Life In 19x19

I responded to something on SL earlier today, and something I said there rattled round my brain all afternoon when I went on a long walk.

Just to set the scene, here's a summary of what I am referring to on SL.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . X . , .
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Hermann Hiddema had suggested calling this a throwing star shape. I said I rather liked that and could imagine using it, although I suspect I might end up preferring the Japanese word shuriken, as I think martial artists do. I was taken by it not just for go reasons but because on my last visit to Japan my grandson and I had great fun throwing some of these into a target in a ninja museum deep in the mountains. I mention that detail for a reason - see later.

But I also added a query. To quote myself:

...but in the interests of compatibility we need to mention that it's called a pinwheel (a child's windmill toy; kazaguruma) in Japanese and dates from New Fuseki days, and the term is also used in Japan for a different shape when teaching children. One other usage of shuriken in Japanese go is for a contact play that seems to come out of nowhere (e.g. in the open-board position White c3 and d6 and Black g3, a Black play at d7 is a shuriken. This term may gain even more traction in Japan with the current AI style. As per the usual difference between Japanese terms and western terms, they are focusing on the dynamic function, westerners on the static shape.

It was the last sentence that was exercising my last few grey cells on my post-prandial.

I have banged on for years on the difference between occidental and oriental views of what appears on the go board. It is my view (and I think many people have come to accept it) that westerners put far more emphasis on static shapes, and use their names as an integral part of talking about and commenting on games. This means their go talk is very largely noun based. In contrast, in all the oriental countries go talk is largely verb based. CJK all allow many words to be verbs and nouns simultaneously (and sometimes other part of speech), but the verbal aspects dominate. This gives a very dynamic feel to a game commentary or description.

Using Japanese as a basis, we can take the root words katachi and suji as a prime example. Katachi (shape) is a noun and is far from rare in Japanese go books. But it is much more common in western talk. In Japanese, suji is especially common (and we can include its derivative tesuji), yet suji (dynamic flow) is almost non-existent in western talk. This dichotomy can be extended massively throughout the go lexicon, as I have done ad nauseum.

At the heart of my attempts to keep this distinction alive is my suspicion that it possibly explains, at least in part, the relative weakness of western go. I can't prove that, but do me the favour of trying to appreciate the significance of the static/dynamic difference between the western throwing star of the diagram above and the Japanese one in the diagram.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The western star just describes a pretty pattern. The Japanese one beautifully describes a movement. It's even stronger if you know that a shuriken is not actually a throwing star. It's a "dart that's hidden in the hand." When you have actually thrown such a dart, as I have, the term has a powerful, dynamic feel which is rich in associations. That in turn, I believe, creates a sort of mental momentum or flow that carries you on to the follow-up moves, and also creates a large sub-stratum of nuance that allows you to understand the move more fully.

Views on that will be welcome, but I'm more interested in hearing views beyond that. Assuming I'm right, at least to a reasonable extent, in my observation of west/static + east/dynamic (and dynamic is better), why is this the case?

I couldn't find any convincing argument to suggest we in the west are in general prone to think of things in a foremost static way (or dynamic way either). And I can't say I could easily argue that Japanese people favour dynamic thought. However, there is a long-standing observation, going back to The Sword and The Chrysanthemum, I think, which suggests the Japanese think/act in a predominantly synthetic way and the west prefers an analytical approach.

I'm not sure that that is entirely valid. But, if we say, for the sake or the argument, that it's valid enough, how does it apply to go?

That brings me to another observation. Western go is dominated by mathematicians and their ilk - numbers guys. In my experience, this is massively different from the oriental go demographic.

But if we accept that, can we go on to say (as I am tempted to) that numbers guys do fall mostly into the analytical camp? And that this finds expression in an obsession with rules, with definitions - and with static terms? And this explains why western go remains behind western go?

Don't shoot the messenger! I am not making claims or casting nasturtiums. I am just probing some hunches. But I'd like to hear some other views, preferably likewise post-prandial rather than knee-jerk.

PS I'm not really interested in hearing again the argument about the size of the go-playing pool - not unless you can explain how a tiny pool produced Honinbo Dosaku in Japan and Huang Longshi in China, their times being characterised by a fairly small general population of which some massive proportion lacked the energy or resources to play go, let alone study it.

