Life In 19x19

Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=182966#p182966

Krama wrote:Do you have any examples of this hidden knowledge?

I do not reveal my recent discoveries yet but will publish them in books during the following years. What I have published and thus moved from hidden to open includes these examples of go theory:

(1)

The principles "Maximise territory when defending its border." and "Minimise territory when attacking its border.", First Fundamentals, p. 39. Despite the extraordinary importance of these principles, their obvious nature once one reads them and John Fairbairns efforts of mentioning boundary fights as a more general form of what can happen not only during the endgame phase, before my statement of the principles, I have read, seen in diagrams or heard a related remark only once(!):

During the EGC 2000, Saijo Masataka 8p in a personal commentary on my game, pointed to an example of a center moyo boundary and mentioned that I should play endgame there also while constructing the boundary.

I needed 12 years of thinking about this hint to recognise its fundamental importance to generalise and extend it into the "obvious" principles. It is the toughest to (re)invent the most basic things and, in comparison, much easier to (re)invent more advanced things because one first needs a solid framework of well understood basics before one has a "language" in which then it is relatively easy to express the advanced things. Therefore, you see me writing so much go theory now that I have built a suitable framework.

(2)

The Leaning Principle, see Positional Judgement 1 - Territory, p. 253. The typical 4 dan does not know and apply it but the typical 6d knows and applies it. It was hidden knowledge, which I have never read about or heard before I stated it. As you may guess, it is another principle related to boundary fights.

(3)

I have not compiled a complete list of previously hidden aspects of go theory I have revealed by publication. However, for my go theory research before my 7th book Fighting Fundamentals, which invents more, see
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/RobertJasie ... earch.html

all the knowledge from pros can be found in books written by the same pros.

Most knowledge cannot be found in the literature yet, although a little must be buried in old, hard-to-find books.

EDITS

The principles "Maximise territory when defending its border." and "Minimise territory when attacking its border.",

I don't know what your terms mean, but as a first pass I'd say this is obvious to a Japanese from the term de-iri, since he understands the meaning of de-iri in the normal language - so he doesn't need o rephrase.

During the EGC 2000, Saijo Masataka 8p in a personal commentary on my game, pointed to an example of a center moyo boundary and mentioned that I should play endgame there also while constructing the boundary.

This sounds very like the point I made when discussing here the series about moving from the large boundary plays (which start earlier than most people assume and go on longer) to small boundary plays. So it has appeared in the literature from at least the 1950s. Also you admit Saijo told you about it, so for two reasons it clearly wasn't hidden knowledge.

The Leaning Principle, see Positional Judgement 1 - Territory, p. 253. The typical 4 dan does not know and apply it but the typical 6d knows and applies it. It was hidden knowledge

Again I don't know what you really refer to, but at first blush this sounds like the Japanese motareru, which also means 'lean against', and yet again if 6-dan amateurs know it, it is hardly hidden.

Most knowledge cannot be found in the literature yet, although a little must be buried in old, hard-to-find books.

I disagree. It may be buried but there's lots of it.

John Fairbairn wrote:this is obvious to a Japanese from the term de-iri, since he understands the meaning of de-iri in the normal language

Is "deiri" contained in the Japanese word describing a boundary and does it contain a meaning of "optimise"? To non-Japanese speakers, any such meaning is hidden and has not found its way into translations of English books, AFAIK.

So it has appeared in the literature from at least the 1950s.

Quite likely. I meant "hidden" to Western players without knowledge of Asian languages or access to those books. I have never seen any Asian book about the opening or middle game whose diagrams might have conveyed such contents.

Also you admit Saijo told you about it,

He did NOT tell me a) the general nature, b) hint at the general applicability to boundaries, c) the aim to maximise / minimise. He only commented on the particular example shape.

so for two reasons it clearly wasn't hidden knowledge.

I meant "hidden" to Western players without knowledge of Asian languages. Neither of your reasons removes this.

which also means 'lean against'

My principle has a more specialised meaning.

and yet again if 6-dan amateurs know it, it is hardly hidden.

1) There is no evidence that, prior to my publication, any Western 6d+ would have been able to express the contents of the principle.

