Life In 19x19

I am continuing to proof read through my new edition of commentaries on Shuei's games (about 50% bigger), but a big difference this time round is that I can look at many comments through the prism of AI.

One thing I noticed before, and remarked on several times in the first edition, is that Honinbo Shusai had a great predilection for 'check' moves (tsume), which he recommended in various places and for various reasons. There are grounds for believing he got this fondness for checks from Shuei, though perhaps he took it further.

But one aspect of the continued preference for tsume is that, in very many cases, he uses tsume for a move I, along with western players in general, and possibly along with modern Japanese writers, would call a pincer. An example (a 2-stone game) is below, though this is from Karigane Junichi rather than Shusai.



White has just played at the triangled point and in the game Black responded at A. Karigane said this should have been the tsume at B (since he was Black playing his teacher Shuei in this game, I think we can assume the comment really came from Shuei).

I believe most of us here would call B a pincer. There may be some interference from the fact that, until tsunami became a popular word in English, the ts- sound of tsume was something English speakers tried to avoid, and 'check' of course has interference from chess. But I have noticed that 'pincer' is a far commoner word among English-speaking players than hasami is among Japanese pro commentators.

Previously that observation was just tucked away at the back of my mind, but I have brought it back to the forefront of my mind because of the observation repeatedly made here that AI bots seem to shy away from pincers.

I have therefore been checking up on some examples in the Shuei commentaries, and it seems that in fact bots like pincer moves that are not really pincers but are tsume moves (as defined by the likes of Shusai). The applies to the example above. Lizzie 0.7 gave me B as first choice, although only a smidgeon better than a range of other possible moves (which did not include A but did include a couple of third-line moves in that area).

Assuming this is all an accurate observation (I do have many examples) I can't say much about what it all means. What I can add is that the special case of a pincer-cum-extension often seems favoured by bots, and a so-called pincer that is really a tsume is favoured. In the case of a pincer that does not have either of those extra attributes, bots seem to prefer a move inside the corner (or tenuki).

I think it is useful to add that the commentaries I am referring to were nearly all by players of the past in the days when they wrote their own commentaries and so used their own terms. They differ, both in choice and range, from modern terms. For example, tsume is much more common among them than nowadays, but they also distinguish e.g. between tsume and tsumeyori (I discuss that in my Go Wisdom appendix). From about 1930, amateur go journalists largely took over and changed much of the existing terminology, and added new terms. And also - my speculation - framed it more as if seen through amateur eyes than pro eyes? If so, that distortion is what we have inherited in the West.

What do you think about the validity of a pincer/tsume dichotomy?

For quite some time now I have been calling plays like B a pincer cum extension or vice versa.

Not every move that looks like a claw is a claw.
Without support it is just a little paw.

I think of pincer/tsume as synonyms and not as a dichotomy. Pros would just not play a bad claw and therefore not call it a claw at all. But who am I. Your precision and attention to detail in interpreting the japanese go comments is much appreciated. I am always keen on your views and thoughts on the matter and ready to change my mind.

Could it have anything to do with how strong the "pincering" stones are on both sides of the pincered stone? In the example it seems that White has a lot of options other than running out. I think of "tsume" as blocking some direction, not just attacking. In English the pincer attack emphasizes the attack doesn't it?

B is a pincer in relation to the white f3 stone (because there's a black stone on the other side of it at d4), and an extension in relation to the black n3 through m5 group. So I don't see a dichotomy, but a synergy, of a move doing 2 useful things at once.

I found this https://senseis.xmp.net/?TsumeDiscussion from 2003 but the plot thickens because it is a discussion of a 1969 BGJ article by Takagawa which explains this mysterious tsume move http://www.britgo.org/bgj/00810.html

Anyway, if I understand Takagawa then tsume is a check as in a move that stops the opponent from making an extension but moves that are going for something else are excluded by Takagawa. He seems to exclude moves that build territory, expand corners or challenge safe groups (or I guess diagram 9 is just showing a white approach move). He just gives some examples of moves that are not checks, saying that an "expert" would understand that these moves have a different meaning.

In reality it seem unlikely to me that this term is used as precisely as the article indicates, not because I know any Japanese but because even "experts" tend to be lazy with terminology at least sometimes.

kvasir wrote:In reality it seem unlikely to me that this term is used as precisely as the article indicates, not because I know any Japanese but because even "experts" tend to be lazy with terminology at least sometimes.

