Is Japanese or Western literature more brilliant?

[Kirby]

I'm still hung up on your first post in this thread, Robert:

In particular, the details and depth convered in the entirety of all Japanese books (as far as I have seen thousands of them or as have been reviewed in English) pale in comparison to the knowledge of those topics covered in my books.

Don't you think this is a bold, if not arrogant, statement? Is there not the slightest of possibilities that one of these authors, who are all stronger than you, from one of the thousands of books that you've read, has written truths in their books that you don't fully understand?

To say that the "details and depth" pale in comparison to you own self-written text seems a bit arrogant to me.

Of course, I know the reply that's coming next. Something aling the lines of go strength not equating to knowledge, how there is not evidence that their books are better, yada, yada, yada...

Surely this isn't the best way to promote the aales of your own books... I can't help but wonder what your intention is in this kind of nonsense.

[Splatted]

It seems that my comment in another thread is what sparked this discussion (read:argument), so even though it's not really relevent, I feel the need to clarify that statement.

My impression from when I played Go but didn't speak Japanese was that there was a wealth of brilliant Go stuff I was missing out on,

I wasn't really thinking in terms of English vs Japanese Go material, so much as assuming that there were things worth reading in both languages, and that as a monolingual English speaker I was missing out on the ones written in Japanese.

I do imagine that the volume of material published in Japanese may mean you're more likely to find a good book on the subject that interests you, but that in no way implies that Japanese books are generally better than English ones.

Sorry for making such a pointless, self-satisfying post.

[HermanHiddema]

It is hard for me (and for many others) to accept someone's different view as objectively true if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons.

Yes, but in addition, it seems to be also hard for you to accept someone's different view as objectively true even if it is sufficiently supported by reasons.

Also, it seems to be hard for you to accept your own view as false even if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons. This seems to be because you are not sufficiently able to be make the distinction between facts and you own opinions.

The result, which can be observed all over all the go discussion forums in the last decades, is thread derailment. It is not a coincidence that a much larger percentage of threads in which you participate tend to derail. Your style of discussion, due to the inability to see other peoples point of view, is the cause.

Now I do not think you do this on purpose (i.e. you are not deliberately trolling or such things), but it is rather hard to change the way your mind works. So I think the lesson to learn here, for most of us, is: Let it go. Ignore the outrageous claims that Robert makes. It is not productive to engage in discussion, you will just derail the thread. Ignore, provide alternative information to the other posters in the thread where appropriate, move on.

[RobertJasiek]

I know the reply that's coming next.

Ok. Then I do not need to reply to your previous remarks in this your message.

what your intention is

1) To motivate better books and go theory sharing in future.

2) In particular, to motivate better Asian books and go theory sharing in future.

3) To motivate everybody to reveal the existence of more still hidden to us good or better Asian books.

4) To motivate stopping of indifferent praise of literature where there are knowledge and teaching gaps.

5) To motivate better appreciation of different degrees of quality in literature.

6) To motivate everybody to reveal evidence - instead of what you do (meta-discussion) - that better, equally good or at least half as good go knowledge as I teach exists in Asian literature, or - otherwise and instead of resorting to meta-discussion - to accept as fact that indeed the knowledge presented in my books is superior or, in parts, even far superior to all other knowledge on a same or closely related topic. In this case, instead of calling me arrogrant, you might as well praise the existence of a great Western researcher in go theory. Can you praise only Asian top players and, let's say, Western pop stars? More kinds of extraordinary achievements are possible! In particular, what do you think of my achievement to assess each joseki's influence value, especially in comparison to Asian professionals' teaching in literature? Can you appreciate the amount of related preliminary thinking during the past 15 years or that I save those interested that amount?

[RobertJasiek]

Sorry for making such a pointless, self-satisfying post.

No, don't worry. Some of us are just more eager to discuss than you might expect:)

[RobertJasiek]

Herman, I am convinced by sufficiently convincing reasons but not by insufficient reasons. The only one making a real effort to study whether some Asian material might be superior to mine is John. So far, he has dug out only some preliminary semeai history, which is no sign of superiority. He (much earlier) is also the one trying to reveal and provide evidence by reviewing potentially noteworthy Asian books. Even they are not convincing evidence of superiority. The "evidence" provided by others is even weaker. The only really apparent superiority (besides problem books) is not quality but sheer quantity. Now you claim that I would not accept evidence. What I do not accept is too weak evidence. Why do you (or anybody else than John, who tries hard) not become specific and provide evidence of an Asian joseki book with influence values for all josekis in a better quality than symbolic number guesswork?