2) For Western players trying to become 6d, the contents of my principle was hidden because Western 6d+ did not tell them and asking them would not work because of still being unaware of what to ask for. Likewise, simply watching games of Western 6d+ or any professionals does not likely reveal the contents. It required input from Asian sources (such as a Western player would get as an insei in Asia) or diligent study on one's own with gaining the, probably only subconscious or implicit understanding. The contents of the principle is such that somebody improving from 5d to 6d somehow likely gets a context of understanding, in which the contents of the principle is a side-effect of a developed broader understanding of a) reductions and their relation to the (possibly remote) positional environment and b) new versus old value of a given moyo and its stones.

It may be buried but there's lots of it.

Surely there is a lot, but most is verbal. I have discovered many principles that I have never seen taught anywhere explicitly in writing but that one can occasionally hear in amateur or club players talk.

Surely there is a lot, but most is verbal. I have discovered many principles that I have never seen taught anywhere explicitly in writing but that one can occasionally hear in amateur or club players talk.

Again I disagree. I'm sitting surrounded by several thousand go books plus magazines, and there's not much repetition there, so I'd say it's likely that most go knowledge has been written down.

I'm saying this also partly on the basis of my understanding of your approach, which as you have seen includes quibbles with your use of "hidden", "invention" and "discover".

To give a specific example, I have in front of me a text by Takagawa. In it he stresses a principle, which he also highlights with a "Note". He says there, "It is important to view a splitting move (wariuchi) as limiting the areas both above and below to local minor issues."

My impression of your approach is that you would then say Takagawa "discovered" this "hidden" knowledge and that he "invented" this theoretical principle, and obviously mutatis mutandis for your own principles you alight on.

As useful as Takagawa's insight is, and again mutatis mutandis your own, I just happen to believe that talk of "discovery" and "invention"" is way over the top.

Likewise, making a list of readily observable factors that no-one else has bothered to itemise may be useful to you as an author, but once again talk of "invention" is much exaggerated.

I think the terminology you are looking for is along the lines of the more modest "I have established a useful way, for the western audience, of ...."

I have NOT claimed to have INVENTED the mentioned principles, and I do NOT claim so. I have discovered (or one might say: reinvented) them for the Western learners (below ca. 6d level) because they were hidden for them, and made them explicit for the 6d+ level.

I speak of invention in the context and assume to be right on my research list to have invented what I mark with [I] on that page. If you doubt any of that, prove prior existence elsewhere.

What I merely write down, I have marked with [W]; this does not automatically imply an invention! [W] without [I] means that I think the knowledge existed before, e.g., in verbal form among some, e.g., Western players. Since I do make the distinction, I need not be any more modest. It would be inappropriate to pretend inventions to have existed before. Honour whom deserves it. I deserve the honour for my inventions. If inventions are not recognised as inventions but treated as immaterial, then the future for advance of human knowledge is dark. I am proud of my inventions because they enrich the go players' knowledge.

If you have enough time, I can state a couple of principles and you check your thousands of books to find if they have them. Then we can make better guesses about how much / little knowledge is already available in writing.

I cannot know whether Takagawa's principle is his invention or whether he was maybe just the first to write down it. (I am not impressed by a shape-specific principle.)

If so much go knowledge is hidden to people who don't know Japanese, why didn't the past 10 years of your thirst for knowledge include a course in Japanese?

Or the past 20 years?

It seems a non-trivial interest, to you, and if you're willing to work hard, language learning must have been an option you considered.

tentano wrote:If so much go knowledge is hidden to people who don't know Japanese, why didn't the past 10 years of your thirst for knowledge include a course in Japanese?

Or the past 20 years?

It seems a non-trivial interest, to you, and if you're willing to work hard, language learning must have been an option you considered.

Excellent point.

I would assume that learning Japanese (and Korean and Chinese) just to learn first-hand what has already been written on a subject and learn from that would be the absolutely first step for a serious researcher! I know of many people (Fisher comes as an example, but there are others) who learned Russian to be better chess players - just for that reason.