If a Japanese pro from Finland has the same belief about go terminology. Interestingly he mentions a term that only really exists in Finland: the Airport, which happen to be exactly the kind of game I'm interested in what AI thinks of it, such as the game he had against Nakamura Sumire in which he used his new 'tunneling' strategy'. So now I'm wondering if even there are different go terms between countries in the west or even states in the US that affect their playing ability. Is the 'Airport' the secret Finnish terminology we've all been missing to get a pro-level player? As I said before, a lack of diversity is inherently bad, especially biodiversity the lack of which might be considered evil, and diversity of thought, which makes forcing thinking life to think the same in the name of biodiversity perhaps not real diversity. East Asian seem philosophically introverted in more philosophical tunnels but even compared to them, Japan stands out as philosophically introverted in a huge number of domains, and this will lead to go terms needing to be more actively descriptive to meet their standard due to high introverted thinking In the middle east they tend to seem in between the west and east asia (debates about whether these phenetics are caused by genetics or memetics to me are utter stupidity for people with too much time on their hands. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture-- what matters is that it exists. Only those with nefarious intentions would be obsessed with that distinction because we don not have even a half of one percent to even begin to understand the biological and social systems, the first of which has been proven. It's a nice excuse though for people to say 'I was made this way I can't change', they will be attracted to saying I'm not in a cultural environment that will allow me to change', both can be excuses to not bother to analysis their conceptual understanding of go terminology for weaknesses either. I could go on about nature&nuture of korea's universal competency phenetic, a permutation of the local competency one in much of china, a better version of china's in my personal opinion, and how that influenced the development of the concept of haengma, as you must see how a shape is performing in the present moment, but my rant will probably be long and barely on topic and schizophrenic enough as it is. So in my view it's actually having a negative impact on go in saudi arabia the way Korea is teaching go to them, especially considering their views on patriarchism, it's almost like negative teaching, sorry if I may sound disrespectfull everything I say is doubly important in those type of countries. I mean if I wanted to stunt go in Saudi arabia, obviously I'll teach it the guy who is going to teach it to his 9 brothers only, so half the population won't get a leg--or hand--in, and they now think they're 'not the right kind of person for go' anyway. On the other hand, I would take great care to ensure that underprivileged elements in a society are seen to first, much more than in a 'liberal' society. Also, why isn's Xiangqi included in the sports for the future? Or Shogi for that matter? I can understand for go but I don't see why chess is more valuable than xiangqi, from the world's future rising power so should definitely be considered a mindsport of the future, and shogi, the mathematically most complex chess. Hopefully, although I doubt I will, I can survive to make in other parts of 'Africa' (Arabia really is Africa), and I'll quote Kate Raworth quoting Samuelson in saying 'The first lick is the privileged one, impinging on the beginner’s tabula rasa at its most impressionable state.' Hopefully might get first pen-stroke on the tabula rasa. So I'll focus on women and those neuroatypical first, and probably, to guarantee long-term, sustained growth even if external help were not there. And maybe they'll invent new go, or even terms only women or those nuerotypical, although maybe I'm running into the same problem as 9 years ago when I was 13, but I assure you this is absolutely nothing to do with PC and everything to do with strategy, I may not even live to see the results, haha , although I literally have personal experience of people's impression of go players reducing their want to play go, so I'm not lying.

Imagine you have four people in two countries. Two of those people would do best using and understanding a certain set of terminology, because their talent operates through viewing go from that perspective. The other pair would do best to see go from a different lens, however, and through only that lens would their talent.

But the problem is that each talent pair lives in two different countries. And each country uses one or the other of those terminology sets. So in one country one person does well while in the other country the person with the other style of viewing go does well. And in both countries they say the person who did well has inherent talent for go, the other not so much. I won't be surprised if in the future I discovered a scenario in which exactly this has happened.

