Go terms easy to understand but difficult to explain
Warp
to understand, but (seemingly) very difficult to explain accurately.
Many terms are rather vague in their definition (such as "aji" or "honte"),
but I'm thinking specifically of two terms right now, which I don't seem
to find any decisively good definitions for:
- Tesuji.
I once commented in a KGS game "that's a nice little tesuji" and a
stronger player insisted that it was not a tesuji. It was a rather simple
sequence of moves which inevitably captured some stones (iirc because
of the mistake of the other player before the "tesuji").
A longish discussion between him and me followed, me trying to understand
what he meant by tesuji. His definitions felt a bit contradictory at
times (I'm not saying they were, just that they had a bit the feeling
of contradiction). Some ideas which emerged was that a tesuji is a
non-obvious clever play, which nevertheless has nothing to do with
difficulty or triviality (even a 25k-level tesuji is still a tesuji),
which feels a bit odd: Is it non-obvious (ie. non-trivial) or does it
matter? Is it difficult or does it matter?
He agreed that the so-called crane's nest tesuji is a tesuji, but
the sequence in the game was not, even though there was slight
resemblance between the two.
All in all, I didn't get a quite clear idea of what he meant by "tesuji".
- Nakade.
Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's eye".
In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad. It basically means
"any play anywhere inside opponent territory, regardless of its
consequences". I don't think anyone uses the term with this meaning.
Regardless of a long discussion sub-page, people seem to be unable to
come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Charles Matthews
> - Tesuji.
> I once commented in a KGS game "that's a nice little tesuji" and a
> stronger player insisted that it was not a tesuji. It was a rather simple
> sequence of moves which inevitably captured some stones (iirc because
> of the mistake of the other player before the "tesuji").
> A longish discussion between him and me followed, me trying to
understand
> what he meant by tesuji.
It is probably better to study ten examples, rather than hope for one
definition. Anyway, after many discussions on this, I think it's clear that
(i) this is a Japanese term that is not shared exactly by Chinese or Korean
(so one should be careful), (ii) it concerns a 'line of play', rather than
describing a 'strong move' in isolation, and (iii) amongst variations it is
distinguished by excellence that dies turn on a single play.
Charles
-
Warp <wa...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> It's curious that in Go there are many terms which are basically easy
> to understand, but (seemingly) very difficult to explain accurately.
> Many terms are rather vague in their definition (such as "aji" or
> "honte"), but I'm thinking specifically of two terms right now,
> which I don't seem to find any decisively good definitions for:
>
> - Tesuji.
> I once commented in a KGS game "that's a nice little tesuji" and a
> stronger player insisted that it was not a tesuji. It was a rather simple
> sequence of moves which inevitably captured some stones (iirc
> because of the mistake of the other player before the "tesuji").
Typical at KGS? An innocuous word purposed for promoting
enjoyment of this game becomes instead a point of contention and
bickering. Despite all efforts to "have fun" some players will find a
means to subtract all "fun" (and "meaning") out of their experience.
The _tesuji_ is simply a "special play" not -usually- working in the
overall pattern, except for -this- case it does. Maybe a move that
is ordinarily considered as "weak" yet in combination with other
stones (even of both colors) manages to accomplish some feats.
> A longish discussion between him and me followed, me trying
> to understand what he meant by tesuji. His definitions felt a bit
> contradictory at times (I'm not saying they were, just that they had
> a bit the feeling of contradiction). Some ideas which emerged was
> that a tesuji is a non-obvious clever play, which nevertheless has
> nothing to do with difficulty or triviality (even a 25k-level tesuji is
> still a tesuji), which feels a bit odd: Is it non-obvious (ie. non-trivial)
> or does it matter? Is it difficult or does it matter?
> He agreed that the so-called crane's nest tesuji is a tesuji, but
> the sequence in the game was not, even though there was slight
> resemblance between the two.
Well, maybe a "crane's nest" is _tesuji_ or maybe it is not.
If there's already a move category, then -that- sense of _tesuji_
is not realized: a _tesuji_ falls outside the mainstream of typical
pattern categories. There's an element of it being unexpected.
Rather often it involves some sharp pivoting within close play.
> All in all, I didn't get a quite clear idea of what he meant by "tesuji".
You won't. And it's not necessary for you to understand what he
really meant, if your purpose was to improve your own game play.
When you recognize what it is, you have learned something new
about the game, and so the _tesuji_ might not exist for high-levels.
Go is a game taking five minutes for introduction, but five lifetimes
to master: a "natural" game only insofar as requiring no explanation.
> - Nakade.
> Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's eye".
> In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad. It basically means
> "any play anywhere inside opponent territory, regardless of its
> consequences". I don't think anyone uses the term with this meaning.
> Regardless of a long discussion sub-page, people seem to be unable
> to come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
_Nakade_ is a more restricted sense of _aji_, aiming at not only
reduction of territory but also interference with (potential) eye space,
which in turn can lead to definite (or quite likely) loss of more stones.
The problem of understanding here concerns "inside" and "outside"
since from the naive perspective of stone group clusters, they have
merely "a (loose) perimeter" and the "eye" of a group is simply a last
point (or points) that would be filled in order to surround and capture.
