Thickness for 5-dans
John Fairbairn
higher-level players know that the rest of us don't. I think it's fair to
say our conclusions were dispiritingly fuzzy. In other words, we hadn't a
clue and I imagine some of us feel that until Robert Jasiek unveils his
long-promised books (this is the real crisis, Robert!) we are destined to
remain blissfully ignorant.
However, I have bought a new book today, which seems to promise some relief.
Called "A Go Reader for True 5-dans: Playing Thickly" (Jitsuryoku Godan Igo
Dokuhon: Atsuku Utsu; Seibundo; ISBN 4-416-70142-X C0076) it is written by
the editorial staff of the magazine Igo. There has been a small trend
recently for books to be published by such staff in Japan and Korea, and
invariably they are much better than the hack books written or ghosted by
pros.
This book promises to be the same high quality. It begins thus: "Thickness
is a part of thickness," And it tells us that an important skill is to know
how to convert thickness into thickness.
This is a classic case of losing something in translation. I'm pretty
confident that virtually every instance of go atsumi that has been
translated into English as thickness. Ditto every case of atsusa. The
opening sentence above actually says atsumi is a part of atsusa.
The adjective is atsui, root atsu-. In Japanese you can make abstract nouns
from adjectives by adding -mi or -sa. There is, however, a difference. -sa
is more abstract. -mi denotes something rather closer to, but not quite at,
a concrete level. Thus, from takai = high, takami can often be translated as
high place. Similarly, atsumi suggests to a Japanese structures such as
walls, though as this book shows it is wrong to miss out the "such as" (and
also quite wrong to think of it as influence).
So the skill we have to learn is to convert atsumi, which I think most dan
players more or less understand (the book offers the meaning as something
that has no weaknesses), to a more abstract kind of thickness called atsusa.
To help us reach this goal, the book shows examples of atsumi thickness
characteristic of several top players. Amazingly different in each case, and
I'd wager many people wouldn't even class some as thickness at all.
Then, as the conversion process is amply illustrated, it explains the
difference between atsui katachi, atsui gokei and atsui keisei (the
character for katachi and kei is the same = shape). I've only browsed
through the book so far and I haven't got my head round this distinction -
especially gokei. I've never come across this before.
The method of teaching is first to give a preamble for each section talking
about definitions and theory. It seems to be very high level stuff, tersely
written without the usual padding. Then examples (sorry, Robert), but a
notable feature here is that rather than opening or middle game positions
with a few key moves this book gives complete and well annotated games so
that you can see the effects of atsumi evolve fully. My first impression is
that atsusa only becomes truly evident at the endgame stage, so this would
make sense if so.
There are a couple of other books in the same series. One is thinking about
kikashi. The other is on countermeasures against overaggressive players.
This all strikes me as a pretty useful syllabus, and my first impression of
the thickness book is that it sets a new high standard. It goes well beyond
the invaluable Attack and Defence, I suspect. I'd be interested to hear what
other readers think of it. It's probably too advanced to merit translation,
unless a publisher is willing to take the long view.
Bill Taylor
|> It begins thus: "Thickness is a part of thickness,"
|> ...
|> This is a classic case of losing something in translation.
Hah! Yes. But may I suggest it is not so much losing in translation,
as just *poor* translation, (like most "losing-in"s are I expect.
It looks a little like it was translated by someone who didn't
really know the topic too well.
|> The adjective is atsui, root atsu-. In Japanese you can make abstract nouns
|> from adjectives by adding -mi or -sa. There is, however, a difference. -sa
|> is more abstract. -mi denotes something rather closer to, but not quite at,
|> a concrete level.
Nice description! So it might be, then, that a reasonable translation
would have been something like, "solidity is the heart of thickness",
or thereabouts?
|> So the skill we have to learn is to convert atsumi, which I think most dan
|> players more or less understand (the book offers the meaning as something
|> that has no weaknesses), to a more abstract kind of thickness called atsusa.
So that would make sense. Solidity could easily become mere heaviness,
unless it is turned into useful thickness first. No doubt a good proverb
lurks in there!
I seem to recall a Chinese co-proverb:- "First squash your opponent flat,
then suffocate him." Done mostly with judicious peeps, seemingly.
|> The other is on countermeasures against overaggressive players.
Now THAT sounds *really* useful! Something we'd have ample opportunity
to use in Western countries. Specially when playing Koreans... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some moves are merely KYUte, but others are truly DANgerous!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Spight
> |> It begins thus: "Thickness is a part of thickness,"
> |> ...
> |> This is a classic case of losing something in translation.
>
> Hah! Yes. But may I suggest it is not so much losing in translation,
> as just *poor* translation, (like most "losing-in"s are I expect.
> It looks a little like it was translated by someone who didn't
> really know the topic too well.
English is a subtle language, but in this case, conveying the subtle
distinction between "atsusa" and "atsumi" is awkward, particularly as
translating both by the term "thickness" is normally quite sufficient.
Here I think John was having a little fun. If he were translating the
book I doubt if he would use that sentence. ;-)
> Nice description! So it might be, then, that a reasonable translation
> would have been something like, "solidity is the heart of thickness",
> or thereabouts?
>
Solidity, as you point out later, is not the same as thickness. Nor its
heart, either, for that matter. :-)
> |> So the skill we have to learn is to convert atsumi, which I think most dan
> |> players more or less understand (the book offers the meaning as something
> |> that has no weaknesses), to a more abstract kind of thickness called atsusa.
>
> So that would make sense. Solidity could easily become mere heaviness,
> unless it is turned into useful thickness first. No doubt a good proverb
> lurks in there!
I haven't seen the book, but perhaps something of what they mean has to
do with context. Making stones that may have a shape that is normally
considered thick but which do not, in the context of the rest of the
board, play the role of thick stones is not playing thickly. Conversely,
what ordinarily would be thin stones may play the role of thick stones
to some extent, again depending on context. Similarly, ordinarily heavy
stones may be treated lightly, and vice versa. In addition, playing
thickly and lightly are in part matters of attitude.
What if you make a wall and drive your opponent's weak stones towards
it, only to lose the wall in a battle? The ignominy of Wall Death! Maybe
your wall wasn't so thick, right? Or maybe it was. I remember a game in
which I lost 3 walls in such a manner. My opponent was shocked to find
that he had lost the game. Most satisfying. ;-)
Best,
Bill
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> We have had discussions here before about what aspects of go exist that the
> higher-level players know that the rest of us don't.
Did we have them? Most aspects can be understood by kyu players
as well if only they are explained and explained well.
> In other words, we hadn't a
> clue and I imagine some of us feel that until Robert Jasiek unveils his
> long-promised books (this is the real crisis, Robert!) we are destined to
> remain blissfully ignorant.
Crisis, ah that reminds me of Crisis :)
Do you ask for the contents of my books? If I explained it here
in detail, then why should I still publish them? Ok, I give you
a hint:
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . .
. . # . . O . . O .
. . . # . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
A typical joseki book:
"This is joseki. Both groups are settled. Tenuki comes next."
This leaves many aspects unanswered; they are not even mentioned:
- Who has sente? (Black.)
- What is the difference of the numbers of played stones? (Zero.)
- Why is it joseki? (Similar stability, the difference of the
numbers of played stones is zero, etc.)
- Which groups are involved? (One black group consisting of the
three black stones and one white group consisting of the three
white stones.)
- What is the type of the joseki? (It is a joseki where each
player constructs one unconditionally living group, etc.)
- What are the sizes of the territories?
- What are the strategic relations of the joseki?
- Under which strategic circumstances could the joseki be played?
Etc.
This is just a small selection of aspects discussed in my
The Key to Joseki Study books. If you compare it with an ordinary
joseki book like Star Point Joseki, then the first question is
about the only one that is answered. (And Star Point Joseki is
the first book, which I see, to answer this one question more or
less consistently.) So before I even mention my own general
methods of analysis, even the most recent books' theory pales in
comparison.
[Star Point Joseki fills a gap since 4-4 joseki were not properly
covered elsewhere. OTOH, the selection of joseki is still small.
At least some joseki will be new to the reader. A few essential
points of a joseki are summarized like "Black has sente, etc.".]
> However, I have bought a new book today, which seems to promise some relief.
> Called "A Go Reader for True 5-dans: Playing Thickly" (Jitsuryoku Godan Igo
> Dokuhon: Atsuku Utsu; Seibundo; ISBN 4-416-70142-X C0076)
It is a book in Japanese and any translations here are by you?
> The method of teaching is first to give a preamble for each section talking
> about definitions and theory. It seems to be very high level stuff, tersely
> written without the usual padding.
Fine:)
> Then examples (sorry, Robert),
Eh, who said that examples are bad? (I might have said that nothing
but examples is bad.)
> This all strikes me as a pretty useful syllabus, and my first impression of
> the thickness book is that it sets a new high standard. It goes well beyond
> the invaluable Attack and Defence, I suspect.
It seems to go into the right direction, indeed:) What makes it
better than A&D? Do you say so just because it is for dan players
rather than kyu players?
--
robert jasiek
Simon Goss
<...>
>Solidity could easily become mere heaviness
<...>
I wish our English terminology helped us better to distinguish between
clumsy (of shape) and burdensome (of groups we don't want to sacrifice
but have to invest purely defensive moves to look after). People use
"heavy" for both, of course, but they're quite different ideas. A dango
that you can afford to sacrifice isn't heavy in the latter sense. A
group that has no obvious bad shape may be heavy in the latter sense if
it can't be sacrificed and looking after it is a burden.
Clumsy shape is a tactical concept; burdensome is a strategic one. There
is some correlation between them, but it's loose one. Using "heavy" for
both meanings is confusing.
--
Simon
Charles Matthews
Good debating point.
(i) It is very helpful to those learning the game to name mistakes.
Overplays have something in common with each other, heavy plays, thin plays
and so on are mistakes we name in order to be able to refer to whole
clusters of errors.
(ii) When the level of sophistication in discussion gets higher - suitable
for dan players - you can subdivide mistakes again in order to be clearer
about the point being made. So "overplay" has subtypes 'one line too deep
gets capped', 'second weak group in one area' etc.
(iii) Simon would like two aspects of heavy play to be decoupled in the
terminology. There is a snag or two. The correlation is there on the level
of tewari. Some heavy groups cannot be sacrificed as a way of cutting
losses, because too many (net) plays have gone into them and one is
committed to getting something out. This links the clumsy shape and
burdensome aspects.
Something about this that has only recently come to my attention, as a
systematic error in my own game. There is a sense in which key cutting
stones are always heavy, whatever their shape. They are not stones that can
be sacrificed during the middlegame fighting, in general (if they were,
'key' would be a misnomer). You have to defend them. No strategic or
tactical mistake need be involved, of course. Where I have fallen down in
the past, according to strong players, is in not playing down towards the
edge on the third or second line to make a decisive separation of the
opponent's groups. *Looks* heavy, perhaps, and is slow and burdensome - but
can be on a vital point. That is, one ought sometimes so to get committed.
Charles
Rafael Caetano
> However, I have bought a new book today, which seems to promise some relief.
> Called "A Go Reader for True 5-dans: Playing Thickly" (Jitsuryoku Godan Igo
> Dokuhon: Atsuku Utsu; Seibundo; ISBN 4-416-70142-X C0076) it is written by
> the editorial staff of the magazine Igo. There has been a small trend
John, what is the public for this book in your opinion?
It seems that Japanese 5-dan is equivalent to European 3 or 4-dan, right?
Anyway, "for 5-dans only" seems too narrow a range.
> This is a classic case of losing something in translation. I'm pretty
> confident that virtually every instance of go atsumi that has been
> translated into English as thickness. Ditto every case of atsusa. The
> opening sentence above actually says atsumi is a part of atsusa.
I wonder how is "atsumi/atsusa" usually translated into French. Since
there's already quite a few go books in French, I hope they've fixed
a term for it.
Same for Spanish and Portuguese.
BTW, any Portuguese players reading this newsgroup?
bye,
Rafael Caetano <rcaetano7 at yahoo.com>
Barry Phease
<si...@gosoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I wish our English terminology helped us better to distinguish between
>clumsy (of shape) and burdensome (of groups we don't want to sacrifice
>but have to invest purely defensive moves to look after).
