Life In 19x19

But what does this tell us? Center strategies are possible. One just should not play all moves 5th line and higher. All this box counting is trivia of people not knowing how to teach fundamentals well. The relevant fundamental concept is: make positional judgements. Then judge whether to build a center moyo.

In his 3rd installment, Minue discusses 4 basic moves:

- the iron pillar or stretch (nobi)

An iron pillar move makes solid and unconditional connection of stones. So there are no ways for white to cut them. Solidness is its merit.
The demerits of "iron pillar" are its slow speed for advancing, and lack of flexibility.

- the one space jump (ikken tobi)

Compared to an iron pillar move, the one space jump has its own (obvious) merit. It is faster than the iron pillar for development of stones. Analogically speaking, if this one space move is like "walking", then the iron pillar move can be said to be like "crawling".

This comparison preludes a later elaboration about efficiciency of stones (good shape) or its antipode, overconcentration (bad shape). In isolation, the one space jump is obviously more efficent than the iron pillar.

- the diagonal move (kosumi)

A little exaggerating and oversimplifying, it can be said that "stones which flow on diagonal lines are against the nature of their world".

Therefore, Minue states that diagonal moves are mostly used in specific circumstances:

- Diagonal moves are often used in "knight's position of 2 colors" and very useful in obtaining a higher position in that case.
- Diagonal moves are closely related to "knight's move", and they are often used together in local positions.

- the knight's move (keima)

- With respect to "development of stones" this is the most efficient way among all 4 basic Haeng-Ma tools.
- But, for stability of stones, Knight's move is the worst tool for us. (Connectivity of stones is one of the main factors, which is relevant to stability of stones)

Overall, he discusses their virtues and weaknesses in terms of development and stability, using the foundations he laid out in the first installments.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorial ... gPositions

Knotwilg wrote:So far, nobody has replied to my post about Minue's "Haengma tutorial for beginners",

I didn't reply, but due to your post, I have read the tutorial in its entirety, found it useful, but not extremely useful due to the already known status of some of the information and the lack of more examples "in later chapters" which are not forthcoming.

I like it a lot, and I think that the list-objection is really silly. The numbers just label the different sections. I am certainly against someone rewriting it who just dislikes the style on principle. I think that it is rather depressing that the discussion here is whether numbering the sections of a tutorial is a bad "list-style" and whether "stability" should be called "strength".

One thing is clear: This tutorial does not cover the fundamentals in any meaningful way that are referred to by people who say in reviews "just learn the fundamentals". Knowing the things in Minue's tutorial will not help a lot. If the tutorial had be continued, this might be different.

I also think that Joe has a good point: In the instruction "just learn the fundamentals", it is not only the word "fundamentals" which is problematic. Yes, I know that it is a bad idea to self-atari, have I learned it?

Pio2001 wrote:

Knotwilg wrote:

To build territory, wider areas are better than small ones

He somewhat jestingly suggests that the centre would hence come before the sides and the corners.

...Don't forget that the centre is smaller that the sides and corners (169 intersections only vs 192).

That is not really true if a player consistently cedes the center (because the side player cannot truly get what you count for sides and corners).

Point in case:
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =18&t=3024

in particular, see the game in
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 904#p49904

- the iron pillar or stretch (nobi)

Quote:

An iron pillar move makes solid and unconditional connection of stones. So there are no ways for white to cut them. Solidness is its merit.
The demerits of "iron pillar" are its slow speed for advancing, and lack of flexibility.

This seems bad/wrong for a reference site. An iron pillar is not a nobi and vice versa. An iron pillar is not played with any intention of advancing or being flexible. Its purpose is precisely to close down the action, so the demerits mentioned can hardly be called demerits.

The merits/demerits can, however, be applied to nobi, but then you also have to distinguish narabi, sagari and other variants.

The differences between the named forms are actually at the heart of understanding the fundamentals of shape.