Yet with _nakade_ one has the -jump- on a situation, to reduce two
eyes into one big eye, maybe capturable if not losing a _semeai_.
- regards
- jb
Accomplishing cube roots, fifth roots, by use of only square roots ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 word 12:W=6000:dim S(W),R(W)
50 A=1:Z#=1:K=0:while A:S(K)=A:Z#*=A:input A:inc K:wend:dec K:S(0)=K
60 V#^=1/K:print fnAv(0),Z#,S(0):goto 50:' ----- geomav.ub
70 fnImp(I,J,K,V#):K=S(0):block R(0..K)=block S(0..K):K=0:V#=1:P=0
80 for I=1 to R(0)-1:for J=I+1 to R(0):inc K:S(K)=sqrt(R(I)*R(J))
90 if len(int(V#))>4000 then inc P:V#=sft(V#,-4000):' overflow prob.
100 V#*=S(K):next:next:S(0)=K:V#^=1/K:return(V#*((2^4000)^(1/K))^P))
110 fnAv(X):while fnDone(0,0,0)=0:X=fnImp(0,0,0,0):wend:return(X)
120 fnDone(I,J,Z):for I=1 to S(0)-1:for J=I+1 to S(0):Z+=abs(S(I)-S(J))
130 next:next:return(Z<0.000001 or S(0)*(S(0)-1)\2>W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warp
> And it's not necessary for you to understand what he
> really meant, if your purpose was to improve your own game play.
I have always opposed the idea (which seems surprisingly widespread)
that knowing proper terminology is not important nor necessary to learn
and enjoy the game.
One of the most basic elements of learning is communication. You simply
can't learn more about the game if you are completely isolated from other
players (specially players stronger than you), directly and indirectly
(eg. books, webpages, etc).
An essential part of communication is the terminology used: If a person
does not know or understand correctly the terminology, it will be more
difficult for him to understand what is being said.
And communication is not solely part of the learning process: It's also
part of the enjoyment process. If you are just talking about go, terminology
may be useful there as well.
Sometimes people confuse terms, which is not a good thing. If people
don't know the proper meaning of the terms, it may have a negative impact
in their communication with others.
(One example of a common confusion of terms: "Forcing move" is often
used with the meaning "kikashi", even though the former has a much
broader meaning than the latter, which is much more specific.)
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
-
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And it's not necessary for you to understand what he
>> really meant, if your purpose was to improve your own game play.
Warp <wa...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> I have always opposed the idea (which seems surprisingly
> widespread) that knowing proper terminology is not important
> nor necessary to learn and enjoy the game.
Yes, knowing proper terminology can be critical for some
however it seems to be a given that this "stronger player" you
encountered already knows what that proper terminology is.
Apparently you reported a difficulty at understanding the words
of that "stronger player" even when attempting to get at simple
concepts of _tesuji_ and _nakade_. Concept difficulties do not
strike me as an educational forum where the proper terminology
is being unambiguously deployed and/or conveyed.
Sometimes players get sidetracked into "beating the other guy"
rather than "improving their own game play." For some - they find
an ego contest in the purpose for playing - while for others - they
find an intrinsic harmony in observing how the stones fit together.
Unfortunately, "beating the other guy" is not necessarily the same
as "improving one's own game play."
> One of the most basic elements of learning is communication.
> You simply can't learn more about the game if you are completely
> isolated from other players (specially players stronger than you),
> directly and indirectly (eg. books, webpages, etc).
I don't recall that this was one of the "rules of Go." Many ways
of learning are encountered: it's not a clear proposition just how
and where learning will happen. Although Go seems to be a "black
and white" affair, learning can be likened to the "shades of grey"
in-between. In order to learn new habits, or habits of correct play,
it's inevitable that one may need to abandon mistaken notions. To
get stronger one has to give up former weaker methods/approaches.
Getting with other players is one technique, however getting with the
books or finding players that are even more stronger than the other
stronger players, is also another technique for one's study strategies.
> An essential part of communication is the terminology used: If a person
> does not know or understand correctly the terminology, it will be more
> difficult for him to understand what is being said.
True, though at the same time much of a "premium" was placed on
what is being said. The communications medium is made enriched
by a proliferation of messages, and some are not subjectively worthy.
> And communication is not solely part of the learning process: It's
> also part of the enjoyment process. If you are just talking about go,
> terminology may be useful there as well.
Care may be in order to ascertain why something is enjoyable.
Hedonism could be enjoyable, yet hedonism can also be critiqued.
> Sometimes people confuse terms, which is not a good thing. If people
> don't know the proper meaning of the terms, it may have a negative
> impact in their communication with others.
On the other hand, with fluid concepts, attempting to over-define
a term can as well lead to misimpressions about its original nature.
> (One example of a common confusion of terms: "Forcing move" is often
> used with the meaning "kikashi", even though the former has a much
> broader meaning than the latter, which is much more specific.)
Some argue that a teacher can do things non-teachers cannot do.
