Boundary plays - O Meien's method (The end)
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:19 am
After wrestling with this decision for a long time overnight, I have decided to end this thread now. I do not blame anyone but myself, for being overambitious or overoptimistic. I'm sorry. It doesn't mean I'll stop contributing - in fact I have a biggish item on the stocks now that I can give more time to.
For those interested, I'll explain my decision. As I indicated in the very first line of the first thread, I had a strong hunch this would run into the sand. Sure enough, I started getting tennis umpire's neck, watching the ball being swatted back and forwards by the experts, with the added complication that I hate tennis. In addition, related threads sprang up and so the project was already spiralling out of control, in the sense that the non-numbers people were getting left behind.
I don't mean to imply that the comments or other threads are in any way negative, or unwelcome to me personally. I'm actually glad if I have had a part in inspiring this extra discussion. But I started this particular O Meien thread for the benefit of people like myself who find the standard quasi-mathematical approaches to the endgame daunting or mystifying. I had hoped that the combination of my own clumsy efforts to grope my way through OM's book and expert comment would somehow or other lead to some form of illumination. But what I noticed is that the experts soon started talking only to each other and that the mystified among us did not contribute much with questions. I suspect the mystified may also have been intimidated by 140 mph aces served by the experts to each other, or maybe they just don't read L19 (that I don't know, but I certainly do believe there are many of us out there). In addition, putting together the diagrams and the sumamries in a subject I barely understand is quite hard work. I can use my time more fruitfully. In all those circumstances I thought it best to "cut my losses" early in the game.
Life is full of almost polarised groups who never seem to be able to get even to first base with the other side, even where there is a will. Republicans and Democrats, religious people and atheists, games players and non-game players. There is also the group of numbers people and the rest of us. You often find that there are certain words or approaches that instantly switch off the lights in the brain of a person who is trying hard to understand a person of the polar opposite. The L-word in American politics is one example. With numbers, if you are a numbers person and are trying to explain something to the opposite side, I can tell you that you can know instantly you have failed, with people like me, if you hear yourself using words like, proof, logic, obvious, elegant, or if you are using phrases like "Another method is to ..." or "This is also called ..."
These are just ways of justifying or restating the numbers approach. That is the problem. What we need is a new approach altogether. It can be done. The book Freakonomics shows how it can be done and its huge success suggests there is a massive audience of people like me. The success of the series of XX for Dummies books is another indicator.
People like me are not very interested in the methods of handling numbers per se. It is not necessarily lack of ability, but often just lack of interest. In fact, we may even be able to cope reasonably well with numbers in a mechanical sort of way. In terms of grades, I did well in mathematics at school, and I even took extra qualifications in engineering mathematics once I was employed (as a way of helping me as a technical translator). But mathematical methods have about as much passion for me as the equally mechanical act of brushing my teeth. That is not meant as a criticism, nor am I trying to pick on numbers people - they just happen to be the relevant people here. Elsewhere I am, for example, bored stiff by conjurers but I can sense how skilled they are. I can't understand what goes through a wine connoisseur's mind but I'm gald he's happy when he's pontificating. In art "I know what I like" and it's often not what other people like.
I happen to believe that OM is a numbers person and that he too was unable in this book to communicate with a non-numbers audience. I understand all his words but understand little of his meaning. You may recall that I began the thread by quoting a position from near the back of his book before going into detail about his counting method. That is symptomatic of my belief that, if, as I suspect, a large portion of his intended audience was meant to be non-numbers people, he got the structure of his book completely the wrong way round. I was hoping that discussion here would help me do some re-structuring.
As I say, I have decided I was too optimistic. I apologise again to those who began the brief journey with me. I hope the other resulting discussions will continue and bear fruit. I will continue to read them. I understand little of them, but one of my passions is seeing how other minds work. If someone else can come up with a Boundary Plays for Dummies, I will be first in line to read it.
For those interested, I'll explain my decision. As I indicated in the very first line of the first thread, I had a strong hunch this would run into the sand. Sure enough, I started getting tennis umpire's neck, watching the ball being swatted back and forwards by the experts, with the added complication that I hate tennis. In addition, related threads sprang up and so the project was already spiralling out of control, in the sense that the non-numbers people were getting left behind.
I don't mean to imply that the comments or other threads are in any way negative, or unwelcome to me personally. I'm actually glad if I have had a part in inspiring this extra discussion. But I started this particular O Meien thread for the benefit of people like myself who find the standard quasi-mathematical approaches to the endgame daunting or mystifying. I had hoped that the combination of my own clumsy efforts to grope my way through OM's book and expert comment would somehow or other lead to some form of illumination. But what I noticed is that the experts soon started talking only to each other and that the mystified among us did not contribute much with questions. I suspect the mystified may also have been intimidated by 140 mph aces served by the experts to each other, or maybe they just don't read L19 (that I don't know, but I certainly do believe there are many of us out there). In addition, putting together the diagrams and the sumamries in a subject I barely understand is quite hard work. I can use my time more fruitfully. In all those circumstances I thought it best to "cut my losses" early in the game.
Life is full of almost polarised groups who never seem to be able to get even to first base with the other side, even where there is a will. Republicans and Democrats, religious people and atheists, games players and non-game players. There is also the group of numbers people and the rest of us. You often find that there are certain words or approaches that instantly switch off the lights in the brain of a person who is trying hard to understand a person of the polar opposite. The L-word in American politics is one example. With numbers, if you are a numbers person and are trying to explain something to the opposite side, I can tell you that you can know instantly you have failed, with people like me, if you hear yourself using words like, proof, logic, obvious, elegant, or if you are using phrases like "Another method is to ..." or "This is also called ..."
These are just ways of justifying or restating the numbers approach. That is the problem. What we need is a new approach altogether. It can be done. The book Freakonomics shows how it can be done and its huge success suggests there is a massive audience of people like me. The success of the series of XX for Dummies books is another indicator.
People like me are not very interested in the methods of handling numbers per se. It is not necessarily lack of ability, but often just lack of interest. In fact, we may even be able to cope reasonably well with numbers in a mechanical sort of way. In terms of grades, I did well in mathematics at school, and I even took extra qualifications in engineering mathematics once I was employed (as a way of helping me as a technical translator). But mathematical methods have about as much passion for me as the equally mechanical act of brushing my teeth. That is not meant as a criticism, nor am I trying to pick on numbers people - they just happen to be the relevant people here. Elsewhere I am, for example, bored stiff by conjurers but I can sense how skilled they are. I can't understand what goes through a wine connoisseur's mind but I'm gald he's happy when he's pontificating. In art "I know what I like" and it's often not what other people like.
I happen to believe that OM is a numbers person and that he too was unable in this book to communicate with a non-numbers audience. I understand all his words but understand little of his meaning. You may recall that I began the thread by quoting a position from near the back of his book before going into detail about his counting method. That is symptomatic of my belief that, if, as I suspect, a large portion of his intended audience was meant to be non-numbers people, he got the structure of his book completely the wrong way round. I was hoping that discussion here would help me do some re-structuring.
As I say, I have decided I was too optimistic. I apologise again to those who began the brief journey with me. I hope the other resulting discussions will continue and bear fruit. I will continue to read them. I understand little of them, but one of my passions is seeing how other minds work. If someone else can come up with a Boundary Plays for Dummies, I will be first in line to read it.
I hope that you will reconsider, and go at least as far as OM's treatment of sente. In terms of concepts, that was the most significant aspect of the book, IMHO. 
)
Still, the thread did point out to me that I have been miscalculating even very simple endgame moves.