As a matter of fact, I don't know of any serious scientist who would not learn the language in which most papers in the given field are published - mostly this is English these days. But historically, it was Latin, French, German, or other langages - at least at a level which enabled them to understand written material.

Otherwise, you might just be chasing your own tail and reinventing the wheel. Or driving the cart into the bushes, which you might not discover unless you (a) keep driving it for another 20 years and waste all this time, or (b) learn from the mistakes others have done before you.

Quotation reference:

viewtopic.php?p=182998#p182998

So why don't you, why are you "stuck"?

1) As I have said: read it elsewhere. I have already answered this question many times.

But let me just mention:

2) Actually, stuck was an exaggeration. I have improved. A few years ago, I needed H3 against stronger pros in simultaneous games, now H2. I used to have no chance against pros, now I have had my first even game win against a pro.

3) Major reason: I spent time for go research instead of for becoming stronger more quickly.

tentano wrote:If so much go knowledge is hidden to people who don't know Japanese, why didn't the past 10 years of your thirst for knowledge include a course in Japanese?

1) Learning natural languages is hard and no fun for me.

2) The written Japanese texts are not worth the effort because by far most texts contain too little interesting contents.

3) The very few really interesting texts are so hard to find that it is faster for me to reinvent the essential contents.

4) By far most (or all?) Japanese professionals have teaching methods (mostly teaching by example only) that are unsuitable for my learning style. They cannot teach what I need the most: identify my major mistakes. (With the two exceptions of reading speed in pro level LD problems and reading speed in endgames.) Therefore, I do not need Japanese for getting teaching, either.

5) It is not so much that is hidden, but what is hidden is important. The hidden things are not difficult to learn, so it is not a language issue in verbal teaching. The things are, it seems, not available or hardly available or only badly expressed in writing. So learning the language is superfluous for this purpose.

So pretty much the only reason to learn Japanese would be for understanding Japanese tournament rules (because nobody translates them).

Bantari wrote:would be the absolutely first step for a serious researcher

I could have done much less research if I had spent much time on learning more languages. There have been too few promising hints at research about go theory in Asia to justify learning languages. It would be an overkill.

I think there are traditional go theory (uninteresting), very little for science (interesting but too little) and I suspect that there must be interesting methodical go theory, of which we have already heard a bit (such as miai counting).+

The first step of a serious researcher is to do serious research.

RobertJasiek wrote:Quotation reference:

viewtopic.php?p=182998#p182998

So why don't you, why are you "stuck"?

1) As I have said: read it elsewhere. I have already answered this question many times.

You said you are "stuck" because of lack of theory books at your level.
I reject this explanation in view of the very obvious fact that it did not stop many others, so it cannot be a sufficient reason by itself. It is yet to be demonstrated that it is a reason at all...

But let me just mention:

2) Actually, stuck was an exaggeration. I have improved. A few years ago, I needed H3 against stronger pros in simultaneous games, now H2. I used to have no chance against pros, now I have had my first even game win against a pro.

Congrats.
Maybe the pros got weaker?

3) Major reason: I spent time for go research instead of for becoming stronger more quickly.

This is a good reason.

But then - maybe it is this research, not the lack of theory books, which is holding you back. Again - we have the very obvious examples of people who far surpassed you (and me) without the benefit of sources inaccessible to us (be it some "hidden knowledge" or pretty-packaged theory books) - they just spent time improving rather than talking about improving.

Which is, sort-of, part of my point.

Bantari, "no theory books for strong players" is not the only reason, but one of many reasons. And yes, talking instead of studying or politics instead of studying belong the many other reasons.

My research has improved my playing skill.

Nobody doubts that there are other players who have surpassed us - congratulations to them!

Robert, one suggestion for you. Join the European Yunguseng Dojang.

http://eyd.yunguseng.com/

Inseong Hwang can teach you a lot about how go is taught and players improve in Asia without needing to learn an Asian language. It will probably be good for your game's improvement.

AFA I have seen it, Inseong's teaching style resembles that of many Asian professionals and therefore is unsuitable for me.

Robert, do you believe your ability could limit your progress or that, with the correct teaching/knowledge, you could be 9p strength? And if the latter do you think that is true for everyone?