John Fairbairn wrote:You seem refreshingly willing to think for yourself while being willing to learn from other sources. Could I therefore ask a favour before you start reading any books?
Uh-oh this linguist is up to no good
John Fairbairn wrote:(And I'm not going to ask you to read any of mine!)
I'm not familiar with the forum culture but if it might be useful for the person asking it seems totally fair to mention one's own books!
John Fairbairn wrote:You say you know of invasions and reductions, and so those words are already in your brain. Like every other word there, they must have various associations and nuances which will, of course, be peculiar to you. Would you be willing to share them with us?
Very well then, allow me to demonstrate my lack of insight
Invasion seems more general to me than
uchikomi which I interpret as a more go-specific
play into. Although
utsu is also broad. The word
invasion I understand as forcefully breaking into something one doesn't own with the intention of keeping it; capture and subsequent entrenchment of something that one considers valuable. I think one could either clearly have the ability to do so, or be in a situation where it's necessary to risk the invasion regardless.
Reduction sounds a bit different from
keshi, I can't tell if there's any difference in attitude between the languages with regards to go, but I personally like
keshi because it's short and feels more direct.
In go, I might initially assume that we're talking about erasing territory, but I don't know that. It could also be reduction of influence, or simply of "potential" (more abstract).
Additionally it's unclear whether the target of this already belongs to the opponent, or is neutral. It would make sense if there's a spectrum between the two, e.g. it's mostly neutral potential that we want to erase because the opponent is somewhat more likely to benefit from it.
To the extent that it's neutral one would want to eliminate it from the board to deny the opponent, and if it's considered to already belong to the opponent then it is after the fact that it can be erased.
The distinction between these might be irrelevant, because the tangibility of future potential should depend on the player's strength.
As a beginner, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, I would say that invading is about whether there is enough space and exploits to live inside an enclosed space, and reduction about limiting the value of something. But unless reduction is part of yose which I believe it generally isn't, reducing limits the value of something that is less clearly defined than territory. For instance a 2nd line kosumi is not considered a reduction. It is not clearly defined but one needs to form an opinion about its worth in order to reduce it. Apart from denying the opponent I guess a reduction might have constructive purposes as well in practice, but those would have to be secondary or we would use another term.
Finally it seems to me as if
keshi could imply a relatively low risk of severe side effects if things go according to plan. Otherwise you'd not be erasing but, I don't know, trading, exchanging or fighting.
Whew that's a lot of semantics, is this what you were looking for?