An ability to accept evidence and reasons requires their existence and sufficiently convincing quality. I do not just pretend to accept for the sake of doing you a favour of less lengthy discussions. To end discussions, you must provide sufficiently good evidence!

[topazg]

An ability to accept evidence and reasons requires their existence and sufficiently convincing quality. I do not just pretend to accept for the sake of doing you a favour of less lengthy discussions. To end discussions, you must provide sufficiently good evidence!

The quality of evidence is normally assessed primarily by how it achieves a set of criteria. Your criteria is different to those of other people. As a result, something which isn't good enough evidence to you can still be good enough evidence to someone else.

You haven't yet provided any good evidence that your criteria of assessing the quality of instructional material is superior to anyone else's, which is the crux of some of this discussion. As far as I am aware, there is no empirical gold standard as to what quantifies "better" with respect to instructional material of any kind, with the exception perhaps of its ability to improve the rank of its reader. So far, I feel that Japanese literature has demonstrated an ability to increase people's strength, and I haven't seen similar testimonials regarding your books, so as far as I'm concerned they haven't demonstrated enough quality yet. I suspect this is due almost entirely to its lack of circulation, so it doesn't demonstrate that they are poor either, but until then comparing the quality of your literature to other works is a pointless exercise, as there's no proof for or against its efficacy.

The fact your work meets your own criteria more sufficiently is self-evident, and I wouldn't expect any different as you are the primary author. What you are failing to demonstrate to anyone is why your approach to the subjects you cover is a superior one to the other ones adopted by Eastern books and professional teachings. The most effective way to do this is probably unasked for anecdotes praising your books accomplishments at improving playing ability. I have seen literally in excess of a hundred of these for "Lessons in the fundamentals of Go", "Opening theory made easy" and "Attack and defense", but none yet for your material. Until you have this, you can't expect to see a different attitude from posters here or elsewhere in the Go community.

[HermanHiddema]

Herman, I am convinced by sufficiently convincing reasons but not by insufficient reasons. The only one making a real effort to study whether some Asian material might be superior to mine is John. So far, he has dug out only some preliminary semeai history, which is no sign of superiority. He (much earlier) is also the one trying to reveal and provide evidence by reviewing potentially noteworthy Asian books. Even they are not convincing evidence of superiority. The "evidence" provided by others is even weaker. The only really apparent superiority (besides problem books) is not quality but sheer quantity. Now you claim that I would not accept evidence. What I do not accept is too weak evidence. Why do you (or anybody else than John, who tries hard) not become specific and provide evidence of an Asian joseki book with influence values for all josekis in a better quality than symbolic number guesswork?

An ability to accept evidence and reasons requires their existence and sufficiently convincing quality. I do not just pretend to accept for the sake of doing you a favour of less lengthy discussions. To end discussions, you must provide sufficiently good evidence!

My post was not specifically related to this thread, but to all discussions on all go forums throughout the past decades.

You can ignore my post, or you can take it for what it is, good objective advice, and try to improve yourself on this area.

Until such time, my advice to others stands: Ignore, provide alternative information to the other posters in the thread where appropriate, move on.

[RobertJasiek]

You haven't yet provided any good evidence that your criteria of assessing the quality of instructional material is superior to anyone else's,

To repeat, my major criteria (for go knowledge books) are (Model A):
- improvement potential
- greater amount of taught knowledge
- importance / amount of new inventions

Other models of criteria (as far as I recall) are:

Model B:
- improvement potential

Model C:
- weak player's improvement potential

Now let me compare the criteria models.

Model C is a joke; Model B is obviously better (it includes the possibility for Model C).

To compare Models A + B, let me simplify and concentrate on greater amount of taught knowledge. Is knowledge valuable at all? Yes, because it is a major basis for potential improvement. Is a player stronger if he knows only "live" or if he knows both "live" and "connect"? More likely, he is stronger if he knows both. More knowledge bears the potential for greater strength. Since Model B accepts improvement as a criterion, this thus implies that also greater amount of taught knowledge is a good criterion.

Now you might object that greater amount of taught knowledge were already contained in the improvement criterion. However, this is so only partially because improvement is a process. Already achieved improved can, in principle, be followed by later, further improvement. Such requires a cause, and a cause can be: still unexplored or not sufficiently explored knowledge. Therefore greater amount of taught knowledge is a genuine extension of the improvement criterion for the good of the overall quality of a judged book. QED:)

(Will reply more later.)

[daal]

I for one have never bought a book because I thought the author was nice.