I don't think it's a matter of laziness, but just the natural fuzziness of language. I doubt if pros ever argued in a game review whether a play was a tsume or not.

I meant "lazy" as a principle of least effort not as something negative.

I only base my assumption that this is difficult on this article. It appears to be suggested that it is above some peoples heads

A check is a rather delicate thing to determine. For instance, in Dia 9, black 1 is a check, white 1 is not. To an expert these differ in meaning as the examples below will make clearer.

I think the main point is being missed, and that's because people (and that includes me) are extraordinarily reluctant to question their use of language. I've come across this before in go with people refusing to question their uses of terms like 'invasion', 'yose' and 'thickness'. It happens everywhere outside of go, too. It's as if language becomes a belief system and challenging it provokes a bristly response. FWIW, in my experience with English, non-native users of English are more porcupiney than natives, and I suspect that may be because they have had to put much more obvious effort into learning the language, whereas the natives sup it up like mother's milk. But natives are rarely less than hedgehoggy. We may be seeing similar curl-in-ball entrenchments here with arguments over the meaning of probability and win rates.

So let me try to put it all a different way.

I have observed many cases where a move could plausibly be called a pincer yet a Japanese pro from the past has called it a tsume. As I have said, I would have used the word 'pincer' - that's why I noticed the phenomenon after all. But the choice of which term to use is not random. It's happening too much for that, and with no good counter-examples.

So you might just shrug and say it's six of one and half dozen of another. But I dispute that. A bottle can be half-full or half-empty. Experience tells us that the choice here is not random either. People who routinely choose 'half-full' we regard as optimists. Half-empties are pessimists. The choice has meaning.

My question about pincer and tsume wasn't about what term you, as a western amateur, use. It was, making the assumption that the different choice that we and old pros appear to have made was likewise not random and therefore had meaning, what is the meaning behind the choice? For example, we might say that a player who calls it a pincer is attacking, trying to keep the initiative, or whatever. Or he may have just read too many joseki books. Pincer is a very common word in such books. Tsume is very rare. Does that tell us that pincer is more tactical and tsume more strategic? For example, the meaning of a tsume may be prophylaxis, patience, setting up miai. Or what? That is what I'm asking. I'm suggesting the old pros saw something 'theoretical' we amateurs miss, and the clue to the difference may be in the words.

Let me go off on a bit of a tangent now so that I can reinforce that core issue.

We, modern pros included, have all been surprised by many of the moves played by AI bots. One example is the early or frequent shoulder hit. Whenever we adopt a term, we take on board a lot of associations. These associations can differ markedly from person to person, but there tends to be a common core. In the case of shoulder hits, I think the common core includes the idea that a shoulder hit is an erasing move. That is why we evince so much surprise when we see a shoulder hit on move 4. How can that be erasing anything?

We have the same bafflement about early contact plays. We've been taught to use these only for making sabaki and so on, and to avoid them elsewhere as they strengthen the opponent and produce ajikeshi. But bots happily commit these 'sins' and instead of saying the bottle is half empty, take the positive half-full view that the effect is to overconcentrate the opponent.

I would speculate that, over time, terms will evolve to distinguish these different uses of shoulder hits and contact plays, and I am further wondering whether something like that has happened with pincer and tsume, but we just haven't noticed it yet, and the reason we haven't noticed is because commentaries by old pros in English are still rather rare. I notice it because I am working on masses of such old commentaries, but I don't yet understand the putative difference. So, again, that is what I am asking about.

Can you have a tangent to a tangent? Well, I don't care if you can't, I'm going off on one anyway. I want to explore the notion that terms matter.

Imagine a language where there was word for half-full and all bottles that were, er, half-full would have to be described as half-empty. That would mean we'd lack an easy way to spot optimists. Does that matter? Well, the same thing happens in real life and people buck against it. For so many things we have either a single term or a preponderant term, and that means we lack ways to spot another point of view. For example, masses of people are just lumped together as black, disabled, female, or whatever, and the core associations linked with that preponderant word dominate any discussions about the people themselves, usually in a deprecatory way. That is why some people try to change the terms, or introduce new ones (e.g. not black but person of colour, not disabled but physically challenged, and so on). They hope to shift the whole tone of debate over their particular issue. Whether you agree with it as 'woke' or just label it as political correctness, at least the level of awareness (i.e. knowledge) is increased.