Maybe the best way I can show my thoughts on perspectives of approach to would be to go back to around 2012 to 2013 and then I. Perhaps it's an inherent reaction I have against saying a person is not capable of something because they're not the right category of person an not allowing people to prove themselves combined (the Wreck of the Zanzibar was my favourite childhood book, in my head the head the Enid Blyton ones are in the 'good it's a book' category (I have no intent to stoke the flames of people strong opinions on this, I have no artistic sense whatsoever anyway) but the wreck of the Zanzibar is in the 'books that are you favourites' category. Wait doesn't Sayonara my Cramer have plot similarities? My literalistic translation style parts with most translators in that I think you should keep foreign words that are well known in the language you're translating to). But after watching Hikaru no Go I thought it would be even cooler to have a different gendered protagonist, how clever, and I always wanted to write a book anyways. The joke was that Ayana is both a Japanese name and an Ethiopian name. And it's a double joke because Ethiopia was the only country to never be conquered by European so she must be good at go, heck maybe even an unwitting distant descent of Ras Alula or Yohannes so she has latent strategic ability (sorry if I'm the only one who finds that joke funny, hehe). So I even have a little theme song to go with it--surrounding gardens, based on how I view go. Note that Afroarabic checkers, which can be played using go stones, uses the term seeds, and go stones do look like seeds, and maybe the game is related to or perhaps even the precursor of backgammon but researchers haven't discovered so yet, at least that's what I think is highly likely (and maybe they biased to dismiss an african origin for an important mindsport, since it's to do with the mind). But then I thought, 'what if someone asks me why I wrote it? I cannot give such a shallow reason as "HnG female protagist, cool right?," or some similar fickle trobbish. Whishing you had an ancient go master to defeat yo grandfather or wanting to show how difficult it is to become a pro sounds way better'. I didn't quite have the terminology back then but I essentially thought seeming too PC would be a bad idea, although admittedly that reasoning in itself is PC maybe I have a tendency to instinctively develop cringeworthily politically correct philosophies (at probably about 15 or so I thought strongly that I would never propose since it's obviously sexist, so obvious it's not even worth thinking about) ironic since I love listening to non-PC-ness a lot more or those with views opposite to mine. The first thing is to show all my opinions they would disagree with or think are non-PC so they don't get disappointed later on, haha). Although, and not because I'm smarter than then because I'm most definitely dumber than then (moral of the story: trying to be too clean can have the opposite effect, haha ), I could probably restate my reason for it differently than that. The point is making excuses for why you cannot do something because you are not the right category of person is ridiculous. But when you view intelligence or go-playing-ness as a linear thing it's easy to dismiss arguments saying that increasing the breadth of terms you use or angles could increase playing strength, and see talent for a field as a static thing for only the right ethnicity or gender. But in my natural inclination not view talent as linear, a persons passion and interest and ability to see the same thing through multiple different angles. So maybe we need. Perhaps in Asia, where there, the idea of taking handicap stones from them is more prevalent and so strength differences are viewed moreso on the board, in which style and strength and weakness in different aspects of the game are more obvious and nuanced so it's difficult to imagine your strength as linear. However if who's analysis of gets nothing more complicated than robotic 'my x is y' or 'I tend to do a too much in b situation', without any of the dancing language you would hear in the east, then, of course, a simplistic, internal thought-diversity dismissing intuition of go strength will develop. And, just like I probably should have written my book there and then and not wait until I'm 'good enough' and then let it get too late, amateurs should probably try to develop a style and not wait until they're pro-level, since trying to develop a style may lead one to develop strength in a more authentic way than looking at ranks and ratings, and also lead one to pay more attention to how they view the go board rather than just a tool to improve your rank, naturally leading one to pay more attention to their go terminology.

If every shape on the board is 'living', than it's far less acceptable to have groups that 'don't pull their weight'. So Asian go compared to western go would be like how I used to write (fairly readable) to how I write now (terribly). You can clearly see why a shape is bad.

Speaking of living and moving, would it be correct to say that a Shuriken was actually not usually used to strike enemies, since it isn't so easy to hit a moving target? Although nor is it easy to kill a moving group, I might add! This was a question on something everyone would have thought of as standard to Japan's last remaining ninja, although I haven't watched the interview yet nor have I seen much of naruto so I'm not really qualified here. On the other hand, what one might be more likely to be an invention of naruto due to perhaps being to impractical turned out to be actually quite easy to do, according to Japan's current top ninja. This taught me that what amatuers think would be hard or easy in a profession is often different to what experts--or the pro s--know to be true. One thing he did say is that he was taught the art of shinobi a child and at the time he just thought he was playing fun and games, and apparently ninja have to start out quite young to become ninjas, which I found quite shocking as for martial arts it's usually the opposite to pursuits like mindsports, in that you could learn at any age your body is in good condition and become the best at it. So apparently 'ninja-ing' involves a lot more than fighting, and perhaps is better compared to gymnastics. Japan could fit within the boundaries of it's non-militaristic policy by forcing the population to become obsessed with sports, and I think Taipei-controlled China should follow suit, and the best idea for that would be to appear to train children to become Olympic gymnasts or the next Yuzuru Hanyu, the world's nicest guy, but ironically in reality, they are reviving secret ninja training techniques for a new generation of shinobi. I certainly hope they do so-- the world losing diversity in the form of culture is sad without a good reason to lose it! Although beyond living and moving shapes, ninjas are also related to go problems, being a clandestine matter of life and death . . . . . .