John Fairbairn wrote:

- the iron pillar or stretch (nobi)

Quote:

An iron pillar move makes solid and unconditional connection of stones. So there are no ways for white to cut them. Solidness is its merit.
The demerits of "iron pillar" are its slow speed for advancing, and lack of flexibility.

This seems bad/wrong for a reference site. An iron pillar is not a nobi and vice versa. An iron pillar is not played with any intention of advancing or being flexible. Its purpose is precisely to close down the action, so the demerits mentioned can hardly be called demerits.

The merits/demerits can, however, be applied to nobi, but then you also have to distinguish narabi, sagari and other variants.

The differences between the named forms are actually at the heart of understanding the fundamentals of shape.

The addition of "nobi" to the iron pillar was mine, not Minue's. I'm sure we can have another discussion on how "nobi" and "iron pillar" are different. At the very basic level, it is about adding a stone next to another stone. I like simple definitions and build on those. If a nobi is not merely adding a stone to an adjacent one, fine. I dislike iron pillar mostly because it's such a mouthful.

Minue discusses relative merits and "demerits" of shapes as they are. The iron pillar is slow, if the purpose is to advance. So it is usually not used as a way to advance.

Gotraskhalana wrote:
I didn't reply, but due to your post, I have read the tutorial in its entirety, found it useful, but not extremely useful due to the already known status of some of the information and the lack of more examples "in later chapters" which are not forthcoming.

I like it a lot, and I think that the list-objection is really silly. The numbers just label the different sections. I am certainly against someone rewriting it who just dislikes the style on principle. I think that it is rather depressing that the discussion here is whether numbering the sections of a tutorial is a bad "list-style" and whether "stability" should be called "strength".

One thing is clear: This tutorial does not cover the fundamentals in any meaningful way that are referred to by people who say in reviews "just learn the fundamentals". Knowing the things in Minue's tutorial will not help a lot. If the tutorial had be continued, this might be different.

I also think that Joe has a good point: In the instruction "just learn the fundamentals", it is not only the word "fundamentals" which is problematic. Yes, I know that it is a bad idea to self-atari, have I learned it?

We seem to largely agree but on one point: I find Minue's treatise very usefulf for anyone looking for fundamentals, because it lays down a foundation for higher concepts. I don't think you can go more fundamental than this. Obviously, it's not complete as a "theory of Go", far from it, and it seems Minue had something more extensive in mind but did not complete it.

Anyway, there is no conclusive agreement in the (western) go literature on what the fundamentals are, so merely pointing out to someone they should become better at the fundamentals, is not very helpful. I see some lists with useful knowledge to learn, but which is not really fundamental, in the sense of being a foundation for other knowledge.

The list of Kageyama's chapters is also a good candidate, for what follows. Bozulich' "Second book" contains more food for thought, as does his "strategic principles". Richard Hunter's chapters on capturing races could be called "fundamental" too, at least they provide a foundation for a theory on fighting.

It would be interesting to link up Minue's "fundamentals" with these bodies of work.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

Maybe some will find this excerpt of Chapter 1 of The Breakthrough to Shodan interesting

'I want to get to shodan quickly.' That must be the first thought of everyone who learns to play go, but the barrier turns out to be unexpectedly thick. I sometimes hear people who are stalled at the four- or five-kyu level say, 'I don't have any talent.' Nonsense—no special talent is needed to reach shodan. These people are simply falling back on that convenient term 'talent' to justify their mistaken methods of studying to themselves.

From where, then, comes the difference between those who make steady progress and those who do not? That question can be answered in one word: fundamentals. When a person knows lots of joseki, practices life-and-death problems, and plays a great deal, but still makes no progress, it is because his fundamentals are all wrong. 'Fundamentals' should be interpreted, not as something narrow like joseki, but in a broad sense, as one's whole approach to the game. Think not of some flimsy structure that will collapse in a breeze, but of a tall skyscraper that gives itself to the wind, with only its foundation planted firmly in the ground.