Others say that "teacher" is a relative term, rather than an absolute.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 ' implicit means http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath141.htm
20 input A:Q=pack():while A:Q+=A:input A:wend:print fnAv(Q,0):goto 20
30 fnImp(X,A,B,C,I):while I<len(X):inc I:A+=member(X,I):B*=member(X,I)
40 C+=1/(member(X,I)):wend:return(pack(A/len(X),B^(1/len(X)),len(X)/C))
50 fnAv(X,I):while I<19:X=fnImp(X,0,1,0,0):inc I:wend:return(X)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ro...@telus.net
> It's curious that in Go there are many terms which are basically easy
>to understand, but (seemingly) very difficult to explain accurately.
There's some natural overlap and ambiguity, especially when the term
mixes what the move looks like with what it accomplishes (like
"hane").
> All in all, I didn't get a quite clear idea of what he meant by "tesuji".
Tesuji refers to a move or short sequence that perfectly exploits a
weakness in the opponent's shape by diverging from a pedestrian line
of play. Think of it as the opposite of "vulgar."
> Regardless of a long discussion sub-page, people seem to be unable to
>come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
A play in the middle of an eye that achieves or prevents two eyes.
-- Roy L
Warp
> Think of it as the opposite of "vulgar."
That's an interesting notion.
> > Regardless of a long discussion sub-page, people seem to be unable to
> >come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
> A play in the middle of an eye that achieves or prevents two eyes.
I didn't know that playing inside one own's group (making two eyes) is
also called nakade...
Roy Schmidt
> Some ideas which emerged was that a tesuji is a
> non-obvious clever play, which nevertheless has nothing to do with
> difficulty or triviality (even a 25k-level tesuji is still a
tesuji),
> which feels a bit odd: Is it non-obvious (ie. non-trivial) or does
it
> matter? Is it difficult or does it matter?
It's not non-obvious to the one who knows the tesuji. Your example of
the "crane's nest" makes this point: when you see the formation, you
know the proper play, so the tesuji is obvious.
Tesuji is a term referring to any play that raises the player's nearby
stones to their maximum efficiency. Literally, "tesuji" is "the
essence hand" ("hand" being the term for a play/move). It might
capture the opponent's stones, or it might save your stones (or both).
Studying common tesuji is one way to improve your play, as you add
more tesuji to the "obvious" column. BTW, "trivial" is not a synonym
of "obvious."
In the game you were watching, perhaps the stronger player meant that
the play you thought was "tesuji" was not, because the victim
misplayed his response (that is, the "tesuji" should not have produced
a favorable result).
> - Nakade.
> Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's
eye".
> In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad.
Yes, it is incomplete. It is a play inside an opponent's eyespace
that reduces the formation to a single eye. Literally, "nakade" is "a
hand in the middle," but one cannot take a literal translation as the
accurate definition of a term.
Cheers, Roy
--
my reply-to address is gostoned at insightbb dot com
-------------------------------------------------
Roy Schmidt
Part-time Translator for Yutopian
Full-time Professor of Business Computer Systems
Bradley University
Bill Spight
I think that the kind of difficulties you mention are not restricted to
go terms, but are characteristic of natural language in general.
Best regards,
Bill
Barry Phease
> (i) this is a Japanese term that is not shared exactly by Chinese or Korean
I don't know about Korean, but I don't think that there is any deviance in
meaning with the term in Chinese. The Chinese word "shoujing" is borrowed
from Japanese and has the exact same meaning. This is not to be confused
with the Chinese "miaoshou" which does have a slightly different meaning.
--
Barry Phease
Fu, Ren-Li
> It's curious that in Go there are many terms which are basically easy
> to understand, but (seemingly) very difficult to explain accurately.
This is because you've learned the terms by example; a series of diagrams
and the words "this is ikken tobi" and "this is an example of kikashi" or
"this is sente, this is gote, etc".
> Many terms are rather vague in their definition (such as "aji" or
> "honte"), but I'm thinking specifically of two terms right now, which I
> don't seem to find any decisively good definitions for:
>
> - Tesuji.
=skillful move. An example is geta, since capturing with a ladder would be
looser. So the geta capture is called a tesuji. Consider any form of geta a
tesuji. The other basic kind of tesuji is eye stealing, which reduces more
than one eye to one eye. Finally we have connection tesujis, such as
connecting underneath with kosumi or hane.
> Some ideas which emerged was that a tesuji is a
> non-obvious clever play, which nevertheless has nothing to do with
> difficulty or triviality (even a 25k-level tesuji is still a tesuji),
> which feels a bit odd: Is it non-obvious (ie. non-trivial) or does it
> matter? Is it difficult or does it matter?
It does not have to be obvious. It simply has to be a geta in any form, an
eye-stealing move, or a connection. Say you have nikken tobi. If it gets
hit underneath, the connection tesuji is not to attach against the stone
with nobi but to shoulder-hit it with nobi and then jump up from the other
stone. Or something like that. If you do it the other way it isn't really a
tesuji even though you connect, because it's not any good.
> - Nakade.
> Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's eye".
> In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad. It basically means
> "any play anywhere inside opponent territory, regardless of its
> consequences". I don't think anyone uses the term with this meaning.
> Regardless of a long discussion sub-page, people seem to be unable to
> come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
Doesen't nakade mean reducing more than one eye potential to one eye? it's a
tesuji right?
:)
-frl
-
> Warp wrote:
>> It's curious that in Go there are many terms which are basically easy
>> to understand, but (seemingly) very difficult to explain accurately.