As for dynamic shape versus static shape, I wonder whether the influence of Korean teachers on Western players could be seen. After all it seems that haengma is v ery important in Korean teaching of go. I don't know Korean language much if at all but I think on SL there was some suggestion that haengma(Korean) and suji(Japanese) have the same meaning.
I do remember that suji has been translated into English as style, as per an Igo Club book (no. 25) by Rin Kaiho titled Katachi to Suji Tekunikku (Shape and Style Techniques). I suppose style has some dynamic aspects.

The language people use affects how they think about things, especially their initial language. If that is so then it might help to explain why Western go thinking, mostly using Indo-European languages, is more static than dynamic. I wonder whether the Finno-Ugric languages might be less static, thinking of Elom's reference to a Finnish go pro. But the only Finnish go pro I can think of was trained in Japan so ...

gowan wrote:As for dynamic shape versus static shape, I wonder whether the influence of Korean teachers on Western players could be seen. After all it seems that haengma is v ery important in Korean teaching of go. I don't know Korean language much if at all but I think on SL there was some suggestion that haengma(Korean) and suji(Japanese) have the same meaning.
I do remember that suji has been translated into English as style, as per an Igo Club book (no. 25) by Rin Kaiho titled Katachi to Suji Tekunikku (Shape and Style Techniques). I suppose style has some dynamic aspects.

The language people use affects how they think about things, especially their initial language. If that is so then it might help to explain why Western go thinking, mostly using Indo-European languages, is more static than dynamic. I wonder whether the Finno-Ugric languages might be less static, thinking of Elom's reference to a Finnish go pro. But the only Finnish go pro I can think of was trained in Japan so ...

Well suji is to haengma as river is to well?

And I forgot to mention that my last paragraph was based on the point that when he was being trained as a ninja, he didn't know he was actually being trained as a ninja, and thought that he was just being taught fun and games as a child (think the Jacket new Karate Kid--which perhaps should have been called 'Kung Fu Kid'), this is probably the best way to prepare your population to defend themselves without turning them into militaristic nut jobs. So your point about the person's first language is interesting in how readily the different go concepts from different languages areare applied. Swedish and my Ewe/Eugbe, both with a gender neutral pronouns, may be comfortable with things happening on a scale I suspect there may be a handful of people. On the other hand english and most romance languages do the opposite and may encourage people to see things simplistically in a black and white fashion or it's not interesting.

John Fairbairn wrote: . . . at least to a reasonable extent, in my observation of west/static + east/dynamic (and dynamic is better), why is this the case?

I couldn't find any convincing argument to suggest we in the west are in general prone to think of things in a foremost static way (or dynamic way either). And I can't say I could easily argue that Japanese people favour dynamic thought. However, there is a long-standing observation, going back to The Sword and The Chrysanthemum, I think, which suggests the Japanese think/act in a predominantly synthetic way and the west prefers an analytical approach.

The Japanese representative to the WAGC e few eons ago said exactly that sort of thing. Although I still feel bad that his taxi job gave him basically no real holiday time.

John Fairairn wrote:I'm not sure that that is entirely valid. But, if we say, for the sake of the argument, that it's valid enough, how does it apply to go?

In Japan, the main thinking seems to be internal philosophy: everything has an internal philosophy to be understood, in Korea, north and south, it is replaced by universal philosophy, and in China their version overall is local competence. So in Japanese the internal philosophy of each shape on the board is dynamic. Haengma looks at the movements of everything.

John Fairbairn wrote:That brings me to another observation. Western go is dominated by mathematicians and their ilk - numbers guys. In my experience, this is massively different from the oriental go demographic. . .