Knotwilg wrote:Richard Hunter's chapters on capturing races could be called "fundamental"

To point out just your most glaring mistake: Hunter's theory on semeais contains mistakes and uses liberties with three different meanings without distinguishing them all clearly. His work researched in semeais and contributed to Wolf's and my later studies of the fundamentals of some classes of semeais.

The addition of "nobi" to the iron pillar was mine, not Minue's. I'm sure we can have another discussion on how "nobi" and "iron pillar" are different. At the very basic level, it is about adding a stone next to another stone

No it isn't. A nobi is an advance out on front of an enemy shape, so it is by definition an addition to a group of stones. An iron pillar (which refers to a two-stone shape, not one) is not usually in contact with other stones and the move making it (a sagari) is an addition to a single stone. Apart from the quite different dynamic aspects, the liberty situation is quite different. Even if you wish to cleave to the building-block approach, you get to a quite different destination (a more accurate one, I think) if you start with liberties rather than stones.

If nobi and/or iron pillar are being used in an idiosyncratic Alice in Wonderland way for just two stones in a line (which a nobi is not usually anyway), why gratuitously confuse other people, especially beginners seeking the fundamentals?

Just drop the "nobi" terminology, and we are good to go.

In the FWIW department, the step, which is a pattern of stones in a 5 point window, the stone played plus its adjacent points, includes both the iron pillar and the nobi, as well as other, more specific patterns. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?BillSpight%2FStep . OC, the step is neither shape nor haengma.

Bill Spight wrote:In the FWIW department, the step, which is a pattern of stones in a 5 point window, the stone played plus its adjacent points, includes both the iron pillar and the nobi, as well as other, more specific patterns. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?BillSpight%2FStep . OC, the step is neither shape nor haengma.

Thanks Bill! The "step" may be exactly the kind of simple term, void of historical or linguistic charge, that I'm looking for.

To John: I'm not deliberately confusing beginners. I'm trying to help building the articulation of fundamental go knowledge, by exposing Minue's view, making mistakes in the process, such as calling something "nobi" which it isn't.

In general, we will get much further by finding terms to describe things as they are, than by denouncing the usage of terms for things they aren't.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Knotwilg wrote:Richard Hunter's chapters on capturing races could be called "fundamental"

To point out just your most glaring mistake: Hunter's theory on semeais contains mistakes and uses liberties with three different meanings without distinguishing them all clearly. His work researched in semeais and contributed to Wolf's and my later studies of the fundamentals of some classes of semeais.

I'd rather have people help building a common understanding of the fundamentals than pointing out each others' mistakes.

I know you have built upon Richard's work. I have not read it yet, unfortunately. Let's say Richard's work has been foundational. I agree with you that some of his definitions of kinds of liberties are subject to improvement. Still, many of the results of his research still stand and reading them will give one a good grip on fighting. I'm sure you think the same or better can be said about your own treatise of the subject.

You may remember I mentioned you as one of the writers being active in the realm of fundamental knowledge. I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet.

John Fairbairn wrote:

The addition of "nobi" to the iron pillar was mine, not Minue's. I'm sure we can have another discussion on how "nobi" and "iron pillar" are different. At the very basic level, it is about adding a stone next to another stone

No it isn't. A nobi is an advance out on front of an enemy shape, so it is by definition an addition to a group of stones. An iron pillar (which refers to a two-stone shape, not one) is not usually in contact with other stones and the move making it (a sagari) is an addition to a single stone. Apart from the quite different dynamic aspects, the liberty situation is quite different. Even if you wish to cleave to the building-block approach, you get to a quite different destination (a more accurate one, I think) if you start with liberties rather than stones.

If nobi and/or iron pillar are being used in an idiosyncratic Alice in Wonderland way for just two stones in a line (which a nobi is not usually anyway), why gratuitously confuse other people, especially beginners seeking the fundamentals?

"Idiosyncratic" ... "gratuitous" ... every time I come here, I learn new words!