The "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> This is because you've learned the terms by example; a series of
> diagrams and the words "this is ikken tobi" and "this is an example
> of kikashi" or "this is sente, this is gote, etc".
Good point. Warp should learn all of Japanese to gain understanding.
>> Many terms are rather vague in their definition (such as "aji" or
>> "honte"), but I'm thinking specifically of two terms right now, which I
>> don't seem to find any decisively good definitions for:
>>
>> - Tesuji.
> =skillful move.
Each move leading to the winning result is a skillful move.
> An example is geta, since capturing with a ladder would be looser.
No, _geta_ is not ordinarily _tesuji_. _Geta_ is a _gote_ connection.
> So the geta capture is called a tesuji.
What was your derivation: simply "The `Fu, Ren-Li'" said so?
> Consider any form of geta a tesuji.
Why does it require effort to consider, if that's what you say it is?
> The other basic kind of tesuji is eye stealing, which reduces more
> than one eye to one eye. Finally we have connection tesujis, such
> as connecting underneath with kosumi or hane.
No, _tesuji_ is not principally "eye stealing" (which itself is just
an "ordinary move" among that lexicon of all extraordinary moves).
Nor is _tesuji_ simply the connection underneath. A _tesuji_ should
at once have multiple meanings occuring in different _miai_ contexts.
>> Some ideas which emerged was that a tesuji is a
>> non-obvious clever play, which nevertheless has nothing to do
>> with difficulty or triviality (even a 25k-level tesuji is still a tesuji),
>> which feels a bit odd: Is it non-obvious (ie. non-trivial) or does
>> it matter? Is it difficult or does it matter?
> It does not have to be obvious. It simply has to be a geta in any form,
> an eye-stealing move, or a connection. Say you have nikken tobi. If it
> gets hit underneath, the connection tesuji is not to attach against the
> stone with nobi but to shoulder-hit it with nobi and then jump up from
> the other stone. Or something like that. If you do it the other way it isn't
> really a tesuji even though you connect, because it's not any good.
Basically the _tesuji_ is any move, or series of moves, that defeats
"The `Fu, Ren-Li'" because the _tesuji_ needs to be some sort of play
that "The `Fu, Ren-Li'" had neglected to anticipate. He cannot really
know what it is, because he does not have unlimited winning streaks.
>> - Nakade.
>> Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's eye".
>> In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad. It basically means
>> "any play anywhere inside opponent territory, regardless of its
>> consequences". I don't think anyone uses the term with this meaning.
>> Regardless of a long discussion sub-page, people seem to be unable to
>> come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
> Doesen't nakade mean reducing more than one eye potential to one eye?
> it's a tesuji right?
No, _nakade_ means "playing inside" (though the sense of "inside"
or "outside" can be lost on "blind stones" who sense merely perimeter).
Obvious _nakade_ reduce to one eye, but others convert to just _aji_.
Neither are _tesjui_ because _nakade_ and _aji_ use are standards.
Your "logic" here was dependent upon solipsistic impulse and little else.
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results 1 - 100 of about 492 for Nooz group:alt.conspiracy. (1.04 seconds)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Nooz+group:alt.conspiracy&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&filter=0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Lopez Herrero
news:cem20h$1l7m$1...@news.cc.tut.fi...
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> > A play in the middle of an eye that achieves or prevents two eyes.
>
> I didn't know that playing inside one own's group (making two eyes) is
> also called nakade...
It is not here in Japan, at least I've never heard or seen the word used
with that meaning.
Eduardo
Richard Lancashire
> Each move leading to the winning result is a skillful move.
Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point group become
a skilful move if your opponent later makes an error losing a 30-point
group (for example), and otherwise remain a blunder?
Rich
Bill Spight
Warp:
> > - Nakade.
> > Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's
> eye".
> > In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad.
>
Roy:
> Yes, it is incomplete. It is a play inside an opponent's eyespace
> that reduces the formation to a single eye. Literally, "nakade" is "a
> hand in the middle," but one cannot take a literal translation as the
> accurate definition of a term.
>
It is not *just* a literal translation. It is taken from the Japanese
authority, Hayashi. (See John Fairbairn's discussion on
http://senseis.xmp.net/?NakadeExample2 ).
As for the definition in the "Go Player's Almanac", which agrees with
what you say, there is an obvious counterexample:
| . . . . . . . White plays first.
| X X X . . X .
| O O . X X . .
| . O . . . X .
| O O O O O X .
| X X X X X O .
| 1 . X O O O .
| . . X O . . .
| X X X O . . .
| O O O O . . .
| . . . . . . .
W1 is a nakade which wins the semeai. It would still be a nakade if
White lost. It does not reduce Black's eye to a single eye, nor does it
serve to prevent Black from making a second eye there. The eye is
single, and Black cannot make a play inside it to produce a second eye,
anyway.
For an example from the go literature, see
http://senseis.xmp.net/?NakadeExample3 .
Best regards,
Bill
-
rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point group become
> a skilful move if your opponent later makes an error losing a 30-point
> group (for example), and otherwise remain a blunder?
Hmmmm. Yet another European poster trivializing discussions
with idiotic (but hopefully -charming- to that special somebody) remarks?