. . . PS I'm not really interested in hearing again the argument about the size of the go-playing pool - not unless you can explain how a tiny pool produced Honinbo Dosaku in Japan and Huang Longshi in China, their times being characterised by a fairly small general population of which some massive proportion lacked the energy or resources to play go, let alone study it.

The western go population already is highly in that population! It's to my benefit since that's why we have such good western go apps despite the smaller go western playing population! To the point that in Asia western go programs are significantly present--go ratings, Kata-Go. To the point were when it comes to go programming, the west is equal to Asia. In fact that's the reason we had AlphaGo in the first place, 'cause all the programmers were into go, and it astounds me when people asks why the 'Aplha-Go wave' wasn't capitalised on. No wonder they weren't teaching mums go as priority. On the other hands lots of non-artists are interested in stories so Hikaru no Go was more successful.

John Fairburn wrote: But if we accept that, can we go on to say (as I am tempted to) that numbers guys do fall mostly into the analytical camp? And that this finds expression in an obsession with rules, with definitions - and with static terms? And this explains why western go remains behind eastern go?

Don't shoot the messenger! I am not making claims or casting nasturtiums. I am just probing some hunches. But I'd like to hear some other views, preferably likewise post-prandial rather than knee-jerk. . .

Exactly!

"rules, definitions, static terms", but, but, John, these are the sources of dynamic application! Better fundamentals enable better application.

So how come Dosaku and Huang Longshi (among rhousands of others) got along without them? Shuwa and Shusai were the top players of the time but couldn’t really handle utazu sanmoku or mannen-ko disputes. But one of Shusai’s favourite comments was the verbal form tsume, and Shuei was the master of (verbal) miai even though he probably never knew about his centre L shape (which he would have called a verbal magari).

And let us not forget yose is a verbal, too. It refers to boundary plays, plsy being a dynamic verb/noun and endgame being static (as well as being inaccurate).

We see a similar static/dynamic distinction in martial arts. I well remember a western lady complaining that her instructor had attacked her with the “wrong” arm, i.e. not theone shown in the book. In real life she’d be desd.

John Fairbairn wrote:So how come Dosaku and Huang Longshi (among rhousands of others) got along without them? Shuwa and Shusai were the top players of the time but couldn’t really handle utazu sanmoku or mannen-ko disputes.

(Compressing history a bit,) at times when Europeans couldn't play go because they couldn't figure out what the basic rules were supposed to be.

boundary plays, plsy being a dynamic verb/noun and endgame being static (as well as being inaccurate).

What is the problem? That language is inaccurate? Early boundary plays aka early endgame and late boundary plays aka endgame with static initial boundaries both allow dynamic play, of which some is correct and some is wrong, and, in principle, both allow guesswork or correct solutions.

What is the problem? That language is inaccurate? Early boundary plays aka early endgame and late boundary plays aka endgame with static initial boundaries both allow dynamic play, of which some is correct and some is wrong, and, in principle, both allow guesswork or correct solutions.

The problem is not that language is inaccurate but that attempts to impose definitions are inaccurate. It is often better to think of words as a rich repository of associations rather than a restrictive prison. Even in the field of law, where definitions are routinely attempted, most people prefer to be judged by a judge and jury, where natural justice and compassion can override the letter of the law.

"Early boundary plays aka early endgame". This may be aka to you, but it is cloth-eared and oxymoronic and inaccurate and ambiguous. In "early boundary plays" the underlying emphasis is on boundary plays, because this denotes a dynamic function (and a good one because it's typically good to seal off territory in go). The fact that it s early makes it interesting rather than important.

In "early endgame", endgame is telling us nothing. It is not even about the end of the game, after all. So all the emphasis is on "early". But when we emphasise adjectives it is typically to say something is too X. In other words, an "early endgame" is a move that is too early, which is not usually the intended sense at all.

If you analyse Japanese commentaries about the endgame (i.e, the shuukyoku), you will find that the most substantive comments can be split into three broad categories: (1) thick moves, (2) yose, (3) timing.

Thick (atsui) moves can be roughly described as investment moves where you can't yet calculate the exact return. They differ from what we call thick moves in the early game or middle game, a difference that is usually conveyed in Japanese by using different grammar (atsumi in the opening, atsusa in the middle game) or words (e.g. teatsui as opposed to just atsui). This distinction is mostly lacking in English and European languages.