I don't think this problem is confined to English. I think that a
heavy shape (eg dango) and heavy group (burdensome) use the same words
(commonly) in Chinese and Japanese too. It is possible to distinguish
them, but there is a very strong overlap.
"Light" has a similar range of meanings.
Barry Phease
John Fairbairn
news:94a6da7.01121...@posting.google.com...
>
> John, what is the public for this book in your opinion?
> It seems that Japanese 5-dan is equivalent to European 3 or 4-dan, right?
>
> Anyway, "for 5-dans only" seems too narrow a range.
>
It is very easy to be glib about J 5d = E 3d, in the same way that every man
and his dog rubbishes every Japanese book by a pro as by a ghost writer.
Often true, but far from always. The title of the book specifies "true"
5-dans of which there are many in Japan. Of course people of lower grades
can get much from this book, but as it assumes a certain level of technique
I think you'd have to be a solid dan player to get much from it.
To answer another question - of course it's in Japanese. It's only just
appeared and there is no translation.
A further, very good, point raised was the value of "decoupling" certain
terms, especially for discussions among dan players. It is obvious to me
that many basic terms are not understood in the west in remotely the same
way as in the east. That is not necessarily a handicap, but I think it can
be mind expanding to try to understand the different approaches. In the
present case, given that one characteristic of western thought is to make
things as concrete as possible, you will hear western players say things,
"White has profit but Black has lots of thickness," treating thickness as a
quantifiable mass noun (to use a linguistics term). Not only would it be
very unusual for a Japanese to use a quantity word like this - a quick
riffle of the book in question elicits no examples - they are so much more
comfortable with purely abstract nouns that they have two here: atsumi and
atsusa.
Because westerners are often more comfortable with concretisation, they tend
to think of thickness as influence (which is seiryoku). This, in my
experience, is a mistake more characteristic of the kyu player. Dan players
seem to have acquired at least some understanding of thick play, but to my
eye their thinking generally seems too rigid. For example, they will regard
a solid connection at a cutting point as thick play, but not so a knight's
move connection. The keima can in fact be a perfectly valid thick play - you
have to look beyond the connection to the group as a whole. I think this
rigidity is behind the problem that Simon Goss identifies in avoiding
heaviness.
I haven't had time to look at more of the book yet, and even when I do I may
not comment further, but if you want to take your own thinking a bit
further, the following game is given as a classic of thick play (by Black),
and there's barely a wall or solid connection in sight. The moves
that are mentioned as especially thick are: 1-3-5 in combination, 11
(because it denies scope to White), 33 (especially - a connoisseur's move),
the sequence 29-35, 37 (starts utilisation of atsusa (nb not atsumi)), 51
onwards, White 76 (trying to utilise his atsumi (nb not atsusa) to the
left), 77 etc., 91.
The game is courtesy of GoGoD.
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[Murase Shuho]
PB[Honinbo Shuwa]
DT[1871-06-22 (Meiji 4 V 5)]
PC[Residence of Maki Ryutaro]
KM[0]
OH[B-B-(W)]
RE[B+R]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[cp];W[po];B[dc];W[eq];B[qd];W[oc];B[de];W[qh];B[pe];W[pq];B[do];W[iq]
;B[lc];W[cj];B[nd];W[pl];B[ch];W[cn];B[dn];W[cm];B[dm];W[dl];B[el];W[dk]
;B[gq];W[io];B[go];W[bq];B[bp];W[cq];B[er];W[dr];B[fr];W[br];B[gl];W[aq]
;B[ko];W[kq];B[km];W[im];B[hn];W[in];B[kk];W[ll];B[kl];W[ik];B[hl];W[il]
;B[ki];W[ii];B[lp];W[lq];B[mp];W[mq];B[np];W[oq];B[qj];W[pj];B[qk];W[pk]
;B[ql];W[qi];B[qm];W[on];B[ro];W[rp];B[qo];W[qp];B[pn];W[oo];B[sp];W[pm]
;B[qn];W[sq];B[so];W[lg];B[mh];W[mg];B[nh];W[ng];B[mj];W[lh];B[li];W[oh]
;B[oi];W[pi];B[ml];W[mn];B[ln];W[mm];B[lm];W[fp];B[gp];W[fk];B[hr];W[fo]
;B[fn];W[fl];B[fq];W[mb];B[pc];W[od];B[oe];W[md];B[mc];W[nc];B[ne];W[lb]
;B[kc]
)
John Fairbairn
that the comment on 33 below refers to a similar but different game between
the same two players. An move unmentioned here that was highlighted as
important for thickness was 41.
John Fairbairn
example of thick play, Black 33. It is not given in the book in question
except for the opening moves.
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[Murase Shuho]
PB[Honinbo Shuwa]
DT[1871-06-22 (Meiji 4 V 5)]
PC[Shimuzu mansion, Nagoya]
KM[0]
OH[B-B-(W)]
RE[B+6 (moves beyond 131 not known)]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[cp];W[pq];B[dc];W[eq];B[qd];W[ce];B[od];W[po];B[do];W[ci];B[qj];W[ql]
;B[ed];W[jc];B[lc];W[gc];B[hq];W[cr];B[fp];W[fq];B[gp];W[bq];B[oj];W[oh]
;B[qh];W[je];B[le];W[qc];B[pc];W[rd];B[rc];W[mh];B[pf];W[bc];B[gd];W[hd]
;B[ge];W[fc];B[df];W[cf];B[dg];W[cg];B[he];W[id];B[dh];W[jg];B[lq];W[hh]
;B[fh];W[rk];B[rj];W[ol];B[mj];W[kh];B[nq];W[cj];B[fj];W[dl];B[fl];W[oq]
;B[np];W[ik];B[gr];W[fr];B[li];W[lh];B[ji];W[ml];B[ih];W[ig];B[hi];W[kl]
;B[kn];W[im];B[in];W[jm];B[jn];W[kb];B[lb];W[or];B[lm];W[mk];B[on];W[oo]
;B[nn];W[pn];B[cq];W[br];B[cm];W[cl];B[dm];W[ls];B[mr];W[ms];B[ns];W[nr]
;B[ks];W[os];B[lr];W[ns];B[jr];W[gm];B[hg];W[hf];B[gg];W[la];B[ma];W[ka]
;B[nb];W[sj];B[si];W[sk];B[qi];W[nf];B[me];W[cb];B[db];W[eb];B[bm];W[bl]
;B[al];W[ak];B[am];W[bj];B[da];W[bo];B[bp];W[ap];B[fn];W[co];B[dp]
)
Bill Spight
> There are a couple of other books in the same series. One is thinking about
> kikashi. The other is on countermeasures against overaggressive players.
>
Another is on countermeasures against large moyo. Another is about
difficult kos. And another is about real game life and death in the
corners.
A good series, I think. :-)
Best,
Bill
Bill Spight
> It is obvious to me
> that many basic terms are not understood in the west in remotely the same
> way as in the east. That is not necessarily a handicap, but I think it can
> be mind expanding to try to understand the different approaches. In the
> present case, given that one characteristic of western thought is to make
> things as concrete as possible, you will hear western players say things,
> "White has profit but Black has lots of thickness," treating thickness as a
> quantifiable mass noun (to use a linguistics term). Not only would it be
> very unusual for a Japanese to use a quantity word like this - a quick
> riffle of the book in question elicits no examples - they are so much more
> comfortable with purely abstract nouns that they have two here: atsumi and
> atsusa.
>
> Because westerners are often more comfortable with concretisation, they tend
> to think of thickness as influence (which is seiryoku).
Oh, I don't know about that. Plenty of people think that Western thought
is more abstract, Eastern thought more concrete and metaphorical. ;-)
I am not familiar with the go literature in English. When I was learning
the game, there were only a handful of books in English. It is much
broader today, but I suspect that a good part of the lack of subtlety in
regard to "thickness", for example, in Western thinking has to do with
seeing only certain features and plays described as "thick", and that
the main reason for that is the relative paucity of go books in English.
As more material is translated and more Westerners see more plays and
shapes described as "thick", understanding will grow. :-)
Best,
Bill
Robert Jasiek
> Another is on countermeasures against large moyo. Another is about
> difficult kos. And another is about real game life and death in the
> corners.
>
> A good series, I think. :-)
What are the correct ISBN, please? Is there a series ISBN, too?
Best,
--
robert jasiek
Dieter Verhofstadt
Dear Bill and John,
Although a high degree of accuracy in translating Japanese terms is
desirable and probably the best way to enhance our understanding of
the concepts involved, proper translation and thorough understanding
are not synonyms. I mean, even if we haven't yet found a nice English
counterpart for each subtlety in French erotic literature, that should
not prevent us from making love, or, for those who are bad at doing
it, from discussing it, don't you think ?
Dieter
Rafael Caetano
> > John, what is the public for this book in your opinion?
> > It seems that Japanese 5-dan is equivalent to European 3 or 4-dan, right?
> >
> > Anyway, "for 5-dans only" seems too narrow a range.
>
> It is very easy to be glib about J 5d = E 3d, in the same way that every man
> and his dog rubbishes every Japanese book by a pro as by a ghost writer.
John, you seem to be implying that my comment was derrogatory.
I just made an observation (or rather, a question) about the relative
difference between European and Japanese ranks, that's all.
AFAIK, top amateur players are usually graded 6-dan in Europe, while
in Japan they would be 7 or 8-dan. Of course this doesn't mean that
European players are stronger. It's just a different scale.
Yes, I know there are some European 7-dans. But they are all
ex-inseis
or ex-pros, right? Well, any corrections are welcome.
> Often true, but far from always. The title of the book specifies "true"
> 5-dans of which there are many in Japan.
It's not a question of "true" or "false" 5-dans. I wasn't alluding
to the fact that many Japanese players "buy" their ranks, if that's
what you mean.
It's a simple question of different scales. If my assumption is
correct, even the "true" 5-dans in Japan would be substantially weaker
than European 5-dans, generally speaking.
> Of course people of lower grades
> can get much from this book, but as it assumes a certain level of technique
> I think you'd have to be a solid dan player to get much from it.
OK, do you consider yourself a "solid dan player"? :-)
bye,
Rafael
John Fairbairn
> is more abstract, Eastern thought more concrete and metaphorical. ;-)
>
> I am not familiar with the go literature in English. When I was learning
> the game, there were only a handful of books in English. It is much
> broader today, but I suspect that a good part of the lack of subtlety in
> regard to "thickness", for example, in Western thinking has to do with
> seeing only certain features and plays described as "thick", and that
> the main reason for that is the relative paucity of go books in English.
> As more material is translated and more Westerners see more plays and
> shapes described as "thick", understanding will grow. :-)
I disagree with Bill on both points but refuse to be drawn on the former as
it is one of those topics that is best left dinner parties. On the other I
disagree for two main reasons. (1) I think Bill is overlooking the vast
output of (English) Go World, though I'd have to concede that too few people
buy and support it. (2) The Japanese miss its subtleties too. That is part
of the point of the book in question.
On further browsing I have found it not just an interesting but a very
intelligently written book. It makes the point (once, modestly) that it is a
new treatment. Although done with the greatest respect, it dumps the
traditional treatments of thickness into an appendix. It quotes there at
length from Kojien (an equivalent of OED/Websters) on the general meanings
of atsui, and also at length from the Encyclopaedia of Go by Hayashi Yutaka.
Although the go historian non pareil, Hayashi was not a strong player and
his explanations of atsui and the various associated terms (teatsui, atsumi,
atsugaru etc) cover what you see in a typical hack go book aimed at mainly
kyu players. The present book ignores all of this and follows its own
agenda. It does not say, but I am pretty certain that what we are seeing is
a description of the way pros talk about thickness among themselves - the
authors would certainly be part of their milieu and would all be superstrong
amateurs.
A confusing topic thus has the potential to become more confusing, though
one of the many virtues of the present book is that it does not confuse. If
we need to distinguish, I'd suggest (a little glibly) talking about kyu
thickness and pro thickness. But that's a different topic - revenons a nos
moutons.
I give the second game in the book below (this part of the book is just
setting the scene by showing classic examples of playing thickly). You will
see in the lower left a white structure that any kyu player would recognise
as thickness. Yet this book does not mention it except as a glancing
reference later in the game. The early part of the game is copiously
annotated, but the discussion is on the lines of to moyo or not to moyo.