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All Bush Has to Sell, Is Fear Itself
http://www.opednews.com/wade_080104_bush_fear.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
joorin<emacs is the shit!>
Insinuating that stupidity would in any way be limited to any special
part of the world just goes to show that it is seen all over the world.
/Peter
-
>> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
>>> Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point group become
>>> a skilful move if your opponent later makes an error losing a 30-point
>>> group (for example), and otherwise remain a blunder?
> "-" wrote:
>> Hmmmm. Yet another European poster trivializing discussions
>> with idiotic (but hopefully -charming- to that special somebody) remarks?
"joorin" <"joorin<emacs is the shit!>"@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Insinuating that stupidity would in any way be limited to any special
> part of the world just goes to show that it is seen all over the world.
"Double-Hmmmm." Appears to consist of another European poster who
may have missed out on their European Go Congress this year ... :-(
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>>>>> Some prime numbers occur as "sqrt" only on the hypoteneuse..
Clarification: "2" appears to be the only prime number that occurs as
`sqrt' only on the hypoteneuse of an integer right triangle. I mean to
say that other prime numbers are broken into two classes, i.e. those
occuring as the `sqrt(p)' only on one of the legs of an integer right
triangle (Gaussian Primes of form 4n+3, Sloane's ID Number: A002145)
and those occuring as `sqrt(p)' on -either- a leg or hypoteneuse (also
called Pythagorean Primes of form 4n+1, Sloane's ID Number A002144).
To provide an illustration. Let the preceeding "-" indicate "leg only"
and the "*" indicate "leg or hypoteneuse" for the `sqrt(p)' primes.
Then -3, *5, -7, -11, *13, *17, -19, -23, *29, -31, *37, *41, -43, -47,
*53, -59, *61, -67, -71, *73, -79, -83, *89, *97, *101, -103, -107, ...
illustrate these primes together, with their form -type- identified.
Quite astonishingly, for each case of "twin primes" (pairs of primes
that differ by 2), one finds a "-" form and a "*" form. Not only that,
for each pair of primes that differs by 4n+2 one finds both types.
Of course this had been on account of their -establishing- criteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 word 4:R=700:T=ceil((R^2+(R-1)^2)/31):G$=" +-*":' # pnp.ub
20 dim A(R),B(T):K=1:for I=1 to R:A(I)=A(I-1)+K:K+=2:next:N=2:' input
30 for I=2 to R:for J=1 to I-1:Z=max(Z,fnB(A(I),A(J),0)):next:next
40 for I=2 to T:'if prmdiv(I)=I then W+=fnP(I) else print "";:goto 70
62 if prmdiv(I)=I and prmdiv(I+N)=I+N then if fnA(I)+fnA(I+N)=5 then 70
65 :else if I<2*R-N-2 then W+=fnP(I):W+=fnP(I+N):inc Q:if Q>10 then stop
70 next:Q=0:N+=4:if N<500 then 40 else print N:stop
90 fnB(X,Y,W):W=abs((X-Y)*2)\62:B(W)=bitset(res+1,B(W))
100 W=((X+Y)*2)\62:B(W)=bitset(res,B(W)):return(W)
110 fnA(X):return(bitand(sft(B(X*2\62),-res),3))
120 fnP(X):print cutspc((mid(G$,1+fnA(X))+str(X)))+" ";:return(0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lancashire
> >> Each move leading to the winning result is a skillful move.
>
> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> > Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point group become
> > a skilful move if your opponent later makes an error losing a 30-point
> > group (for example), and otherwise remain a blunder?
>
>
> Hmmmm. Yet another European poster trivializing discussions
> with idiotic (but hopefully -charming- to that special somebody) remarks?
Merely questioning what appears to be a pat or glib statement that you
threw out. By your lack of engagement, it appears that the idiocy lies
with a poster on the side of the Atlantic to Europe.
Regards
Rich
-
>> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
>>> Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point
>>> group become a skilful move if your opponent later makes
>>> an error losing a 30-point group (for example), and
>>> otherwise remain a blunder?
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Hmmmm. Yet another European poster trivializing discussions with
>> idiotic (but hopefully -charming- to that special somebody) remarks?
rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> Merely questioning what appears to be a pat or glib statement that
> you threw out. By your lack of engagement, it appears that the idiocy
> lies with a poster on the side of the Atlantic to Europe.
The glib statement was tautological, which by itself does not
render the glib statement invalid. Last I checked, according to the
"round earth theory", there are no "sides" to East and West.
Your question did not "engage" with the _logical_ subject matter.
Not all winning moves are _tesuji_, however those winning moves
would be all moves of the winner's game, which are skillful moves.
I was again asked to clarify what relevance do "pythagorean primes"
versus "gaussian primes" have to do with Go. Because "pythagorean
primes" (form of 4n+1) occur on a right-triangle hypoteneuse, always
the longest side of a right-triangle, they can also be "external primes"
identifying outward-facing liberties. Needs to be checked carefully
in each instance because "pythagorean primes" can -also- occur as
components of right-triangle legs. On a rational grid, "legs" might be
angled and NOT orthogonal to the grid itself. Most "useful" necessary
liberties are those serving double-duty, as potentially outside & inside.