Yose moves are boundary plays where the dynamic ebb and flow is more or less countable. But even here there is more to it than counting - timing is a major factor, especially in relation to thick moves. The verb yoseru means coming or bringing together, usually with an association of gathering up or settling things. It has absolutely nothing to do with TIME. The fact that yose moves tend to occur near the end of the game is a coincidence, not a definition.

To sloppily use "endgame" (probably by lazy analogy with chess) is to lose distinctions and associations.

You can't pretend that the distinctions are known to English and are in the background. First, concepts like "thick" plays and timing should be in the foreground, but it also lead to misconceptions that "endgame" expert Yi Ch'ang-ho was good at calculating sixteenths and so on. He may be, but references to his prowess are properly to his ability to make thick endgame moves.

Japanese books on yose do use that word (correctly, of course) but they often opt for more precision and refer to e.g. absolute counting, as per O Meien, or just counting (mokusuu).

There has been a tendency in the wider world to fear being accused of discrimination, and in the process the word has lost its original neutral sense of simply noticing distinctions. I put it to the jury here that making distinctions in go is still important and useful.

"Early endgame" is oxymoronic. Many people, in defining mode, try to explain an oxymoron with false precision ("two contradictory words used side by side", or something like that. The original Greek actually means "pointedly foolish". So much better. Just savour all those associations

For go theory, I prefer definitions that enable theorems. Such definitins are required to be exact and unequivocal. Good definitions and theorems solve parts of the game completely and correctly.

Where go theory is not advanced enough, definitions need to be weaker, semi-formal or even informal. Advance of go theory might improve these definitions later.

Unequivocal definitions allow dynamics when applying them to different positions or game trees. Equivocal definitions allow dynamics a) likewise, b) by modifying them or c) (partially) ignoring them.

***

Liguistically, early endgame might not be the best phrase, right.

However, used together with late or early, endgame refers to a game phase or kinds of plays usually occurring late during the game but sometimes occurring earlier during the game. Different games behave differently WRT opening / middle game / endgame; the endgame phase can start very early in some games.

If we speak of endgame as a phase, it has its early and late stages. An early stage is the "early endgame". A late stage is the "late endgame".

Positions with possible endgame(-like) plays dominating can be understood by endgame theory. Part of that theory is for the early endgame, in which we cannot solve by tactical reading. Another part of that theory is for the late endgame, which (in principle) we can solve by tactical reading (given some decent amount of time and not caring more possibly faster application of endgame theory).

You can replace "endgame" by "boundary play" or vice versa, but this is mostly linguistically.

There are aspects of endgame / boundary play that are closer to aspects of opening or middle game than other aspects of endgame / boundary play. You mention, e.g., thick play. Currently, such aspects are not completely understood in terms of endgame theory.

However, other aspects of endgame theory can be applied during the opening and middle game. Such aspects are expressed as endgame terms and values. I must be the person to have contributed the most such theory. The difference between theory for the early and late endgame is often that early endgame theory works as approximation. E.g., it skips the consideration of which play gains 1 extra point for making the last move of the game. Nevertheless, such theory decides using the player having the turn, move values, counts, gains and similar values. Other approximations include the assumption of no ko fight, no major fights, value 0 of influence / thickness, mutually independent local regions and - sometimes nessary - not too irregular drops of move values.

Robert, I’m pleased you agree that “early endgame” is a questionable phrase, especially because your own reply proves it.

I was talking in the context of those (Bill among them) who insist yose = endgame. Which it doesn’t. One reason that it doesn’t is that boundary plays, called yose, can be played in the opening - even sometimes in josekis. This is what I thought you meant by early endgame = early yose.

I now see that you appear to be using early endgame for ooyose, or what some have called the macroendgame.

That is such a radical difference that it makes nonsense of much of this discussion, and I haven’t got the energy to go back and try to unravel it. I still stand by the points in my original post, however, with a reminder that some were hunches still to be explored.

Partly, I refer to the macroendgame. Partly, there is another aspect I have not mentioned in this thread yet: I (and others, especially I have seen some other strong amateurs and computer go programmers thinking like that) consider considerations of what was traditionally divdided into successive phases of opening, middle game and endgame to run in parallel from the start of the game. Endgame is a word burnt deeply into my brain; maybe boundary plays is better linguistically but I am not a computer that can simply substitute the name of the term as if it was just one redirected pointer.

