topazg wrote:where's the evidence that demonstrates these numbers?
In the related book Joseki 3 Dictionary, of course. See "influence stone difference" in the sample
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/Joseki_3_Sample.pdfHow do I know that these are accurate figures
1) Unlike the exact formal influence model in Joseki 2 Strategy, the influence model (influence stone difference) used for joseki evaluation is a great simplification and is an approximation rather than exactness. The unit of this model is 'number of counted stones', so it does not become more precise than positive natural numbers. I use this model because it is precise enough for the purpose of usage, it is very conveniently simple and it works exceptionally well within the joseki evaluation method of Joseki 3 Dictionary chapter 3.
2) It is possible to make minor errors in the value determination when one has to decide whether a stone is or is not an important outside influence stone. With a bit of experience, one learns to make good decisions though. It is easy to ignore 1st line stones or light remainders (such has helping stones (played as forcing moves) in front of an opposing wall). The typically more difficult decisions are related to whether some stone is still important for the outside or already too near to the inside.
3) Despite the small possible errors in (1) and (2), the joseki evaluation method in most cases tolerates small variation of values.
4) You know the values directly from what you see and can count: the stones. Namely the important outside influence stones. It is very easy to count (only a few!) stones!
5) Since the likely errors are small, the impact of errors is much less an issue when compared with a professional symbolic number system of, say, the possible values 50%, 80% or 100% influence. In such a very rough value model, any error such as saying 80% when it should be 50% has a huge impact. (And such errors would be too big to allow something similar to the joseki evaluation method.)
Conclusion: values are as accurate as necessary and as simple as being applicable easily. The errors allowed in this compromise between accuracy and applicability can be tolerated.
and not unjustified claims?
1) The justification for numbers is on the board: the influence stones.
2) The chosen influence model works extraordinarily well in the joseki evaluation method. (399 of 400 correct joseki versus non-joseki characterisations. The 1 failure is by nature outside the system: a huge ko exchange during the middle game.)
3) Application should be in a context of also considering significant other strategic concepts (such as considering a very good relation to an adjacent corner for one player while the other (the local territory advantage) player has a value advantage in the local joseki evaluation model)
Precision is great, but false precision isn't.
Therefore I am so proud of (2) :)
More importantly, do stronger players than yourself look at your positional assessments and specifics and say "Yes, I feel Robert is correct here"?
They all should! (I am afraid, they do not do it yet. Not everybody shares my insight that one can learn a lot also from weaker players with interesting ideas.) For my own games, application of the theory helps my planning, especially when I do not know yet whether a variation is joseki or equivalent. (During the middle game, I find influence stone difference an even more useful tool for positional judgement of center dominance. Applied in a few seconds, it gives a surprisingly reliable prediction of who controls the center.)