Indeed, apart from the title, the the first reference to thickness is after
move 55, and there's virtually no reference beyond that. What it says after
55 is that White is now behind in actual profit but will now start to catch
up by exploiting his atsusa. I'd suggest that until this book came along,
anyone (me certainly) would have translated this as something like: White
will use his thickness to catch up, and I would have had firmly in mind the
White wall in the lower left. But I now maintain that the correct
translation should be something like: White will use his **later/future**
thickness (or maybe another word such as solidity) to catch up. As
confirmation of this, the wall is mentioned glancingly a little later as the
atsumi (not atsusa) in the centre. The title refers to "unbeatable atsusa".
You will see from the game that atsusa can't refer to the wall alone as it
hardly gets involved in the game. Incidentally the process of moving from
atsumi to atsusa seems to ivolve at least two closely related sub-processes
mentioned in this game: making surplus profit from attacking (nb not just
profit, but extra, which is presumably why this whole topic is also closely
related to amashi strategy) and ijime or teasing. This word ijime is
extraordinarily common but never seems to have been picked up as a topic
before. It's a kyu level one on its own but seems to be lacking in the
syllabus here as an identifiable skill.
In view of the general lack of interest in this thread, this will be the
last posting from me, but I felt I had to offer a follow-up to the few
diehards whose interest I had piqued.
PSl. Since I keep nagging Robert about the non-appearance of his books,
fairness demands that we all press Bill to get on with *his* eagerly awaited
tome.
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[Takagawa Kaku]
WR[7d]
PB[Hashimoto Utaro]
BR[8d]
EV[7th Honinbo Final]
RO[Game 4]
DT[1952-08-06,07]
PC[Echiro, Toyama City, Toyama Pref.]
KM[4.5]
RE[W+3.5]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[nc];W[pp];B[dq];W[co];B[dl];W[fo];B[gp];W[go];B[fp];W[ho]
;B[eo];W[en];B[dn];W[do];B[ep];W[dm];B[cn];W[cm];B[bn];W[em];B[bo];W[hp]
;B[pj];W[ql];B[or];W[pq];B[lq];W[gc];B[ol];W[pn];B[pl];W[rk];B[qm];W[qi]
;B[pm];W[qf];B[on];W[nq];B[nr];W[mo];B[pr];W[rm];B[po];W[ro];B[qo];W[rp]
;B[pf];W[pg];B[pe];W[og];B[kc];W[ce];B[di];W[fi];B[cg];W[bm];B[eg];W[gg]
;B[ee];W[ed];B[ck];W[ek];B[kp];W[kn];B[lk];W[kk];B[kj];W[jj];B[lj];W[bi]
;B[bf];W[bk];B[bh];W[ci];B[ch];W[df];B[ef];W[bd];B[dg];W[eh];B[gf];W[jc]
;B[jb];W[ib];B[kb];W[fg];B[cc];W[bc];B[de];W[be];B[ic];W[hb];B[ge];W[ji]
;B[kl];W[jk];B[km];W[jn];B[fc];W[fb];B[dj];W[cj];B[dh];W[dk];B[ai];W[cl]
;B[if];W[re];B[rd];W[jg];B[hr];W[hq];B[gr];W[mq];B[mr];W[jq];B[qq];W[qp]
;B[rq];W[mm];B[ml];W[ir];B[sq];W[sd];B[sc];W[se];B[rc];W[nm];B[qj];W[rj]
;B[pi];W[ph];B[ni];W[jf];B[ie];W[ig];B[ke];W[lf];B[jp];W[jm];B[fd];W[ec]
;B[ne];W[rn];B[qn];W[kr];B[lr];W[gq];B[fq];W[bp];B[cp];W[an];B[dp];W[ao]
;B[bq];W[gd];B[fe];W[jd];B[je];W[id];B[hd];W[hc];B[he];W[db];B[ng];W[rg]
;B[qk];W[rl];B[of];W[mh];B[qh];W[ri];B[oh];W[qg];B[mg];W[lg];B[lh];W[li]
;B[kh];W[ki];B[mi];W[ap];B[aq];W[am];B[kd];W[ic];B[aj];W[le];B[ld];W[jh]
;B[nh];W[fr];B[er];W[ip];B[ks];W[js];B[ls];W[kq];B[lo];W[ln];B[nl];W[jl]
;B[ll];W[me];B[md];W[hs];B[fs];W[ja];B[ka];W[ia];B[ei];W[fh];B[hg];W[hh]
;B[ej];W[fj];B[sp];W[af];B[ag];W[ae];B[cf];W[ak];B[so];W[sn];B[jo];W[io]
;B[nn];W[mp];B[lp];W[oq];B[no];W[mf];B[hf]
)
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> PSl. Since I keep nagging Robert about the non-appearance of his books,
> fairness demands that we all press Bill to get on with *his* eagerly awaited
> tome.
BTW, what is your next project and, Charles, when is SU! going to
appear and, Ríchard, what about LCW?:)
--
robert jasiek
Louise Bremner
> In view of the general lack of interest in this thread, this will be the
> last posting from me....
Please don't stop. As a (somewhat bemused) possessor of a genuine Nihon
Kiin 5-dan diploma, I'm wondering how I can get to justify its
possession outside of the limited groups I play in. But I don't feel I
can contribute anything constructive to this thread, myself.
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Jackie & Barry
John Fairbairn wrote:
> In view of the general lack of interest in this thread, this will be the
> last posting from me, but I felt I had to offer a follow-up to the few
> diehards whose interest I had piqued.
Lots of us are interested, we're just sitting quietly, listening to the
teachers.
I think of thickness in two ways. Firstly in the "local" sense of
"power" or "influence", as in the "wall". There is a crude strength that
makes white's wall strong.
In this case, the enemy is thick here, don't approach him.
Secondly, there is the more subtle (?) "global" sense of stones that are
secure, yet not tucked away in the corners & sides.
In this case, the enemy is thick everywhere, approach him or lose.
It seems that it is in the second sense that white has thickness as
discussed in the game you presented.
Black is "forced" into dealing with white in regions where white has the
advantage of overall security and black is necessarily far from home
base.
Barry
Dan Schmidt
| In view of the general lack of interest in this thread, this will be the
| last posting from me, but I felt I had to offer a follow-up to the few
| diehards whose interest I had piqued.
I'm sure a lot of people, like me, are very interested in the subject
but feel they have little to offer to the thread.
John Fairbairn
"Robert Jasiek" <jas...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:3C19308E...@snafu.de...
Thank you for the excellent lead-in, Robert! As you know GoGoD is a BIG
running project, and the next update will be available at the London Open.
Over 60MB of data now. (PS for you - it contains the Magic Sword now).
John Fairbairn
"Jackie & Barry" <here...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:3C193456...@mts.net...
>
>
> Secondly, there is the more subtle (?) "global" sense of stones that are
> secure, yet not tucked away in the corners & sides.
>
Barry, you are on the path to greatness! This is one of the messages of the
book.
John Fairbairn
"Dan Schmidt" <df...@harmonixmusic.com> wrote in message
news:wku1uua...@turangalila.harmonixmusic.com...
I phrased that badly. I know LOTS of people are **interested**, but I meant
lack of a certain type of response. Occasionally I would like to learn
something myself too. So it's not me that you need to plead to. It's all
those STRONG players out there you need to badger. I know they are lurking
there but they never come down from Olympus to scatter a few words of
wisdom.
This is a wider problem than r.g.g. of course. I believe one of the prime
reasons for revamping the British championship rules recently was to punish
those strong players who only ever turn up for prestigious events and give
nothing back to the game in other ways. Even when they do turn up they never
offer comments between games. It was felt (I think) that at the very least
they should be made to give other players the chance to play them
occasionally.
Even a busy guy like Cho Chikun gives something back off the board. He
recently let a bunch of youngsters come to live with him for six months, not
as actual pupils but as a sort of holiday camp. (One father did not want to
let his son go but said when Cho Chikun makes an offer like that, what can
you say?)
Bob Myers
between the points John discusses about "atsumi/atsusa", and the common use
of the word "atsui" in Japanese go (perhaps more among pros than amateurs?)
to simply mean "ahead/winning".
--
Bob Myers
Bill Taylor
|> > Secondly, there is the more subtle (?) "global" sense of stones that are
|> > secure, yet not tucked away in the corners & sides.
|>
|> Barry, you are on the path to greatness! This one of the messages of the book.
Good for Barry! But I would like perhaps a little elaboration of this point,
as it seems an important one.
My first reaction to Barry's comment was that stones can indeed be secure,
though in the centre-ish of the board.
It struck me that this is (standardly known to be) possible in two ways,
either by having good shape (internal, local, tactical), or a connection
to the centre (external, global, strategic).
But JF's remark seems to suggest that there is (a lot?) more to it than that.
Can JF (or elseone) expand on this please?
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
/ /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/_ _
/ / / ___/ / / / / /
/ /____/_/####\__/____/____/____/____/_ _
/ / / \####/ / / / / /
/ /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/_ _
/ / / / / / / / /
/ /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/_ _
/ / / / ___/ / / / /
/ /____/____/_/####\__/____/____/____/_ _
/ / / / \####/ / ___/_ / /
/ /____/____/____/____/_/. . .\_/____/_ _
/ / / / / / \_____// /
/ /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/_ _
/ / / / / / / / /
/ /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/_ _
/_________________________________________ _
|
| Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
|_________________________________________ _
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> I phrased that badly. I know LOTS of people are **interested**, but I meant
> lack of a certain type of response. Occasionally I would like to learn
> something myself too. So it's not me that you need to plead to. It's all
> those STRONG players out there you need to badger. I know they are lurking
> there but they never come down from Olympus to scatter a few words of
> wisdom.
I know that you would not mean me here since I do occasionally open
my mouth:) Nevertheless, maybe you do not mind if I add yet a few
further words.
Unfortunately, I have not studied thickness with the same eagerness
as the authors of that book yet. OTOH, they seem to study it in a
rather broad sense that also includes thick shape, securely connected
shape, and stable living shape. In a strict sense I would have called
neither of these nor influence alone "thickness". I use these
concepts but not under the collective term thickness. So to some
extent it seems more a matter of terminology to recognize thickness.
The book seems to go even further in its broad usage by including all
sorts of using thickness strategically. Needless to say, every dan
player knows something here but hardly anybody would have developed
a well researched overview of possible strategies respecting
particular subtypes of thickness. Does the book describe such
valuable analysis? Do the other books in the series provide similar
coverage for their topics?
> I believe one of the prime
> reasons for revamping the British championship rules recently was to punish
> those strong players who only ever turn up for prestigious events and give
> nothing back to the game in other ways.
Was has been done to the rules?
--
robert jasiek
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
> This is a wider problem than r.g.g. of course. I believe one of the prime
> reasons for revamping the British championship rules recently was to
punish
> those strong players who only ever turn up for prestigious events and give
> nothing back to the game in other ways.
A favorite off-topic topic of mine. Well, the unique British 5 dan who
played in the championship this year literally hadn't played in competition
since the previous year's one - so doesn't work, does it? Actually the
system bears down far too hard on the upcoming 1 kyus and 1 dans, who given
the grade deflation we are experiencing are deprived of a Swiss in which
they actually could play some stronger players in the early rounds.
Charles
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
> You will see from the game that atsusa can't refer to the wall alone as it
> hardly gets involved in the game.
Isn't that a bit misleading? I'd say W54 creates a typical White-strategy
framework - and if Black really has to try to live on the right side rather
than push in from outside, White has a natural-looking strategy going for
attack. I guess we're trying to put our finger on a typical 'phase
transition' (around 88 in this game); and I suppose my question would be,
how does it compare with the normal one at the start of the oyose (after
which no big group should die)?
>Incidentally the process of moving from
> atsumi to atsusa seems to ivolve at least two closely related
sub-processes
> mentioned in this game: making surplus profit from attacking (nb not just
> profit, but extra, which is presumably why this whole topic is also
closely
> related to amashi strategy) and ijime or teasing. This word ijime is
> extraordinarily common but never seems to have been picked up as a topic
> before. It's a kyu level one on its own but seems to be lacking in the
> syllabus here as an identifiable skill.