'Endgame' simply refers to time. It doesn't say anything about the properties of the moves

'Startgame', 'Middlegame', 'Endgame' all refer to time only and have nothing to do with types of move.

'Opening' has a connotation of type of move but still refers to time mainly, but I don't use the term ofpening anymore since it's inconsistent with the terms middlegame and endgame.

Stone-scattering, Fuseki in Japanese, Fighting and Life&Death, Closing and Counting do refer to actual styles and types of play, and they can all occur at any stage of the game. It's annoying to use roundabout terms like 'middlegame' or 'endgame' to refer to closing and counting moves, unless you are literally referring to the fact that it's near the end of the game, not the type of move. If one is to formalise aspects of go, doing it consistently is what keeps it feeling natural.

Jonseok or Joseki, or maybe we setsequence, are associated with the 'Startgame' but have absolutely nothing to do with it. Joseki occur in tsumego and endgame just as often, it's just one might interpret that there's less variety, and that's the only reason it's associated with the opening. One can still generate a false sense of ones abilities if the categorisation is euphemistic and imprecise, even though one thinks it's not.

For Japanese, what is their difference in meaning of yose versus endgame?

Boundary play may have the advantage of not having an "end" it its phrase. However, boundary play suggests to be about play at boundaries. This is also not without disadvantages: follow-up plays can be evaluated now but need not occur at the current boundaries; endgame-like evaluation can be useful during the early game before first boundaries arise.

Whatever names one chooses they will have some disadvantages:)

I haven't been following the obsession with shape much, but speaking on endgame vs yose you can find Fairbairn teaching (ranting?) about this in his books. I thought it was in Archers of Yue but now I cannot find it, so I word-searched in Honinbo Tournament and no luck... Still, there is some rant-- teaching in the Go Wisdom index. Like, "yose" also refers to approach moves (on the boundary) in an approach ko. Maybe not in the Index but there is also a teaching (if I remember correctly) that "kikashi" does not necessarily refer to a forcing move. I don't think this was the example given in the kikashi teaching but I was reminded of Go Seigen's shoulder hit on an enclosure / high approach that becomes a shoulder hit: it's a move that has good effects regardless of whether it is answered or not.

Still, it should be obvious that "yose" is not "endgame" because yose plays can be made at move 80 of a 200+ move game. And something the endgame devolves into a fight rather than peaceful boundary plays. Sure it's confusing that Japanese authors like to use the term yose to describe their lecture on the last 2-10 moves of a game. But I think the point being made is that these Japanese terms often mean more than how they are used in English, or they mean something slightly different. Same thing was mentioned in the ponnuki discussion... ponnuki isn't just a diamond shape, it's a capture (action), and not only of 1 stone but could be more.

----------

Anyway, my original thoughts on the obsessions with shape is that this is simply an amateur obsession and not a Western obsession because I have seen Japanese amateurs have silly fun with shapes as well. Obviously Pros are not discussing the most fun shapes like the B52 bomber or the black hole.

However, even pros like the "flag" shape. But proving Fairbairn's point about shape vs verb, pros discuss motsu (carry, rais) the flag, not the appearance of a flag by happenstance.

----------

I also think it's worth pointing out that in English, the borrowed word "yose" only means endgame and the word "ponnuki" only means diamond shape whether a stone was captured or not. It shouldn't be a surprise that a borrowed word has a different meaning. Like how the Japanese call a car steering wheel "handoru." No, that's not what a "handle" is. No English speaker one would call a spinning wheel a "handle." But you do you.

I think the point is the distinction between verbs and nouns.

You don't »play a magari« in order to have a neat little chain that bends around the opponent's stone, but you »magari« in order to separate those stones from the centre and ensure access for my own stones. It also means that your group is not secure after it created a pretty shape; you still have to look which kind of moves around it threaten what inside.

I don't »play an endgame« that has a certain value, but I »approach« or »bend« the control zones where they are not fixed yet, thereby possibly threatening further modifications.

Verbs are often much more useful than nouns. (This also holds in political reporting. Sorry: this also holds when reporters write about political topics. Sorry: this also holds when reporters write about things that politicians say or do.)

Your (this is a rhethoric general address) neat little definition about what a kosumi is called when it's symmetric to the corner (just a fictitious example) is not useful when it doesn't inform you about what to do and think about it.

A table shape move is only the shape move if it actually solves something.