So, for the third time (or is it the fourth? Who cares? They're only numbers!) I am asking whether there is something to be learned from noting a possible semantic dichotomy between pincer and tsume in those situations where one or other could be used? Whichever side of the question you choose to come down on, or whether you think it's all a non-issue anyway, you might find that it will act like an ear-worm, and in future games you will be thinking about pincers and tsume more than ever before. And in this process of 'effortful practice' your level of awareness will increase! Your knowledge may thereby increase, too.

I have observed many cases where a move could plausibly be called a pincer yet a Japanese pro from the past has called it a tsume. As I have said, I would have used the word 'pincer' - that's why I noticed the phenomenon after all. But the choice of which term to use is not random. It's happening too much for that, and with no good counter-examples.

How would have a Chinese pro called this move ? And a Korean one ? Do the words they use have the exact same meaning ?

So what is the exact definition of a checking extension?

For instance, the link https://senseis.xmp.net/?TsumeDiscussion says:

$$B Not a checking extension
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . . O . 1 . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Not a checking extension
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . . O . 1 . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Why isn't it a checking extension? Because is overextended, so an invasion at "a" is possible? Contrary to the example 4 below?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Checking extension
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . . . . O . 1 . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , O . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Tryss wrote:How would have a Chinese pro called this move ? And a Korean one ? Do the words they use have the exact same meaning ?

Good question!

Well, I'm the happy owner of the newly published Chinese-English Dictionary of WeiQi Terms.

I found two entries that relate to this discussion.

3.8 逼
bī
逼 Counter

$$B
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . 1 . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . 1 . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Explanation:
Also called "block". A move to pose a threat to the other party's stones or take advantage of one's existing stones to approach the opponent's stones (in most cases by placing a stone on a relatively low position, e.g. on the third line). This is commonly used to destroy the other party's base area or prevent the opponent from expanding its territory. Black move 1 is the move of "counter".

2.19.6 拆兼夹

chāi jiān jiā
拆兼夹 Pincer and extension

$$B
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . 1 . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . 1 . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Explanation:
An "extension" along the side which is also a pincer. It is traditionally considered a good move that satisfies two uses. In this diagram, black move 1 is a "pincer and extension".

拆兼夹 is similar to the example given by the OP. There is one difference in that the move in the OP example could be seen as more of a defense.

逼 kind of coincides with the sensei library entry (there is 拆逼 and 拦 on senseis but I won't say more because my Chinese is crap), block is a synonym of check in English when used as a verb.

These are obviously simplified characters but anyone who is interested can look up Japanese or traditional versions on Wiktionary.

Yes, it is sometimes useful to reflect if a glass is half full or half empty.

And there is already a lot of thinking going on related to pincers/claws/tsume moves because of the original post. So the dichotomy proves to be quite helpful.

John Fairbairn wrote:So, for the third time (or is it the fourth? Who cares? They're only numbers!) I am asking whether there is something to be learned from noting a possible semantic dichotomy between pincer and tsume in those situations where one or other could be used?

I for one am intrigued and if it's just from a student point of view. When there is a difference between pincer and tsume then I imagine there must be different concepts behind it and understanding them could lead to a greater understanding of go. I'd like that.

Right now, in my limited understanding, I recall my early misconceptions of josekis leading to an "equal" result. They do - on an empty board (although quite a lot of them are undergoing change right now...). In practical play (certain) joseki moves are often at least strategically invalid and in some situations even no joseki move was called for. AI now tenukis mid-joseki leaving behind an aweful local result but still profits globally from getting two moves elsewhere.

So for me the concept of joseki is increasingly meaningless now. What's left is a hole filled with questions: When to tenuki? How to judge/evaluate positions after tenuki? What's the goal globally by accepting "a loss" locally?

But then again, when there are no fixed sequences anymore, maybe there are no fixed concepts as well : D

John Fairbairn wrote:I think the main point is being missed, and that's because people (and that includes me) are extraordinarily reluctant to question their use of language.

Actually I tend to lean the other way: I question language so much that it's hard to get attached to specific names! On the one hand I do agree with Ursula LeGuin that names can have power in the right context; but the power isn't absolute, and an awful lot happens inside our heads that's not attached to language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been pretty controversial, and I've never found it awfully convincing.

That said, there's great value in a conversation that motivates us to look at lots of go positions and think carefully about the difference between them! Thanks John for raising such a fascinating question.