Two complementary terms that come to mind:
'dangling', ie letting yourself have a weak group that could be attacked
(amashi strategy) but in a way wrong for your opponent's good direction of
play (don't chase into your own framework);
'bull-fighting', the art of leaving gaps your opponent is best advised not
to rush into (the diagonal jump is a prime example).
I believe players stronger than me do use these kind of teases as a matter
of course.
Charles
John Fairbairn
"Bob Myers" <r...@gol.REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:5ecS7.3596$NL4.58...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
This usage looms large in the Thickness book (as atsui keisei). An important
point of which even graduates in Japanese are often unaware is that most
Japanese adjectives carry within them an element of comparison. Such people
would translate atsui in the above context as thick. Bob's translation
rightly shows the true meaning as thicker, and in pro talk and the context
of this book I think it means has more atsusa, not atsumi (i.e. better
prospects for acquiring extra points in the endgame).
Simon Goss
>Unfortunately, I have not studied thickness with the same eagerness
>as the authors of that book yet. OTOH, they seem to study it in a
>rather broad sense that also includes thick shape, securely connected
>shape, and stable living shape. In a strict sense I would have called
>neither of these nor influence alone "thickness". I use these
>concepts but not under the collective term thickness. So to some
>extent it seems more a matter of terminology to recognize thickness.
>The book seems to go even further in its broad usage by including all
>sorts of using thickness strategically. Needless to say, every dan
>player knows something here but hardly anybody would have developed
>a well researched overview of possible strategies respecting
>particular subtypes of thickness. Does the book describe such
>valuable analysis? Do the other books in the series provide similar
>coverage for their topics?
AIUY, Robert, what you're talking about here is still thick *shape* and
its strategic use. You're talking about "subtypes" ("thick shape,
securely connected shape, stable living shape") but these are all
variations on one idea.
From what John has been saying, it seems that the new (to us) idea must
be quite a lot broader than that - something roughly along the lines of
an overall, whole-board deployment that is, in some sense that we're all
groping to understand, "thick".
It's worth paying very close attention to the annotations John gave to
the first game he showed (the Shuho-Shuwa game in John's reply to
Rafael). There are some initial clues in there.
For just one example, at move 37 John observed "starts utilisation of
atsusa (nb not atsumi)". It's not too difficult for us to see that Black
37 et seq is the kind of thing we like to have thickness elsewhere in
order to do. That is to say, starting a fight in one place in order to
exploit thickness in another is about the best-known strategy for
utilising thickness. But what is the nature of the "atsusa" of Black's
global position just before move 37 in this game? It doesn't look much
like the kinds of thing we've been shown as examples of thickness up
till now.
Regards,
--
Simon
Charles Matthews
Simon Goss wrote
> From what John has been saying, it seems that the new (to us) idea must
> be quite a lot broader than that - something roughly along the lines of
> an overall, whole-board deployment that is, in some sense that we're all
> groping to understand, "thick".
Well, yes. At the risk of (re-)stating the obvious, we have to grapple with
process - winning a position that is 'won' by the standards of strong
players. Terminology in Japanese can only help so far (even if we are fully
up with parts-of-speech implications, as JF would like us to be).
Now, is what is being said that you have to learn to split the difference
between early influence and the start of the endgame? To get to a position
where competently-conducted fighting can't go badly? That would be
interesting, certainly.
How would it relate to Takemiya-style influence play, which tends to a
miasma of a late middlegame? I suspect it is saying something contrasting,
because it is more about fixed rather than mobile shape (?), but with some
points of contact, too (?).
Charles
Bill Spight
John Fairbairn wrote:
>
> "Bob Myers" <r...@gol.REMOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:5ecS7.3596$NL4.58...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > I would be interested in hearing anyone's comments on the relationship
> > between the points John discusses about "atsumi/atsusa", and the common
> use
> > of the word "atsui" in Japanese go (perhaps more among pros than
> amateurs?)
> > to simply mean "ahead/winning".
> >
If Bob is referring to material in English, then indeed the term "thick"
has been used in its full range in English go literature. If it has not
been, then how could the readers of that literature (and not the
Japanese literature) have a proper understanding of the term?
I do not agree that it simply means "ahead/winning", although it conveys
that connotation. It refers to the quality of the player's overall
position, which confers an advantage.
>
> This usage looms large in the Thickness book (as atsui keisei). An important
> point of which even graduates in Japanese are often unaware is that most
> Japanese adjectives carry within them an element of comparison.
Really? I was taught that in the first semester.
> Such people
> would translate atsui in the above context as thick. Bob's translation
> rightly shows the true meaning as thicker, and in pro talk and the context
> of this book I think it means has more atsusa, not atsumi (i.e. better
> prospects for acquiring extra points in the endgame).
Yes, more atsusa. :-)
A related concept, I think, is "ni no ya" (second arrow). Plays with
good followups or threats (second arrows) are usually preferable to
comparable plays without them. In general, one's thin positions are full
of threats for the opponent, one's thick positions are full of one's own
threats.
One idea that is well known to Western chess players is that plays that
combine threats are very strong. It is difficult or impossible to
protect against all of them. Thick positions are more likely to engender
such plays. (I think it would be easy to apply the terms, "thick" and
"thin" to chess. :-))
Best,
Bill
Robert Jasiek
Simon Goss wrote:
> AIUY, Robert, what you're talking about here is still thick *shape* and
> its strategic use.
I also but not only talk about thick shape and its usage.
> You're talking about "subtypes" ("thick shape,
> securely connected shape, stable living shape") but these are all
> variations on one idea.
That's what you say:) Do you suggest that these are subtypes of
thickness? One might say so but I don't, simply because I use
the term thickness differently. I use it in a strict sense of
"accumulated thick shape which radiates influence", i.e. a wall
facing a more a less open outside. A wall or a living group visually
hidden by opposing stones may be used like some sort of weaker
thickness, however, I would call a hidden wall "securely connected
shape" and a hidden living group "stable living shape". If such a
shape is tightly hidden in a corner, then there is no point in
calling it thickness. Otherwise one might call it thickness,
however, for the sake of my own terminology I don't; only on a
level of strategic usage I might consider "can be used as if it
were weak thickness". As I say, it is all a matter of personal
terminology. My preference is to distingish shapes that form
thickness from shapes that resemble thickness and thickness from
usage or transformation of thickness. Parts of John's translation
attempts are caused by getting such distinctions right, I guess.
What the book in question really offers as new detailed insight
is still unclear. John seems to say that it offers quite a lot
but what exactly?
--
robert jasiek
Bill Spight
Bill:
> > Oh, I don't know about that. Plenty of people think that Western thought
> > is more abstract, Eastern thought more concrete and metaphorical. ;-)
> >
> > I am not familiar with the go literature in English. When I was learning
> > the game, there were only a handful of books in English. It is much
> > broader today, but I suspect that a good part of the lack of subtlety in
> > regard to "thickness", for example, in Western thinking has to do with
> > seeing only certain features and plays described as "thick", and that
> > the main reason for that is the relative paucity of go books in English.
> > As more material is translated and more Westerners see more plays and
> > shapes described as "thick", understanding will grow. :-)
>
John:
> I disagree with Bill on both points but refuse to be drawn on the former as
> it is one of those topics that is best left dinner parties.
I once believed that, but that was before I took a class in Chinese
philosophy taught by a Chinese philosopher. ;-) But I do not believe
that the Japanese are more at home with abstractions than English
speakers, either. :-) (Actually, both languages have been greatly
enriched by the infusion of a great many words from another language,
French in the case of English and Chinese in the case of Japanese. And
now Japanese is incorporating a great deal of English, -- with a twist,
of course. ;-))
> On the other I
> disagree for two main reasons. (1) I think Bill is overlooking the vast
> output of (English) Go World, though I'd have to concede that too few people
> buy and support it.
As I said in another post, if the English literature includes the use of
"thick" to describe the overall board position, then my impression is
wrong. If it does not, then those whose go reading is confined to that
literature simply have no basis for a full understanding of the term.
> (2) The Japanese miss its subtleties too. That is part
> of the point of the book in question.
I wasn't referring to anything subtle, just common usage. :-)
Best,
Bill
Bobby Six
news:1008326668.9376.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
(snip)
> Two complementary terms that come to mind:
>
> 'dangling', ie letting yourself have a weak group that could be attacked
> (amashi strategy) but in a way wrong for your opponent's good direction of
> play (don't chase into your own framework);
>
> 'bull-fighting', the art of leaving gaps your opponent is best advised not
> to rush into (the diagonal jump is a prime example).
>
> I believe players stronger than me do use these kind of teases as a matter
> of course.
I recognise these as well. There's also 'head-banging' which is having a solid
group
towards the centre of the board. As played against me by A Strong Player, it
seems to involve driving your opponents stones towards the a solid group in the
centre of the board
not to capture them but to neutralise moyos (I'm an inveterate san-rensei moyo
builder)
--
Posted from [164.36.142.217]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Bill Spight
> Indeed, apart from the title, the the first reference to thickness is after
> move 55, and there's virtually no reference beyond that. What it says after
> 55 is that White is now behind in actual profit but will now start to catch
> up by exploiting his atsusa. I'd suggest that until this book came along,
> anyone (me certainly) would have translated this as something like: White
> will use his thickness to catch up, and I would have had firmly in mind the
> White wall in the lower left. But I now maintain that the correct
> translation should be something like: White will use his **later/future**
> thickness (or maybe another word such as solidity) to catch up.
How about "overall thickness"?
> As
> confirmation of this, the wall is mentioned glancingly a little later as the
> atsumi (not atsusa) in the centre. The title refers to "unbeatable atsusa".
> You will see from the game that atsusa can't refer to the wall alone as it
> hardly gets involved in the game.
I beg your pardon. It is intimately involved with White plays 56, 58,
60, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 82, 88, 96, 98, 100, 104, 106, 108,
112, 114, 118, 122, 136, 138, 152, 154, and 156, and less directly
connected to other plays. It plays a major role in the development of
the game.
At the same time, I agree that "atsusa" does not refer to the wall. It
refers to White's whole position. But the thickness is not something
that develops later. It is already there. And it isn't just solidity.
Solidity can be heavy, or simply slow, lukewarm, or passive.
Best,
Bill
John Fairbairn
scene-setting games of the Thickness book with a few notes. I gave two so
far, plus the full version of one that was cross-referenced. This part
occupies about a third of the book and gives five games. I must say I find
them very well annotated but I am only mentioning here the references to
thickness and the odd extra related theme.
Part 2 is called "Various types of thickness" and appears to take up from
Part 1, which - as I see it - is about demolishing existing preconceptions,
but is too cleverly written to say so as brutally as I do.
Part 2 appears to be much more than listing definitions, but starts to
construct a new theory.
The three types identified are: (1) Atsui katachi - thick shape, and this
concentrates on josekis but also gives a fascinating look at different ways
different players (Takemiya, Takagawa, Kato, Otake, Fujisawa) use to
implement it; (2) Atsui gokei - thick go shapes, which seems to be the most
revolutionary part; (3) Atsui keisei - thick, countable positions, this
being largely the usage referred to by Bob Myers. Item (2) is the one I'm
looking forward to and seems to refer to the intermediate stage between
thick katachi (or atsumi) and the final stage thick keisei. As Charles
Matthews rightly pointed out it is necessary to realise that this is a
**process**.
Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the book cover each if these stages in turn by use of
well annotated games. Finally there is an appendix where, as I said before,
the traditional or kyu-level theory seems to have been ever so politely
dumped.
Scene-setting Game 3 from Part 1 is below. The first reference to thickness
is to move 21 where it says that Kitani rated the size of the profit and the
overall effectiveness of the atsumi as outweighing the overconcentration
with 13. Since many players have traditionally seen thickness as something
you get in return for giving profit, it is interesting to see here an
example of thickness and profit sharing the same space belonging to one
side!
The bulk of the early discussion, however, is about decisions whether to
make the game broad or narrow (lots of small positions). As with ijime
(bullying), and choshi (momentum) this is one of those concepts that are not
specially high level in themselves but which seem to be talked about only
(but very often) by very high level players.