I don't know most authors of Go books personally, but I'll certainly buy interesting books by self-publishers or small publishing companies if I can afford them; I'm glad that John Fairbairn and Robert Jasiek write the books they do, and I also like the Hinoki press books. Also, Baduktopia has just published the English and German versions of Lee Sedol's Commented Games volume 1.

It's necessary, I believe, to support individual authors who publish new and interesting material for a niche readership.

You seem to have missed the context of my post. The point was, The main criterion for purchasing a book, its quality, is not dependent upon whether or not an author is perceived as unpleasant. If you disagree, let me have a look at your library.

As to purchasing the works of local writers (those in our hemisphere), I agree with you entirely.

I define brilliant as weak player getting stronger by reading that material. Robert's book is not that book.

After a year of stagnation, I gained 1 stone after reading one of Robert's books.

Ignore, provide alternative information to the other posters in the thread where appropriate, move on.

In this case, while we all seem to know a thing or two about Robert, too few posters seem to have any knowledge of Japanese go literature.

[RobertJasiek]

Japanese literature has demonstrated an ability to increase people's strength,

It has also another potential: to stop or greatly slow down further increment of people's strength. It all depends on which books one is reading at which level.

Until you have this, you can't expect to see a different attitude from posters here or elsewhere in the Go community.

A major factor for popularity is time of circulation. E.g., Lessons in the Fundamentals, Tesuji, Attack and Defense are the bread and butter books know for decades and appeared when there were only few books. So they had a good chance to be spread to every club's knowledge.

and I haven't seen similar testimonials regarding your books,

I have, but obviously their number does not compare yet with the aforementioned bread and butter books.

(More later.)

[RobertJasiek]

What you are failing to demonstrate to anyone is why your approach to the subjects you cover is a superior one to the other ones adopted by Eastern books and professional teachings.

I am not failing to demonstrate, but maybe you have not listened carefully enough earlier: My books teach a lot of knowledge important for but missing in Asian books and teaching. E.g., where the Asian source might say "Black has got influence", I say more precisely "Black has got 7 more important outside influence stones than White". On the next joseki, the Asian source might say "Black has got influence" while I say "Black has got 10 more important outside influence stones than White". You learn more from me because I enable you to compare every two strengths of influence! (Afterwards, my book studies more powerful knowledge, if you need some.)

Until you have this, you can't expect to see a different attitude from posters here or elsewhere in the Go community.

You are an optimist. I am still waiting for something much simpler: the first thanks for explaining well what thickness and influence are. Strategic Concepts of Go belongs to the much praised bread and butter books, but its thickness explanation is much weaker. Do people realise at all just how very important it is to know connection, life and territory as the fundament of these concepts? Whithout appreciating connection, there is aji. Without life, the "thickness" is subject of attack. Without territory potential, the thickness is as useless as it is strong:)

[topazg]

I am not failing to demonstrate, but maybe you have not listened carefully enough earlier: My books teach a lot of knowledge important for but missing in Asian books and teaching. E.g., where the Asian source might say "Black has got influence", I say more precisely "Black has got 7 more important outside influence stones than White". On the next joseki, the Asian source might say "Black has got influence" while I say "Black has got 10 more important outside influence stones than White". You learn more from me because I enable you to compare every two strengths of influence! (Afterwards, my book studies more powerful knowledge, if you need some.)

Just to play devil's advocate (what? me?), where's the evidence that demonstrates these numbers? How do I know that these are accurate figures and not unjustified claims? Precision is great, but false precision isn't. More importantly, do stronger players than yourself look at your positional assessments and specifics and say "Yes, I feel Robert is correct here"?

[oren]

Why don't you cry for all those other books to teach at least the basics of the essential? Instead you are suspecting me to possibly not doing that well. Why?

Mainly because you're 5d and claiming how brilliant you are at these topics. If you were stronger, I would take you more seriously. If you wrote books you thought were good and were more humble about it, I would probably find them interesting. However, the declaration of the greatness of your works against books written by much stronger players leaves me a bit amused most of the time.

[palapiku]

Just to play devil's advocate (what? me?), where's the evidence that demonstrates these numbers? How do I know that these are accurate figures and not unjustified claims? Precision is great, but false precision isn't. More importantly, do stronger players than yourself look at your positional assessments and specifics and say "Yes, I feel Robert is correct here"?

I think this is an important point, not just a devil's advocate argument. Quoting Robert Jasiek from earlier in this thread:

making very important and, according to today's knowledge, correct inventions in go theory

What exactly does "according to today's knowledge" mean here? Have your books been peer-reviewed?