Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:But the proof will be whether or not he produces definitions that expand our understanding of the game. We can't judge it beforehand.

I haven't been convinced of that from his posts on the forum, but I can't say for sure.

This is exactly my position too.

Sometimes you just have to get rid of the slant and the execess verbiage...

SmoothOper wrote:Perhaps you could apologize for your suggested definition of efficiency [...], so that we can continue a civil discussion?

If you want a civil discussion, then do not suggest apology for a factual contribution. Factual contributions are nothing one can apologise for (in the sense of regretting a moral failure). One can find out whether a factual contribution is factually correct, incorrect or inconclusive. If a factual contribution turns out to be incorrect, then one can admit this.

RobertJasiek wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:Perhaps you could apologize for your suggested definition of efficiency [...], so that we can continue a civil discussion?

If you want a civil discussion, then do not suggest apology for a factual contribution. Factual contributions are nothing one can apologise for (in the sense of regretting a moral failure). One can find out whether a factual contribution is factually correct, incorrect or inconclusive. If a factual contribution turns out to be incorrect, then one can admit this.

I think people are still in disagreement about your definition and use of the word "factual" with respect to your contributions. A lot of them are valid opinions, but that doesn't make them factual.

logan wrote:So you're already in the position of defending everything you say. I think this says enough...

It says that a) everything I am defending is worth defending and b) there have been careless attacks on everything instead of on specific things.

to me what you've outlined as your approach seems to be very close, if not exactly, to that of the logical positivists in the early-mid part of the 20th century.

Concerning the Go study by means of a combination of reading, decisions, terms, principles, methods etc., the relevant conflict is decision making when different lower level findings contradict each other and one must dissolve such by higher level principles, which are chosen due to partially incomplete information. Therefore, currently I would not claim that my approach would, for practical purposes, be complete.

However, Go study by other combinations of means, such as reading and subconscious guesswork, has the same problem of choosing due to partially incomplete information.

Neither approach can claim practical completeness. However, the approaches differ WRT to their ability and scope of providing us with partial understanding.

hyperpape wrote:the proof will be whether or not he produces definitions that expand our understanding of the game. We can't judge it beforehand.

Judge about my findings so far! They greatly expand go theory understanding.

topazg wrote:valid opinions, but that doesn't make them factual.

I see. But does it matter? I say "factual" - you say "factual or valid opinion" and we mean about the same:)

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:valid opinions, but that doesn't make them factual.

I see. But does it matter? I say "factual" - you say "factual or valid opinion" and we mean about the same:)

A valid opinion is a subjective feeling with supportive reasoning. A fact is an objective "truth", and not based in subjectivity. So yes, to most people, it does matter

RobertJasiek wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:Perhaps you could apologize for your suggested definition of efficiency [...], so that we can continue a civil discussion?

If you want a civil discussion, then do not suggest apology for a factual contribution. Factual contributions are nothing one can apologise for (in the sense of regretting a moral failure). One can find out whether a factual contribution is factually correct, incorrect or inconclusive. If a factual contribution turns out to be incorrect, then one can admit this.

You asserted that people were "attacking" you, when in fact they were "defending" themselves from blatant and offensive proselytization.

SmoothOper wrote:I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

Since most of your questions have received sufficient discussion, I wanted to mention a few things about the great Lee Changho (the signer of this go board). Which go player do you think most strongly influenced his thinking? According to interviews, Takemiya's style had a big influence on Lee Changho's thinking (and perhaps his theoretical view of the game?) even if Lee did not imitate Takemiya's style. Isn't that surprising? Make of it what you will.

lemmata wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

Since most of your questions have received sufficient discussion, I wanted to mention a few things about the great Lee Changho (the signer of this go board). Which go player do you think most strongly influenced his thinking? According to interviews, Takemiya's style had a big influence on Lee Changho's thinking (and perhaps his theoretical view of the game?) even if Lee did not imitate Takemiya's style. Isn't that surprising? Make of it what you will.

I think in many ways Lee Changho is the modern Takemiya, only probably a more dominant player for longer. I believe Lee's style will be popular with the Bhudda Zen approach being popular like the Natural Cosmic style in that they appear to be simple safe and secure, however people won't have much success imitating the styles since Lee and Takemiya were so talented to begin with. A major difference it seems is that there is no overt Moyo in Lee's style, but I am not exactly sure there is a specific tell tale sign of Lee's strategy, which is part of my question.

topazg wrote:A valid opinion is a subjective feeling with supportive reasoning. A fact is an objective "truth", and not based in subjectivity.

Of course.

Maybe your motivation of discussing these two phrases is related to my use of 'factual' in the sense of German 'sachlich'. Does the English word necessarily imply 'related to and only to proven facts'? In that case, my assumed translation and so use of the word was too naive as 'somehow related to facts, things or ideas or what might be facts'.

SmoothOper wrote:You asserted that people were "attacking" you

No. In this thread, I have not said that people were attacking me but said that [a few] people were attacking my work.

[admin]
This thread is going way off topic, and on several occasions has verged on breaking the TOS prohibition against personal attacks.
I ask all participants to try to keep on topic. For reference, I quote the OP below.
Being polite to your fellow members would be nice too, at least for the holidays.
Thanks,
JB
[/admin]

SmoothOper wrote:I have been trying to grasp the theory behind Lee Changho's style. From what I can glean from the internet thus far, is that he preferred solid thick but efficient openings and relied on late mid-game and yose moves, and is generally uninterested in moyos, sente plays(with the exception of pure profit moves), running groups and or attacking groups.

I guess I am wondering how you would recognize this style of play, and what would happen if two Buddhas were to play each other. Is efficiency sente?

Concerning the existence of efficiency as a strategic concept, Bill has expressed his opinion that he does not perceive such. In fact, efficiency as a strategic concept differs from quite a few other supposedly general strategic concepts: efficiency is a sort of collective concept for a couple of more specific concepts while other general strategic concepts (whether secondary level such as connection or whether tertiary level such as thickness (primary is the level of the very basic rules concepts such as player, string and physical liberty)) are concepts of their own right.

As a collective concept, efficiency contains in particular these more specific concepts:
1) efficiency of [dynamic] shape (creation) and related tewari evaluation
2) avoided overconcentration and territory efficiency
3) speed of extensions and connections [move type]
4) proper moves [whether they are efficient or too slow]
5) efficiency of sacrifice
6) maximal number of development directions
7) haengma (if one wants to extend the scope of efficiency to it)
8) best use (if one wants to extend the scope of efficiency to it)

It is hard not to talk about efficiency when talking about either of these specific concepts. IMO, one gains additional insight by identifying common aspects of all the specific forms of efficiency; Bill and Herman, don't you think so?

When, in 1998, I reflected about the nature of efficiency, first I wondered whether it was some strategic concept besides (1) to (6), but I could not see it as an independent concept. Instead, I noticed that (1) to (6) all are about aspects of efficiency, so considering efficiency as the collective concept for these aspects was the natural choice. Not for a second had I assumed efficiency to be only a word of ordinary language and not a go term with specific meaning because, in literature, I saw efficiency more consistently used in a function as a go term than occasionally as nothing more than a word of ordinary language.