The next reference to thickness is not until move 35, though there are a
couple of other references to overconcentration. (One of the things I admire
about this book is the way it drip feeds these related concepts in.). It
says the right side has become teatsui **because** a Black move at the star
point is forcing. There are some who would claim a nuance in meaning for
teatsui but it is safe to treat it as identical with atsui. Note that this
book never seems to mention walls. It specifically says the right side is
made thick by 35.
Then there is a long gap but it is worth noting in passing that 61 is
mentioned as typical of the way Black refuses to give White any leverage in
this game. For that reason, White becomes desperate and plays a meltdown
move at 72 - he would normally just attach at 75.
The next thick reference is after 85. Black has achieved his aim of using a
splitting attack and his
atsusa will now be decisive. So we can infer from this that Black has moved
from atsumi to atusa in the course of the last 50 moves. I presume this is
the crux of the game.
For 99 it is mentioned that 100 would be a thick(er) way of attacking but
this was rejected because White can live too easily. Black has to maintain
the tension. That's it as far as thickness comments go, though the general
commentary does go on for few more pages.
Game 4 to come is about the practical uses of thickness. Game 5 is about
turning thickness into a moyou (don't surround thickness, says the
proverb...?).
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[Fujisawa Hideyuki]
WR[9d]
PB[Kitani Minoru]
BR[9d]
EV[1st Old Meijin League]
DT[1961-09-20,21]
PC[Nihon Ki-in, Minato-ku, Tokyo]
KM[5]
RU[W wins jigo]
RE[B+R]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[qd];W[cd];B[pq];W[oc];B[cp];W[qo];B[od];W[nd];B[oe];W[pc];B[qc];W[kc]
;B[qj];W[ed];B[eq];W[cj];B[qm];W[mq];B[po];W[jq];B[qn];W[co];B[do];W[cn]
;B[bp];W[dn];B[hq];W[eo];B[dp];W[gd];B[ld];W[lc];B[ne];W[md];B[me];W[mo]
;B[cc];W[dc];B[bd];W[bc];B[ce];W[cb];B[ch];W[ci];B[dh];W[ei];B[fg];W[df]
;B[eh];W[fi];B[gf];W[ef];B[if];W[nj];B[ii];W[pj];B[pi];W[qk];B[pk];W[oj]
;B[qi];W[pl];B[fk];W[ek];B[el];W[fl];B[gk];W[dk];B[rk];W[ok];B[ql];W[qp]
;B[on];W[qq];B[pr];W[qr];B[pp];W[mr];B[mm];W[lk];B[lp];W[ki];B[jk];W[kl]
;B[jp];W[kp];B[ko];W[kq];B[lo];W[ip];B[jo];W[iq];B[jl];W[ml];B[mi];W[mj]
;B[li];W[lm];B[mn];W[jm];B[im];W[kk];B[hr];W[io];B[jn];W[km];B[in];W[gn]
;B[ro];W[rp];B[rn];W[qs];B[or];W[sr];B[en];W[em];B[go];W[fh];B[eg];W[hh]
;B[hn];W[ig];B[hg];W[gh];B[hf];W[jf];B[je];W[jg];B[id];W[he];B[gc];W[ge]
;B[ie];W[ke];B[kd];W[le];B[jd];W[lg];B[jb];W[kb];B[mc];W[nc];B[mb];W[nb]
;B[jc];W[ma];B[fb];W[hc];B[hb];W[fc];B[gb];W[hd];B[cf];W[bg];B[bh];W[af]
;B[ae];W[cg];B[bf]
)
Charles Matthews
Bobby Six <bobby...@aol.com> wrote
> "Charles Matthews" wrote
>
> (snip)
>
> > Two complementary terms that come to mind:
> >
> > 'dangling', ie letting yourself have a weak group that could be attacked
> > (amashi strategy) but in a way wrong for your opponent's good direction
of
> > play (don't chase into your own framework);
> >
> > 'bull-fighting', the art of leaving gaps your opponent is best advised
not
> > to rush into (the diagonal jump is a prime example).
> >
> > I believe players stronger than me do use these kind of teases as a
matter
> > of course.
>
> I recognise these as well. There's also 'head-banging' which is having a
solid
> group
> towards the centre of the board. As played against me by A Strong Player,
it
> seems to involve driving your opponents stones towards the a solid group
in the
> centre of the board
> not to capture them but to neutralise moyos (I'm an inveterate san-rensei
moyo
> builder)
Oddly I picked up a book this afternoon in which 'ijime' occurred - more
'bullying' rather than 'teasing', as JF's later post reveals. So that would
be closer to yoritsuki (harassment), which is a rather better known pair
with amashi ... you are supposed to counter the dangling group by
constructive action which does you some definite good (profit, or influence
acting in a sensible direction), not plunge in over the top to kill, leading
to the dreaded amarigatachi or broken shape when (if) you fail.
Still, the tease and the bully are partners in a dance here - balletic at
best.
Charles
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> The three types identified are: (1) Atsui katachi - thick shape, and this
> concentrates on josekis but also gives a fascinating look at different ways
> different players (Takemiya, Takagawa, Kato, Otake, Fujisawa) use to
> implement it; (2) Atsui gokei - thick go shapes, which seems to be the most
> revolutionary part; (3) Atsui keisei - thick, countable positions
Might you give small example positions for (1), (2), and (3) each?
> The bulk of the early discussion, however, is about decisions whether to
> make the game broad or narrow (lots of small positions). As with ijime
> (bullying), and choshi (momentum) this is one of those concepts that are not
> specially high level in themselves but which seem to be talked about only
> (but very often) by very high level players.
I saw a German 2d talking about it.
> The next reference to thickness is not until move 35,
24-26-28 also consitute thickness. That it is not mentioned indicates
that the book concentrates on examples of thickness during a game and
does not mention all thickness. Move 29 turns the thickness of
24-26-28 back into ordinary (not so) thick shape and is also
reverse sente prohibiting permament thickness if white got 29. If this
book is fond of processes, then it is a little surprising that no
words are lost here. Is it too obvious for the audience ("for 5-dans")?
> Note that this
> book never seems to mention walls. It specifically says the right side is
> made thick by 35.
This is about the same as saying that completing the wall
11-1-9-33-35 (plus 31 as assistance) makes thickness towards the
right side.
--
robert jasiek
Mike M.
<john...@harrowgo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'll give in to pressure from GoGoD fans and continue to give the
> scene-setting games of the Thickness book with a few notes. I gave two so
> far, plus the full version of one that was cross-referenced. This part
> occupies about a third of the book and gives five games. I must say I find
> them very well annotated but I am only mentioning here the references to
> thickness and the odd extra related theme.
[...]
John, why don't you translate the book into English,
so we can buy it (for more than just the pictures)?
Best wishes, - Mike M.
--
Washington state resident. Don't send me spam, and i won't
send you a bill for $500. http://www.wa.gov/ago/junkemail/
gowan
I don't think this use of "atsui" means "winning" or "ahead". It
seems more to be used when the game is actually close, but one side
has the potential to make more points than the other. Indeed it may
be applied to a situation in which the player who is "atsui" may, in
fact, be behind at that moment.
best,
gowan
John Fairbairn
news:3c1a43fc...@news.foxinternet.net...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:30:19 -0000, "John Fairbairn"
> John, why don't you translate the book into English,
> so we can buy it (for more than just the pictures)?
>
With current go book sales and the pathological unwillingness of so many go
players to support publishers, I would be lucky to get more than a couple of
hundred dollars over several years.
Incidentally, the book cost me 30 dollars so I'm SUBSIDISING you all!!!
John Fairbairn
>
> Might you give small example positions for (1), (2), and (3) each?
Give me a chance! I haven't read it yet. I'm reading it bit by bit in bed
and writing up what I remember the next morning.
> 24-26-28 also consitute thickness. That it is not mentioned indicates
> that the book concentrates on examples of thickness during a game and
> does not mention all thickness. Move 29 turns the thickness of
> 24-26-28 back into ordinary (not so) thick shape and is also
> reverse sente prohibiting permament thickness if white got 29. If this
> book is fond of processes, then it is a little surprising that no
> words are lost here. Is it too obvious for the audience ("for 5-dans")?
>
You are getting way less than 10 per cent of the commentary so I don't see
how you can make so many assumptions. There are comments on 22 etc. As to
White's thickness: (1) the commentary focuses on Black as the winner and so
presumably more successful thickness maker; (2) White's strategy involves
moyoisation. That is dealt with in Game 5. Patience.
> > Note that this
> > book never seems to mention walls. It specifically says the right side
is
> > made thick by 35.
>
> This is about the same as saying that completing the wall
> 11-1-9-33-35 (plus 31 as assistance) makes thickness towards the
> right side.
Maybe (though I quibble strongly with the word towards), but from this and
other comments you seem to be wanting to drag this book (as interpreted by
me) back to traditional modes all the time - or maybe to your own
Brettanschauung? :) Isn't the whole point of the discussion to explore new
ground? We may end up back where we started, but at least we may have had an
entertaining ride. We may even end up somewhere new and exciting. Let's try
to keep an open mind and above all try to escape from the clutches of
traditional and (here) potentially misleading terminology. Because I believe
it accords with the authors' intentions, I am especially trying to get
people away from the facile equation thickness = walls.
Goran Siska
John Fairbairn <john...@harrowgo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1008355915.5405.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
thing! It's rare to find a go-book to suit players above kyu level in
English and I think there's a large population of go players in Europe that
are above 1dan level who are just hungry for a book like that.
Goran
Michael Alford
>In view of the general lack of interest in this thread, this will be the
>last posting from me, but I felt I had to offer a follow-up to the few
>diehards whose interest I had piqued.
>
John:
Count me among the diehards :) I find this thread quite interesting.
Thanks,
malf
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> Give me a chance! I haven't read it yet. I'm reading it bit by bit in bed
> and writing up what I remember the next morning.
Ok, sorry for supposing you to have already read it:)
> You are getting way less than 10 per cent of the commentary so I don't see
> how you can make so many assumptions.
Then I overinterpreted your "no thickness comments in between" remark.
> > This is about the same as saying that completing the wall
> > 11-1-9-33-35 (plus 31 as assistance) makes thickness towards the
> > right side.
>
> Maybe (though I quibble strongly with the word towards),
Is it doubtful English then?:)
> but from this and
> other comments you seem to be wanting to drag this book (as interpreted by
> me) back to traditional modes all the time - or maybe to your own
> Brettanschauung? :) Isn't the whole point of the discussion to explore new
> ground?
My problem is that you claim a new view in the book but all that I
understand so far is just a change in the coordinate system of
terminology. Ok, I give you the time to read the book to its end.
Then I hope to get your insight as presented in its contents in
detail.
> We may end up back where we started, but at least we may have had an
> entertaining ride. We may even end up somewhere new and exciting. Let's try
> to keep an open mind and above all try to escape from the clutches of
> traditional and (here) potentially misleading terminology. Because I believe
> it accords with the authors' intentions
I would love to see authors' intentions revealing new insight,
however, so far your descriptions have not convinced me that
it exists, I am afraid.
--
robert jasiek
Mike M.
John.
I can't possibly be the only weak kyu who buys books several
stones above my head (and then never gets around to reading
them). I do appreciate the subsidy, though. How can I return
the favor? - Mike M.
Louise Bremner
> Incidentally, the book cost me 30 dollars so I'm SUBSIDISING you all!!!
Not entirely--you're inducing me to go buy it myself, the next time I'm
in the Kiin (but that probably won't be until the New Year).
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
John Fairbairn
"Louise Bremner" <dame_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f4g3bb.sdqhbyll8ayoN%dame_...@yahoo.com...
> John Fairbairn <john...@harrowgo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, the book cost me 30 dollars so I'm SUBSIDISING you all!!!
>
> Not entirely--you're inducing me to go buy it myself, the next time I'm
> in the Kiin (but that probably won't be until the New Year).
>
rest of the series. It's an expensive business buying books on spec here.
John Fairbairn
>
> I would love to see authors' intentions revealing new insight,
> however, so far your descriptions have not convinced me that
> it exists, I am afraid.
>
Oh, come on, Robert. This is partypooping of the first order. I am not
trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to share the excitement I
felt at finding a good and different new book, and to get a discussion going
as I go through it. I am so far on page 46 out of 222 pages. Since I don't
understand it myself yet how can I be trying to convince you of anything
except that there may be something worth exploring? I despair of the
attitude that wants to be convinced at the beginning of a discussion. What's
the point of having it otherwise?