The "gaussian primes" (form of 4n-1) are never components of the
right-triangle hypoteneuse, so these are always associated with the
inward-facing liberties. Internal liberties are properties of lifeshape
so "gaussian primes" tend to occur when evaluating life & death,
rather than attack-potential for securing more territory to win a game.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Addiction Gets Conscripts Out of Army
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=573&e=3&u=/nm/20040803/od_nm/odd_finland_internet_dc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Goss
>Appears to consist of another European poster who
> may have missed out on their European Go Congress this year ... :-(
Here is yet another, who, at the moment ...
> Clarification: "2" appears to be the only prime number that occurs as
> `sqrt' only on the hypoteneuse of an integer right triangle.
... is having difficulty seeing how to express 4 as a sum of two integer
squares.
--
Simon
UK Go Challenge for schools
http://www.ukgochallenge.com
Richard Lancashire
> >>>> Each move leading to the winning result is a skillful move.
>
> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> >>> Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point
> >>> group become a skilful move if your opponent later makes
> >>> an error losing a 30-point group (for example), and
> >>> otherwise remain a blunder?
>
> The glib statement was tautological, which by itself does not
> render the glib statement invalid.
If you consider it tautological, then it your answer to my question
would be "yes". Thankyou for the clarification.
Regards
Rich
-
>>>>> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>>>>>> Each move leading to the winning result is a skillful move.
>>>> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
>>>>> Does a premature tenuki leading to the loss of a 25-point
>>>>> group become a skilful move if your opponent later makes
>>>>> an error losing a 30-point group (for example), and
>>>>> otherwise remain a blunder?
[ ... ]
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote in message
>> The glib statement was tautological, which by itself does not
>> render the glib statement invalid.
"Richard Lancashire" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you consider it tautological, then it your answer to my question
> would be "yes". Thankyou for the clarification.
I had not previously used the technical term "stupid" to describe
Europeans, however in light of Mr. Lancashire's nugatory inference
(above) perhaps the term now applies. Inferential constructions
are simply not required when you have both parties active to the
conversation. People do not answer when others impute forced
answers for them. Does somebody other than Mr. Lancashire
play (extra) moves in Go games for him, for/(or on) "his behalf"?
No moves were made "skillful" on account of opponent error.
Instead those moves were made "lucky", which is not "skillful."
Player error is not always an easy quality to discern, by careful
post-mortem analysis: "skillful" is rendered relative by context.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Clarification: "2" appears to be the only prime number that occurs
>> as `sqrt' _only_ on the hypoteneuse of an integer right triangle.
Simon Goss <si...@gosoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ... is having difficulty seeing how to express 4 as a sum of two integer
> squares.
The number "4" is not prime. But if you can allow "more than two"
also to qualify as two (since two is there), try 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2.
Obviously one finds 1^2 + 2^2 , but sqrt(5) can occur from 3^2 - 2^2.
Whether all sides are integers, or only two of them, to be "integral."
Note that the percolation tiling density for a square lattice is 1/5.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lancashire
> No moves were made "skillful" on account of opponent error.
> Instead those moves were made "lucky", which is not "skillful."
Perhaps then you meant "Each move leading to the winning result is
either a lucky or a skillful move"?
Regards
Rich
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote
>> No moves were made "skillful" on account of opponent error.
>> Instead those moves were made "lucky", which is not "skillful."
rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> Perhaps then you meant "Each move leading to the winning
> result is either a lucky or a skillful move"?
One would need to define what is a "lucky move" and then
you'd be faced with identifying "opponent error." If you could
identify "opponent error" then one simply programs a computer
not to play that way, and have instead the opponent win all games.
I agreed to discuss "opponent error" because this was YOUR issue.
You have not yet managed to define your terms of the discourse.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------
'Genius' French photographer Cartier-Bresson dead at 95
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&u=/afp/20040804/ts_afp/france_arts_photography_040804230606&printer=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lancashire
> > jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote
> >> No moves were made "skillful" on account of opponent error.
> >> Instead those moves were made "lucky", which is not "skillful."
>
> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> > Perhaps then you meant "Each move leading to the winning
> > result is either a lucky or a skillful move"?
>
>
> One would need to define what is a "lucky move" and then
> you'd be faced with identifying "opponent error."
Even such a revised definition is flawed; it is not a lucky move to
lose thirty points, one is a lucky player if one's opponent makes a
bigger blunder.
Perhaps you might admit that not every move leading to a winning
result is necessarily skillful at all, and undertake to avoid such
unthinking glibness in the future?
Best regards
Rich
-
>>> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote
>>>> No moves were made "skillful" on account of opponent error.
>>>> Instead those moves were made "lucky", which is not "skillful."
>> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
>>> Perhaps then you meant "Each move leading to the winning
>>> result is either a lucky or a skillful move"?
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> One would need to define what is a "lucky move" and then
>> you'd be faced with identifying "opponent error." [ ... ]
rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> Even such a revised definition is flawed; it is not a lucky move
> to lose thirty points, one is a lucky player if one's opponent
> makes a bigger blunder.
You can see what a semantic tangle your notions become.
Some could argue that "unlucky events" were that player's luck.
Which amounts to an effective contradiction. And "blunder" is
just another way of stating "error." Fact of the matter: if you
were -able- to identify blunders (unambiguously) then you could
simply program a computer to avoid them, and win all matches.
