, which I am not sure is the truth. It was better because it left less aji for later, or something like that - at least this is what I think. Sometimes solid(er) captures are inferior to loose(er) ones, and it really depends on a situation, not on some basic level of 'fundamentality' of a move.

A case could be made, for example, that hoshi (or san-san) is more 'fundamental' than komoku. Or that san-re-sei is more fundamental than mini-chinese. But this would have been meaningless.

So - about fundamental concepts in Kageyama:
I think some concepts are more 'fundamental' than others because there are specific reasons for that. It is these reasons we have to know and understand, not just that a technique is 'fundamental'. Otherwise what we have is a list of techniques, ordered by their 'fundamentality', and we can always automatically play the ones more fundamental, regardless of the situation. I seriously doubt pros think like that, or that this is the measure of 'pro-ness'.

If I have any criticism of Kageyame, which is my favorite book by far, it is that I wish he went into these reasons a little more.

Having said the above, it is certainly very valuable to have a firm grasp of the fundamentals, as Kageyama suggests, even when you are not always sure of the reasons.

[snorri]

Otherwise what we have is a list of techniques, ordered by their 'fundamentality', and we can always automatically play the ones more fundamental, regardless of the situation. I seriously doubt pros think like that, or that this is the measure of 'pro-ness'.

To me, Kageyama's text in that book sometimes reads like a tirade against cuteness. I'm not sure the attitude is unjustified, though. I think there is a phase many amateurs go through where they try fancier and fancier ways of accomplishing the same things---some of which may be better---but often they are not. While experimentation is great, cuteness can be a distraction, a misguided search for greater efficiency. It's like trumpet players, frustrated with their lack of progress, who seek to solve every problem with a new mouthpiece instead of having a reality check and getting to the core of what needs to change in their practice.

The frustrated go player is Kageyama's key audience. I think he is just saying, basically, if you are frustrated, tough. Don't look for magical cures.

[RobertJasiek]

snorri, I read the Kageyama as a motivation to find the magic:)

[John Fairbairn]

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),

I can't put my hands easily on my copy of Ama to Puro (senior evenings now ) but this is a good example to discuss. Baseball pros often comment on the difference between the way Japanese pros train (fielding 1,000 grounders a session, literally, and if the knees go you are sent to the knacker's yard) and the gentler way Major League pros train (whereas in the actual game the ML players play much harder - Japanese pitchers apologise if they hit the batter!). Actually the differences have probably blurred in recent years, but the biography of Wally Yonamine is perhaps the best source on this topic.

The Japanese way of baseball, which is akin to the 10,000 hours theory, is no doubt fine to get to pro standard, and quite likely American pros have done something similar on their way to the Show, but the Japanese appear to have made a mistake in not changing once pro level is reached. This can all be easily explained in social and cultural terms (baseball clubs being extensions of major companies and players are slave-employees). Go pros don't behave that way (as pros) because they are independent - lone gunslingers - and that independence is a good part of the reason they have been popular figures with Mr SalaryMan.

[skydyr]

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.

As much as I like the book, I have always been bothered by this example, and some others like this in the book. What Kageyama is saying seems to be that the solid capture in that case was better *because* it was more fundamental, which I am not sure is the truth. It was better because it left less aji for later, or something like that - at least this is what I think. Sometimes solid(er) captures are inferior to loose(er) ones, and it really depends on a situation, not on some basic level of 'fundamentality' of a move.

Like you were alluding to, I think his point was that the tighter move was the fundamental one, and that by tighter he meant the one that left the least amount of aji behind. Sometimes this is a net and other times it's a ladder, given a choice between the two, but the correct move is guided by the fundamental principle of leaving the least amount of aji.

[RobertJasiek]

the correct move is guided by the fundamental principle of leaving the least amount of aji.

Which, in the context of nets and ladders, needs an explanation of how to assess the least amount of aji:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9061