If you are saying you see already what the book is about but it's not new,
then why haven't you told us about it before?
Andrew Walkingshaw
>such plays. (I think it would be easy to apply the terms, "thick" and
>"thin" to chess. :-))
Hmm. Interesting.
Firstly: disclaimers; my peak chess strength, which is probably about
150 points more than I'm playing at at the moemnt due to my rustiness,
was about 2000-2050 ELO (for non-chessplayers, this is thought to be
somewhere between 2k and shodan in go terms); I'm a Go novice (15k), so
I may be misunderstanding the Go terms.
Assuming "thick" means, essentially, "solid" in chess (that is, without
obvious positional, generally pawn-structural weakness); and hence
"thin" would refer to local structural weaknesses, such as
doubled/isolated/backward pawns, then one might be able to draw some
analogy.
One factor in chess: solid positions are by their nature overdefended
and much less extended in terms of their pawn structures: this generally
shows in a relative lack of piece-activity. Many openings (eg the
Tarrasch defence to the Queens' Gambit, the Open Spanish, and nearly all
of the Sicilian) have one side deliberately allowing structural
weaknesses (isolated or backward pawns, loose pawn structure, or so
forth) in return for greater activity (freedom of movement for the
pieces, control of open files, and so forth) or initiative ("extra"
developing moves - essentially, sente and tempo-gain). The problem is,
over-solidity is passivity; over-activity leads to fatal structural
weaknesses, and usually a lost ending - if you don't make your greater
activity pay via a tactical solution to the problem of the position.
As I understand it, in Go, thick positions are also those without
obvious structural weakness (cutting points, for example); but
particularly those with the somewhat nebulous-seeming concept of
influence, in that (as they are strong in fights) players will attempt
to direct fighting towards their own thick groups so as to be advantaged
in said fighting. However, if one plays too thickly, one will not play
expansively enough (this being loosely analogous to the concept of
activity, I guess); and one will simply lose due to not surrounding
enough of the board. Therefore, as I very vaguely guess, it becomes
necessary to create thin groups in order to keep up in the territory
race: but the ideal is a balance between thinness where urgency is more
important and solid, thick positions to provide directions of play and a
base to work from.
The classification in chess would be something like:
mobile not mobile
thick Good: Quite good: doesn't tie pieces
eg solid pawn down defending it.
centre
thin Varied: eg Bad: hinders piece mobility by the
extended pawn necessity of constant defence
centre (cf
Alekhine's def.)
So thin, immobile positions are weak because they must be defended:
thin, mobile ones can be used for attack frequently, so it depends on
the situation, and can frequently be liquidated or converted to
something different.
I'm not sure what the analogue of this would be in Go.
I understand this is a simple-minded view of the situation, but is there
a grain of truth in it?
Andrew
--
"It's no problem if you play it cool;
Things are different if you act the fool!"
- Super Furry Animals, "Play It Cool" ('Radiator')
ad...@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> I despair of the
> attitude that wants to be convinced at the beginning of a discussion. What's
> the point of having it otherwise?
There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is supposed to
be facts or discussion and what in the book might be novelty.
Why worry about a minor misunderstanding? Let's continue
discussion!
--
robert jasiek
Bill Spight
Thanks for suggesting how "thick" and "thin" might apply to chess. Very
interesting. :-)
> As I understand it, in Go, thick positions are also those without
> obvious structural weakness (cutting points, for example); but
> particularly those with the somewhat nebulous-seeming concept of
> influence, in that (as they are strong in fights) players will attempt
> to direct fighting towards their own thick groups so as to be advantaged
> in said fighting. However, if one plays too thickly, one will not play
> expansively enough (this being loosely analogous to the concept of
> activity, I guess); and one will simply lose due to not surrounding
> enough of the board. Therefore, as I very vaguely guess, it becomes
> necessary to create thin groups in order to keep up in the territory
> race: but the ideal is a balance between thinness where urgency is more
> important and solid, thick positions to provide directions of play and a
> base to work from.
In go we have the quaternity
thick heavy
light thin
Thick and light are good, heavy and thin are bad. If you can distinguish
between these reasonably well on the board, you are probably at least a
strong amateur. Much depends on context.
In any event, you do not want to create thin groups. If you play in your
opponent's sphere of influence you want to play lightly.
Best,
Bill
Charles Matthews
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote
> Bill Spight wrote:
>
> >such plays. (I think it would be easy to apply the terms, "thick" and
> >"thin" to chess. :-))
>
> Hmm. Interesting.
The standard comment is "Petrosian". Plus that shogi recognises thick play
as such, but then being drawish isn't the problem there.
Charles
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
<snip>
>The first reference to thickness
> is to move 21 where it says that Kitani rated the size of the profit and
the
> overall effectiveness of the atsumi as outweighing the overconcentration
> with 13.
Black 13 is a pseudopincer, very popular in the Kitani school (Otake too)
though not originated there by any means. It allows the pincered white
stone a clear two-space extension - but has the advantage that Black can
also make make such an extension (making this a concept related to the
wedge; and, like it, to do with slowing down the pace of the game).
The hallmark of Kitani dojo pupils has been said to be their confidence in
their positions, as built up brick by brick. Over a wide range of styles,
it has to be said (Otake, the 'three crows' Ishida, Kato and Takemiya,
Kobayashi and Cho, to name the leaders). Kitani's go was called inimitable
(read, don't try this at home). Stubborn, certainly. I decided the right
phrase was 'crab-like', a while ago, but that would take an article to
explain. Watch my space in the AGJ, rather than here.
Charles
John Fairbairn
(Good stuff snipped)
> The hallmark of Kitani dojo pupils has been said to be their confidence in
> their positions, as built up brick by brick. Over a wide range of styles,
> it has to be said (Otake, the 'three crows' Ishida, Kato and Takemiya,
> Kobayashi and Cho, to name the leaders). Kitani's go was called
inimitable
> (read, don't try this at home). Stubborn, certainly. I decided the right
> phrase was 'crab-like', a while ago, but that would take an article to
> explain. Watch my space in the AGJ, rather than here.
At last! The discussion's working. For me at any rate. I enjoy this kind of
comment. I have no desire to put in the effort to become stronger over the
board, and maybe not the ability, but I do want to be able to appreciate a
game better. I don't want to be the virtuoso pianist but I'd like to know
how to get more out of his concerts.
I find Charles's comments generally very stimulating in this regard.
However, my outburst about lack of strong players worked in that I also had
a private reply from possibly the strongest player to read this news group.
This was even more stimulating - challenging even, in that I had the
temerity to disagree with some of it - but his comments have not appeared
here yet so I need to check whether he is willing to be roped into the
public forum.
As I was reading the next portion of the book last night, I peeked ahead and
noticed a comment that Ishida Yoshio ran a 6-month series on thickness in
Kido in 1982, the like of which has never appeared before or since (say the
authors). This confirms my view that the book is tapping into a pro way of
talking about thickness which is different from the usual way it is
presented. I need to dig out my Kidos and have a look - a major exercise in
our household (the wife complains she lives in a library but you can find
things in a library). The book seems to give a good summary of what was in
Kido, but in the interim if anyone else has access to this series, it would
be useful to have a comment or two.
John Fairbairn
one rather arid, but maybe I was too tired to appreciate it.
The title is Practical Use of Thickness (atsumi). The thickness-specific
comments are thin on the ground but one item that looms fairly large is the
ijime against Black in the lower right. I imagine that this is because the
availability of this ijime makes the lower-right white thickness even more
formidable than it might appear. Ijime is bullying and refers to the forcing
moves you can play against a group that (a) you know will be answered (b)
make points - a difference with ordinary kikashi and (c) lose little aji -
ditto. For kyu players it should be noted that the number of points you can
make like this is probably more than you might expect. Strong players seem
to think of ijime most in assessing an outcome: they see the presence of a
bullyable group either as a failure of strategy or as a deliberate
provocation (e.g. one weak-group strategy). It would be interesting to hear
whether Black's decision to make such a group here was a "failure".
When thickness is referred to here it possibly means exclusively the white
thickness on the right. The wall on the left may not be thick. White 24 is
referred to as a thoroughgoing attempt to play using thickness (atsumi) but
it is not stated in the commentary whether this group constitutes it . A
definition of thick shapes later on says a shape is not thick if it is
threatened when approached, so this wall may only be semi-thick????
On 34 the comment is that White's strategy is to make his thickness (atsumi)
work by forcing the black stone 7 to move out and by attacking this group,
because he can't swallow up this stone.(My comment: i.e. he can't capture
but he can bully. It is repeated a few times that Black has no problem
living, so presumably this is a point you are supposed to think more
about.).
W36 is seen as important (ajikeshi, ijime and overall attack - and can chew
gum, too, no doubt). Capping at 39 instead is rejected. (Actually it says
yoritsuki against the corner, not ijime, on this occasion, if you want to be
pernickety - but ijime later).
Otake saw 37 as a mistake. It should have been 39 (W caps then B 37). Since
B gets both 37 and 39 in either variation this seems an interesting point to
analyse.
W48 is very important because it makes thickness without attacking. This I
regard as a "new" concept (by new I mean not properly or explicitly
discussed in the literature before). The book, anyway, does not claim
novelty but goes on to say that this piling on the pressure without rushing
to attack gives rise to the same effects as attacking. 48 is described as a
move that shows a thorough understanding of thickness (atsumi).
W50 is described as a strong (i.e. forceful) move which attempts to utilise
his atsumi for fighting. (This apparently trite comment is in the context of
frequent talk earlier of White's moyoisation.)
The timing of the kikashi at 67 is praised. This looks like another
interesting point because it is kikashi against the thickness.
There is then quite a long discussion of tactics mainly. The strategic
points touched on are W76 (the sort of move that can be used for peace or
war - nice concept!) and the way White keeps deciding it is too early to
attack so shifts elsewhere and finally ends up making territory at the top.
But of thickness, naught, until suddenly the last two diagrams, starting
with moves 146 and 161 respectively, are headed "Additional profits of
thickness (atsumi)" and "[White] takes control because of his thickness
(atsusa)". The very brief texts to each diagram don't really elaborate on
this.
The phrase "additional profits" (yotoku) seems to be significant. It is not
a go term (though it's normal enough in the real world), and the first time
it appears in this book it is marked in quotes. I think the authors are
deliberately trying to suggest there is a difference between ordinary profit
and extra profit. Extra profit, I think, relates to the longer-term benefits
that come when you achieve atsusa. Maybe it's like cash and shares. Manage
your finances well and you can convert your shares into cash and dividends.
(Though, as adverts here have to remind us, shares can go up as well as
down.)
There is probably a commentary on this game in Go World which maybe someone
could summarise.
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[Fujisawa Hideyuki]
WR[9d]
PB[Otake Hideo]
BR[9d]
EV[5th Kisei Final]
RO[Game 3]
DT[1981-02-04,05]
PC[Hotel Shiragiku, Beppu City, Oita Pref.]