I recall stating something similar to this in a prior post. Indeed
that statement occurred in deleted scenes shown above by [ ... ]:
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote: 8/5/2004 8:21:59 GMT
"If you could identify `opponent error' then one simply
programs a computer not to play that way, and have
instead the opponent win all games."
> Perhaps you might admit that not every move leading to a
> winning result is necessarily skillful at all, and undertake
> to avoid such unthinking glibness in the future?
I spoke formerly of the fact that "skillful" was also relative:
>>> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote: 8/4/2004 17:32:50 GMT
"Player error is not always an easy quality to discern,
by careful post-mortem analysis: `skillful' is rendered
relative by context."
Furthermore, the operative term was "each" -- not "every" :
>>>>> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote: 8/3/2004 04:13:00 GMT
"Each move leading to the winning result is a skillful move."
If doubts remain, concerning whether a player produces skillful
moves, then you may host a European tournament and invite 560+
players from all parts of Europe. That's all that matters, anyway, eh?
Eventually you may discover a player who produces skillful moves.
If you can deny that certain moves of a winning result were not
skillful, you could once more build that computer program not to
play them and thereby defeat those European Champions which
would be "you versus yourself."
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pope urges European Union to rediscover its Christian roots...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/040804/19/q718.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
"tesuji" is relative to a player's knowledge and understanding.
Therefore one should maybe avoid a general, precise definition if the
aim is to explain common go players' language. The latter does not even
exist. E.g., in the Korean 1992 Rules, a "snapback" does not have the
Japanese / European meaning but seems to mean "capturable-1" (as in the
Japaese 2003 Rules).
> - Nakade.
>unable to come up with a clear and concise definition of nakade.
Concluding from the complexities of simpler terms like "eye" (see e.g.
application of the Japanese 2003 Rules), "nakade" cannot be explained by
a definition that is both clear AND concise. ("eye" is simpler than
"nakade" because the latter relies on the former.)
--
robert jasiek
Tommie
> The Chinese word "shoujing" ... has ... same meaning.
Barry,
from previous postings of you, I guess it was only a typo:
the characters of the
Japanese "tesuji" are pronounced
Shou3_Jin1 in Chinese:
Chinese Mandarin (Japanese) / English
手 筋 (te-suji) / "combination?"-"technique?"
shou3 jin1 / (n) hand (means "the move") / muscle, tendons /
(BTW. not 手巾 = shou3jin1 (same) / (n) hand towel)
妙 miao4 / clever, brilliant / wonderful / excellent, beautiful,
wonderful, excellent, marvelous, outstanding
hence:
妙手 miao4shou3 means "skillful hands" = Artist, Master or
again "Excellent move" etc. (question: how would the meaning differ in
Japanese?; I don't know anything about Japanese but some Go terms)
Greetings,
Tommie
NB: I think to remember that we met once in the Berlin pub
"Souterrain", when you were on a tour and playing with Jürgen Mattern.
Barry Phease
> Barry Phease wrote:
>> The Chinese word "shoujing" ... has ... same meaning.
>> Chinese "miaoshou" which does have a slightly different meaning.
> from previous postings of you, I guess it was only a typo:
> the characters of the
> Japanese "tesuji" are pronounced
> Shou3_Jin1 in Chinese:
Yes. It was a typo.
>
> Chinese Mandarin (Japanese) / English
> 手 筋 (te-suji) / "combination?"-"technique?"
> shou3 jin1 / (n) hand (means "the move") / muscle, tendons /
And as far as I know, this was not used in old Chinese. I don't know how
these characters came to be used in Japanese for this.
> (BTW. not 手巾 = shou3jin1 (same) / (n) hand towel)
>
> 妙 miao4 / clever, brilliant / wonderful / excellent, beautiful,
> wonderful, excellent, marvelous, outstanding hence: 妙手
> miao4shou3 means "skillful hands" = Artist, Master or again "Excellent
> move" etc. (question: how would the meaning differ in Japanese?; I don't
> know anything about Japanese but some Go terms)
As far as I know, the Japanese equivalent of "miaoshou" is not used.
> NB: I think to remember that we met once in the Berlin pub "Souterrain",
> when you were on a tour and playing with Jürgen Mattern.
Yes that would have been me (but it would have been more than 20 years ago).
Bill Spight
Tommie:
> > 妙 miao4 / clever, brilliant / wonderful / excellent, beautiful,
> > wonderful, excellent, marvelous, outstanding hence: 妙手
> > miao4shou3 means "skillful hands" = Artist, Master or again "Excellent
> > move" etc. (question: how would the meaning differ in Japanese?; I don't
> > know anything about Japanese but some Go terms)
>
Barry:
> As far as I know, the Japanese equivalent of "miaoshou" is not used.
>
I believe that is "myoshu" in Japanese. Not every tesuji is a myoshu.
Best,
Bill
Bill Spight
> Not every tesuji is a myoshu.
>
And not every myoshu is a tesuji. E. g., the Ear-reddening move. :-)
Bill
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Google search for the hundred most recent articles in rec.games.go
turned this up, so either Google is grossly broken in yet another
way beyond the many ways I already know that it's broken, or this
newsgroup has been very inactive over the past five years.
> > > - Nakade.
> > > Sensei's library defines nakade as "a play inside an opponent's eye".
> > > In my opinion this definition is *way* too broad.
> > Yes, it is incomplete. It is a play inside an opponent's eyespace
> > that reduces the formation to a single eye. Literally, "nakade" is "a
> > hand in the middle," but one cannot take a literal translation as the
> > accurate definition of a term.
> From: Bill Spight <bspi...@pacXbell.net>
> As for the definition in the "Go Player's Almanac", ...
> there is an obvious counterexample:
> | . . . . . . . White plays first.
> | X X X . . X .
> | O O . X X . .
> | . O . . 2 X .
> | O O O O O X .
> | X X X X X O .
> | 1 . X O O O .
> | . . X O . . .
> | X X X O . . .
> | O O O O . . .
> | . . . . . . .
The large square eye is effectively 5 liberties (throw in 3,
capture 3, throw in 2, capture 2, throw in 1, one liberty remains:
3-1+2-1+1+1 = 5), and the white group likewise has 5 liberties (4
outside, plus one "eye"), so semeai depends on who plays next,
hence move 1 (or any of the other points of the square eye) wins
the fight. With black to play, filling any outside liberty, such as
I've marked at 2, wins the semeai.
> W1 is a nakade which wins the semeai.
I guess that depends on your definition of "nakade".
> It would still be a nakade if White lost.
IMO that *very*much* depends on your definition of "nakade".
> It does not reduce Black's eye to a single eye, nor does it serve
> to prevent Black from making a second eye there. The eye is single,
> and Black cannot make a play inside it to produce a second eye,
> anyway.
I agree. If this example is supposed to count as a "nakade", then
any definition that requires a "nakade" to effectively reduce the
opponent's group to just one eye, must be incomplete/wrong. I also
agree with remarks elsewhere that a definition of *any* move
whatsoever inside opponent's eyespace or territory is a "nakade",
is too general. We probably need a definition neither as
restrictive as the reduce-to-one-eye definition nor as general as
the "any move whatsoever ..." definition. I propose the following:
First we need to define what we mean by a wall of one color stones
"enclosing" an empty area or a set of empty areas, since the edge
of the board can be part of such an enclosure, and a "corner group"
or even an "edge group" may have *all* eyespace against the edge of
the board hence geometrically *outside* the wall-of-stones rather
than inside it. Let's assume we've somehow found a rigorous
definition of this concept, and we use the term "enclosed eyespace"
(if you'd prefer another term, go ahead and substitute it in the
following). Now:
A "nakade" is any of:
- A stone played inside the opponent's "enclosed eyespace", such
that it performs any of the following functions:
- - It reduces the eyespace from two eyes to 1.5 eyes, thus acting
as a "ko threat", requiring a reply to avoid further reducing
from 1.5 eyes to one eye hence dead (unless it can escape to
the outside somehow).
- - It reduces the eyespace from 1.5 eyes to one eye, thus killing
the opponent's group (unless it can escape to the outside somehow).
- - It reduces the effective number of liberties of the opponent's
one-eyed group, thereby winning or threatening to win a semeai.
- The accumulation of stones played inside the opponent's group per
the previous clause of this definition.
Thus the stone marked "1" in the diagram is a "nakade" per the
first clause above, and after it's played any additional stones
added to that clump are also each a "nakade" per the first clause
above, and at any point after the first stone has been played and
not all of the stones have been captured, that clump of one or more
stones is a "nakade" per the second clause above.
One question as to whether to widen the definition further: Suppose
a group encloses eyespace large enough that the opponent would need
to play three moves in a row to reduce it to just one eye. Thus the
first move would be worthless (except against a much weaker player
it might induce a really bad move) and loss of sente, but the
second would could be used as a ko threat, and the third (followup
to unanswered ko threat) would kill the group. Should *that* first
of three moves be termed a "nakade" or not? If that is termed a
"nakade", then what if it takes four moves to reduce a group to one
eye, should the two first-of-four moves each be considered a
"nakade"? Maybe *any* number of moves whatsoever which if *all* or
*most* not answered would finally reduce a group to one eye, should
count as "nakade"? For example:
| X X X
| - - X
| - 3 X
| 1 2 X
| - 4 X
| 6 5 X
| X X X
should white at 1 be considered a "nakade" because after 2,3,4
black's group is reduced to one eye (but possibly alive by seki),
and then after 5,6 black's group is unconditionally dead (assuming
insufficient outside liberties to win semeai)?
Or should the above sequence *not* be considered a "nakade" because
it's "eye in stomach" which is mututually exclusive with "nakade"?
A "nakade" is *only* the case of *eyeless* clump that is
sufficiently liberty-stealing to potentially win semeai but *not*
sufficiently large that capturing it would result in enough room
for two eyes and leaving it uncaptured would result in seki? Thus 1
in the above diagram is *not* a "nakade" because developing to an
eye violates the "eye in stomach" exclusion while developing to
non-eye clump would be large enough that when captured makes eye
space for black? Thus "nakade" can be defined as any eyeless clump
inside opponent's single eye that is not a large enough clump to
result in seki?