KM[5.5]
RE[W+R]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[cp];W[pp];B[oc];W[eq];B[ip];W[en];B[cm];W[qj];B[nq];W[kp]
;B[qq];W[qp];B[pq];W[op];B[mr];W[np];B[mp];W[mo];B[qh];W[oj];B[oh];W[dl]
;B[cl];W[dk];B[ck];W[dj];B[ci];W[lp];B[mq];W[do];B[co];W[mi];B[in];W[lr]
;B[gq];W[go];B[il];W[oq];B[or];W[ms];B[rp];W[ro];B[rq];W[lq];B[nr];W[ln]
;B[ij];W[im];B[hm];W[jm];B[fo];W[fn];B[fp];W[hn];B[dp];W[hq];B[gm];W[gn]
;B[gr];W[ih];B[gi];W[di];B[ch];W[gk];B[rn];W[so];B[ki];W[oe];B[pf];W[nc]
;B[kg];W[of];B[pg];W[jd];B[jf];W[gh];B[mg];W[lk];B[nb];W[ob];B[pb];W[od]
;B[pc];W[mb];B[oa];W[mc];B[jl];W[km];B[nj];W[ni];B[oi];W[ok];B[rj];W[ri]
;B[pj];W[qk];B[pk];W[pl];B[pi];W[ql];B[qi];W[ns];B[os];W[ls];B[qr];W[rk]
;B[iq];W[mj];B[me];W[ke];B[id];W[ic];B[hd];W[je];B[if];W[ie];B[he];W[hf]
;B[jc];W[kc];B[jb];W[ib];B[gf];W[hg];B[kb];W[lb];B[hb];W[ka];B[fh];W[gg]
;B[fg];W[ff];B[ge];W[fi];B[ef];W[hi];B[mh];W[lf];B[mf];W[md];B[nh];W[ec]
;B[fe];W[be];B[cf];W[ce];B[bf];W[af];B[cc];W[eb];B[hk];W[gj];B[kk];W[ep]
;B[eo];W[gp];B[fq];W[hr];B[hp];W[gs];B[dn];W[fr];B[do];W[ir];B[jr];W[js]
;B[er];W[jq];B[ll];W[ml];B[kl];W[lm];B[em];W[io];B[fm];W[jn];B[bg];W[gb]
;B[hc];W[ja];B[ga];W[fa];B[ha];W[bb];B[bc];W[cb];B[de];W[cd];B[ed];W[dc]
;B[fk];W[fj];B[ek];W[hj];B[gc];W[rh];B[rg];W[sp]
)
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> The wall on the left may not be thick. White 24 is
> referred to as a thoroughgoing attempt to play using thickness (atsumi) but
> it is not stated in the commentary whether this group constitutes it . A
> definition of thick shapes later on says a shape is not thick if it is
> threatened when approached, so this wall may only be semi-thick????
The upper end of the wall has thicker shape than the lower end.
The wall has quite some inherent aji, so your nice "semi-thick"
is the best that one would dare to say.
> On 34 the comment is that White's strategy is to make his thickness (atsumi)
> work by forcing the black stone 7 to move out and by attacking this group,
> because he can't swallow up this stone.
It is good to see a book with such strategic comments. Are they also
generalized like in classifying headlines of chapters or introductory
prose?
> W36 is seen as important (ajikeshi, ijime and overall attack - and can chew
> gum, too, no doubt). Capping at 39 instead is rejected.
Typically the wall 24-28 is used to cap at 49. White is wise to
defend calmly at 48 before becoming so drastic. Capping below 49
would waste part of the effort of building a higher wall 24-28
while presenting territory to the opponent.
> Otake saw 37 as a mistake. It should have been 39 (W caps then B 37).
Capping then involves a lower risk around the 20-30 cutting point
ALA 37 is not played.
> Since
> B gets both 37 and 39 in either variation this seems an interesting point to
> analyse.
If B retreats at 37 in this variation, then white might find a
more aggressive place for 48 since W49 already helps in the
vicinity. However, any aggression requires deep and careful
reading in these types of shapes. A book like Invasion and
Reduction would offer ca. 20 diagrams for such a problem position.
> W48 is very important because it makes thickness without attacking. This I
> regard as a "new" concept (by new I mean not properly or explicitly
> discussed in the literature before). The book, anyway, does not claim
> novelty
This gives a useful idea of the kind of novelty in the book. It
seems to write down carefully what has been known mainly verbally
otherwise. Considering the gaps in literature, this is valuable.
> but goes on to say that this piling on the pressure without rushing
> to attack gives rise to the same effects as attacking.
Hmm. The idea sounds very important, however, one would like
to see reasons supporting it in general.
> 48 is described as a
> move that shows a thorough understanding of thickness (atsumi).
So what do the authors mean by this thorough understanding if it
were explained in detail? Is this done in a later chapter of the
book? Or is it just an ordinary "take territory while attacking"
case?
--
robert jasiek
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
> W48 is very important because it makes thickness without attacking. This I
> regard as a "new" concept (by new I mean not properly or explicitly
> discussed in the literature before).
If it's a defensive move from the thick side, you're supposed to ignore it.
Shuko (beg pardon, Hideyuki) does like playing from the thick side, but that
must be an aspect of his 'unusual perception'. I mean, this at first sight
looks like turning thickness directly into territory, which is advised
against.
> W50 is described as a strong (i.e. forceful) move which attempts to
utilise
> his atsumi for fighting. (This apparently trite comment is in the context
of
> frequent talk earlier of White's moyoisation.)
>
> The timing of the kikashi at 67 is praised. This looks like another
> interesting point because it is kikashi against the thickness.
It's a probe, surely. Doesn't prevent it from functioning as kikashi also.
> There is then quite a long discussion of tactics mainly. The strategic
> points touched on are W76 (the sort of move that can be used for peace or
> war - nice concept!) and the way White keeps deciding it is too early to
> attack so shifts elsewhere and finally ends up making territory at the
top.
If I had bet money on White, I might have sighed wih relief when White got
to 76 - but it's very odd that a territory of a bit over 30 points on the
right can be worth so many plays.
> There is probably a commentary on this game in Go World which maybe
someone
> could summarise.
GW 24. Otake reckoned 53 and 55 lost the game - both should make the
hanging connection. White 80 should have been one line to the right. Otake
said 113 would have been better at H17, despite the thin centre group.
White was winning at 136.
Very much a game for the pros, I'd say - Black seemed inhibited, no doubt
because he was actually reading stuff out ...
Charles
Simon Goss
>Otake saw 37 as a mistake. It should have been 39 (W caps then B 37). Since
>B gets both 37 and 39 in either variation this seems an interesting point to
>analyse.
Is the difference that, in the order [B39; W cap; B37; W38], Black 39
has got the cap in response, whereas in the game order [B37; W38; B39]
it doesn't, so that later White was able to choose to play at 48 rather
than capping near 49?
IOW, is it saying that near-48 and near-49 are approximate miai and that
Black playing 39 before 37 gives Black more chance to play the wrong
one?
>The timing of the kikashi at 67 is praised. This looks like another
>interesting point because it is kikashi against the thickness.
Against the thickness or just against the wall? ;)
Rather than simply kikashi, B67 looks to me like yosu miru. That is to
say, W64 and W66 are bashing Black's centre group, so B67 asks the
question: are you going to connect up and sacrifice some territory, or
are you going to keep the territory, as in the game, leaving me some
later kikashi at some point such as Q6 or R7 (which, I suppose, might
help Black in the centre fight).
Many thanks for this intriguing thread.
--
Simon
David Sigaty
wrote:
>Dear Bill,
>
>> Another is on countermeasures against large moyo. Another is about
>> difficult kos. And another is about real game life and death in the
>> corners.
>>
>> A good series, I think. :-)
>
>What are the correct ISBN, please? Is there a series ISBN, too?
>
>Best,
>--
>robert jasiek
>
ISBN: 441670142X
For those with web browsers that can display Japanese but who lack
input capability, go to http://www.amazon.co.jp
You will have a url something like this
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/489986/250-1081584-2408212
but the number at the end will be different (I think :-)
Now paste this (after cleaning up any lines breaks in this message)
/search-handle-url/index=books-jp&rank=+salesrank&field-keywords=%E5%AE%9F%E5%8A%9B%E4%BA%94%E6%AE%B5%E5%9B%B2%E7%A2%81%E8%AA%AD%E6%9C%AC&bq=1/ref=sr_aps_allb__/
into the middle of the url in place of
/tg/browse/-/489986/
and you hopefully will be rewarded with a page listing the 6 books in
the series. I did the search in Japanese IE and successfully cut and
pasted the search terms into Opera 6.0 on an English-only PC so I
believe it will work.
Dave
Louise Bremner
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/489986/250-1081584-2408212
>
> but the number at the end will be different (I think :-)
> Now paste this (after cleaning up any lines breaks in this message)
>
>
/search-handle-url/index=books-jp&rank=+salesrank&field-keywords=%E5%AE%
9F%E5%8A%9B%E4%BA%94%E6%AE%B5%E5%9B%B2%E7%A2%81%E8%AA%AD%E6%9C%AC&bq=1/r
ef=sr_aps_allb__/
>
> into the middle of the url in place of
>
> /tg/browse/-/489986/
At the end of that process, you could use <http://makeashorterlink.com>,
paste in the long URL, click the button, and get:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?I4B925B3>
Andrew Walkingshaw
Petrosian was actually a very economic player: his gift was seeing his
opponents' threats -before- they did, thus requiring minimal defensive
contortion. His style was to gain small structural advantages and
exploit these; a necessary corollorary of this is not allowing ones'
opponents tactical resources to complicate affairs.
Furthermore, Petrosian's aggressive side is often ignored; he basically
invented the modern positional exchange sacrifice, which (particularly
in the Sicilian) gives rise to some of the very sharpest positions in
all of opening theory.
Andrew
--
"He lies on his side; is he trying to hide?"
- Wire, 'Outdoor Miner' ("Chairs Missing")
ad...@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk
Michael Sullivan
> John Fairbairn wrote
>
> > This is a wider problem than r.g.g. of course. I believe one of the prime
> > reasons for revamping the British championship rules recently was to
> punish
> > those strong players who only ever turn up for prestigious events and give
> > nothing back to the game in other ways.
> A favorite off-topic topic of mine. Well, the unique British 5 dan who
> played in the championship this year literally hadn't played in competition
> since the previous year's one - so doesn't work, does it? Actually the
> system bears down far too hard on the upcoming 1 kyus and 1 dans, who given
> the grade deflation we are experiencing are deprived of a Swiss in which
> they actually could play some stronger players in the early rounds.
When you say grade deflation -- you mean that an average player of a
given rank is stronger today than an average player of that rank last
year or 5 years ago?
How do you determine that this is happening? Also, I'm usnure how that
affects whether they can play strong players in early rounds. It seems
that any handicap tournament could be arranged to favor 2-3 stone
pairings (and giving all but the strongest and weakest playes about
equal shots at white and black), but most are arranged to favor even
pairings.
Maybe the problem is that I have no idea what the change in the BC rules
was... While I'm not a BGA member, I'm interested in tournament and
rating practices, so I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of this here.
Michael
Robert Jasiek
David Sigaty wrote:
> ISBN: 441670142X
>
> For those with web browsers that can display Japanese but who lack
> input capability, go to http://www.amazon.co.jp
> You will have a url something like this
>
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/489986/250-1081584-2408212
>
> but the number at the end will be different (I think :-)
> Now paste this (after cleaning up any lines breaks in this message)
>
> /search-handle-url/index=books-jp&rank=+salesrank&field-keywords=%E5%AE%9F%E5%8A%9B%E4%BA%94%E6%AE%B5%E5%9B%B2%E7%A2%81%E8%AA%AD%E6%9C%AC&bq=1/ref=sr_aps_allb__/
>
> into the middle of the url in place of
>
> /tg/browse/-/489986/
>
> and you hopefully will be rewarded with a page listing the 6 books in
> the series.
So it works, thanks! However, now I am faced with a language problem.
I can guess that each book costs Y1800 but is it possible to order
by email using one of the addresses at
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/643018/250-6027560-1982604
? What would surface shipping/handling be if sent around the globe?
I guess that somewhere there would be a WWW page translation tool; is it
worth installing? (Netscape 4.7XX) OTOH, a list of the 6 book titles in
order would be fine enough.
Would any other amazon department sell those Japanese books even if they
are not in their list? Is there a European retailer for Japanese books?
--
robert jasiek
Louise Bremner
> I guess that somewhere there would be a WWW page translation tool; is it
> worth installing? (Netscape 4.7XX) OTOH, a list of the 6 book titles in
> order would be fine enough.
Paste the URL into <http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/>, click on the
second radio button underneath (for Japanese-to-English translation),
then click on the orange-outlined button on the right. If you get an
error message in kanjiberrish (as I do, even though I'm using a Japanese
system), click on the right button, or the left one to try again--you
ought to get some results eventually.
But note that this will only provide an amusing "translation"--it won't
answer your other questions, I'm afraid.
Charles Matthews
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote
> Charles Matthews wrote:
> >
> >Andrew Walkingshaw wrote
> >
> >> Bill Spight wrote:
> >>
> >> >such plays. (I think it would be easy to apply the terms, "thick" and
> >> >"thin" to chess. :-))
> >>
> >> Hmm. Interesting.
> >
> >The standard comment is "Petrosian". Plus that shogi recognises thick
play
> >as such, but then being drawish isn't the problem there.
>
> Petrosian was actually a very economic player: his gift was seeing his
> opponents' threats -before- they did, thus requiring minimal defensive
> contortion. His style was to gain small structural advantages and
> exploit these; a necessary corollorary of this is not allowing ones'
> opponents tactical resources to complicate affairs.
Well, that's thick play ... after a slow-looking start you should have all
the forward momentum. BTW, shouldn't that be corollarollary :)?
Charles
Charles Matthews
> When you say grade deflation -- you mean that an average player of a
> given rank is stronger today than an average player of that rank last
> year or 5 years ago?
The situation in Europe is that a few countries have dan grades that are
more demanding (France, Netherlands, Russia), while the European ratings
applying to all the EGF countries allow fairly direct comparisons from a
great deal of tournament data including much international competition. So,
it is reasonably meaningful to say that UK grades are typically half a stone
weaker than the European average. It has been policy to do something about
this, for a while. The only easy course is to deny promotion at dan level:
ie deflate grades of those who are moving up. This isn't particularly
controversial, while demoting players from their existing levels would be.
> How do you determine that this is happening?
You can look for example at the UK list of European ratings and the spread
of shodans, versus the ratings of the newly-created shodans.
>Also, I'm usnure how that
> affects whether they can play strong players in early rounds. It seems
> that any handicap tournament could be arranged to favor 2-3 stone
> pairings (and giving all but the strongest and weakest playes about
> equal shots at white and black), but most are arranged to favor even
> pairings.
Almost all European events use the McMahon system. Only a few have moved to
using the European ratings to set McMahon levels (which would help to get
improving players games against stronger opposition).
> Maybe the problem is that I have no idea what the change in the BC rules
> was... While I'm not a BGA member, I'm interested in tournament and
> rating practices, so I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of this here.
About 97%-98% of the BGA membership is probably in the same position :-(. I
have a web page I was going to post about the issues, which I have
circulated to some BGA officials - more urgent distractions are the only
reason it isn't up yet.
The BC is set up like a wedding cake - three tiers. The top layer is a
title match, best of five, against the current champion. The previous stage
is to select a challenger, and is an eight player league (close to the
Honinbo League). The first stage is a Swiss to select five for the league,
entry by qualification from BGA tournaments only.
The current system is squarely aimed at players 2 dan to 4 dan. I think
that's wrong - no one who isn't a 5 dan or very close is a realistic winner
of the league; the players with a 'bullet' moving up the ratings can be seen
coming at 1 kyu/1 dan level, and the system makes it hard for them to get
into the only Swiss where they could show their form and gain experience.
My views have not been accepted by the BGA. I don't accept the running the
BC as a perk, or to influence the behaviour of players who aren't much
interested in the normal one-day events.
Charles
Robert Jasiek
Louise Bremner wrote:
> Paste the URL into <http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/>, click on the
> second radio button underneath (for Japanese-to-English translation),
> then click on the orange-outlined button on the right. If you get an
> error message in kanjiberrish (as I do, even though I'm using a Japanese
> system), click on the right button, or the left one to try again--you
> ought to get some results eventually.
>
> But note that this will only provide an amusing "translation"--it won't
> answer your other questions, I'm afraid.
Very useful and amusing indeed:) Here is what I get:
>>
" -- the 5 steps of merit game of go -- reader" の検索 result: Six
affairs
1.
the 5 steps of merit game of go -- reader It strikes thickly.
Game-of-go editorial department (edit) Book (2001/08/01)
Seibundo Shinkosha
Usually, it ships less than [ 2?3 day ].
Price : \1,800
2.
the 5 steps of merit game of go -- reader It becomes strong
in a corner.
Game-of-go editorial department (edit) Book (2001/06/01)
Seibundo Shinkosha
Usually, it ships less than [ 4?14 day ].
Price : \1,800
3.
the 5 steps of merit game of go -- a reader -- stickiness of
- KOU
Game-of-go editorial department (edit) Book (2001/02/01)
Seibundo Shinkosha
Usually, it ships less than [ 4?14 day ].
Price : \1,800
4.
the 5 steps of merit game of go -- reader Measure against
悪力
Game-of-go editorial department (edit) Book (2000/07/01)
Seibundo Shinkosha
Usually, it ships less than [ 2?3 day ].
Price : \1,800
5.
the 5 steps of merit game of go -- a reader - KIKASHI is
considered
Game-of-go editorial department (edit) Book (2000/04/01)
Seibundo Shinkosha
Usually, it ships less than [ 2?3 day ].
Price : \1,800
6.
the 5 steps of merit game of go -- a reader - large encaustic
measure
Game-of-go editorial department (edit) Book (1999/11/01)
Seibundo Shinkosha
Usually, it ships less than [ 2?3 day ].
Price : \1,800
<<
"Steps of merit" is "dan", I guess:)
1. is our book about thickness, it seems.
2. might be about corner joseki
3. "stickiness of - KOU": I do not have the slightest idea. What is
this?
4. "Measure against 悪力". Against what is the question...
5. A brilliant translation:)
6. "large encaustic measure": Should this be "large scale fight"?
--
robert jasiek
Bobby Six
(snip)
> The BC is set up like a wedding cake - three tiers. The top layer is a
> title match, best of five, against the current champion. The previous stage
> is to select a challenger, and is an eight player league (close to the
> Honinbo League). The first stage is a Swiss to select five for the league,
> entry by qualification from BGA tournaments only.
>
> The current system is squarely aimed at players 2 dan to 4 dan. I think
> that's wrong - no one who isn't a 5 dan or very close is a realistic winner
> of the league; the players with a 'bullet' moving up the ratings can be seen
> coming at 1 kyu/1 dan level, and the system makes it hard for them to get
> into the only Swiss where they could show their form and gain experience.
>
> My views have not been accepted by the BGA. I don't accept the running the
> BC as a perk, or to influence the behaviour of players who aren't much
> interested in the normal one-day events.
>
> Charles
The British Championship current system is obsessed with forcing you to play in
tournaments held around the UK at weekends, at great incovenience to those who
a) work weekends/nights, b) have demanding family/carer responsibilities, c)
poor transport arrangements and/or d)are poor.
It will become increasingly anachronistic as playing Go by server grows.
--
Posted from host213-122-238-61.btinternet.com [213.122.238.61]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
John Fairbairn
soon.
I don't propose to say much about this game. The final comment sums up what
the authors are trying to show: "There are also cases where you can win by
turning atsumi into territory." I take this to mean without attacking an
enemy group with it; even making terrritory directly without going through
the atsusa stage. However, the first comment on the game is that "In modern
go, when we speak of a thick style, the first person who comes to mind is
Takemiya Masaki. He is able to combine atsusa with atsumi." The author does
not expand on this here - except by implication of what is in the game, of
course - but Takemiya is one of the players specially discussed later on.
The first thickness comment on the game is that sanrensei not only creates
moyos but has atsusa through "stones being connected."
The sequence from 15 builds up thickness (atsumi wo kizuku).
27 was described as a vital point for preserving Black's outside influence
(gaisei) - the first time this phrase has come up. White now has to play 28
even though it helps Black continue his shape, otherwise Black would play
there and make W thin.
31 and 33 are described as adding to Black's influence (seiryoku) in the
centre.
En passant, 37 is nice example to refer to after you buy Richard Hunter's
Crosscut book - extension is correct here but the extension to 41 would
fail.
43 is said to be the most teatsui reply. Have a think before you read on why
atari on the second line instead is "unreasonable".
It is because there is no Black stone at A. A is one point to the right of
45. Hmmm. Deep stuff.
The comment after 49 is interesting. Black deems he is ahead because his
sphere of influence in the centre is 7 lines wide whereas White's on the
left side is only 5 wide. In the moves so far here, and the next few, the
book adds it is important for Black not to be careless in view of the
cutting point at the right of 13.
After 62, the central Black moyo is described as having a deep valley. This
is a fairly common phrase even in kyu level books but among amateurs it
seems to be glossed over as just a bit of local colour. Among pros, however,
this concept seems to be used as part of their evaluation criteria. It can
most certainly be ranked as a go term. The essential meaning is that the
moyo cannot be erased. Therefore, it probably can be classed as a thickness
term.
This game completes Part 1, and takes us to about a third of the way
through. Part 2 is pretty dense as regards the amount of text relative to
diagrams, and I propose only to give a taste of it. Likewise for the
remaining parts which are more game-commentary oriented.
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[O Meien]
WR[9d]
PB[Takemiya Masaki]
BR[9d]
EV[39th Judan]
RO[Losers' Section Semi-final]
DT[2000-12-07]
PC[Nihon Ki-in]
KM[5.5]
RE[B+4.5]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[pd];W[dp];B[pp];W[dd];B[pj];W[nc];B[oe];W[np];B[pn];W[pq];B[qq];W[oq]
;B[qr];W[jq];B[lp];W[lq];B[kp];W[kq];B[mp];W[mq];B[no];W[gd];B[md];W[qc]
;B[qd];W[pc];B[jp];W[ip];B[io];W[hp];B[ho];W[go];B[gn];W[qj];B[qi];W[pi]
;B[qh];W[pm];B[on];W[pk];B[oj];W[rk];B[ok];W[fn];B[gm];W[fm];B[gl];W[fl]
;B[gk];W[fk];B[gj];W[cp];B[fj];W[ej];B[ei];W[di];B[dj];W[ek];B[eh];W[dh]
;B[dg];W[cj];B[he];W[hd];B[ie];W[mc];B[ld];W[ri];B[rh];W[ql];B[rm];W[rn]
;B[qn];W[qm];B[ro];W[rl];B[si];W[sm];B[rj];W[sk];B[so];W[sn];B[cc];W[dc]
;B[cd];W[id];B[je];W[ce];B[be];W[bf];B[cf];W[de];B[bg];W[bd];B[af];W[bc]
;B[bi];W[bj];B[lc];W[rd];B[re];W[rc];B[ff];W[mo];B[mn];W[op];B[os];W[nr]
;B[ib];W[hb];B[ci];W[dk];B[mb];W[nb];B[ic];W[hc];B[jd];W[qe];B[rf];W[nd]
;B[ne];W[ma];B[lb];W[od];B[pe];W[ia];B[ja];W[ha];B[cb];W[bb];B[ad];W[nm]
;B[om];W[nn];B[oo];W[ol];B[nl];W[qo];B[pl];W[ge];B[gf];W[ol];B[mm];W[rp]
;B[qp];W[sp];B[ab];W[db];B[aj];W[ak];B[ai];W[ch];B[bh];W[bk];B[or];W[ns]
;B[pr];W[nq];B[la];W[na];B[fe];W[ca];B[fd];W[fc];B[ac];W[qk];B[rq];W[sq]
;B[sr];W[jb];B[jc];W[ka];B[kb];W[ja];B[ed];W[ec];B[sd];W[sc];B[se];W[ef]
;B[eg];W[sj];B[ri];W[pl]
)
Jon Diamond
and/or atsuma are really reflecting the fact that one's groups do not have
aji for the opponent to use - they may be a global rather than local
description.
The typical description of thickness in much of this thread of discussion
has been in relation to a specific wall, perhaps we're more used to
categorising terms in a more local situation than a professional. I'm sure
the two main differences between amateurs and professionals are the depth of
individual analysis and the broad view of the board as a whole.
OTOH White 48 seems just like the sort of move I used to play, when I was
vaguely strong. Make sure your groups are strong, without weakness and
you're not going to lose.............. This seems to me to be analogous to
the modern thinking about flow and not letting your opponent settle, so they
don't ever get a chance to get strong positions. (If I understand it right.)
"Robert Jasiek" <jas...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:3C1B9885...@snafu.de...
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek wrote
> 3. "stickiness of - KOU": I do not have the slightest idea. What is
> this?
Ko, presumably. Interesting ... I've written 40 pages on ko to show my
co-author what we're talking about; but it is really an exceedingly
difficult subject to get under control (almost his first comment was to
throw doubt on temperature).
Charles
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
>The final comment sums up what
> the authors are trying to show: "There are also cases where you can win by
> turning atsumi into territory."
Yes, but don't expect criteria to distinguish these cases :(.
What's going on here? The advanced course on thickness has to take us past
pattern-matching, at least as far as templates. That is, something like
whole-board methods to get you into winning endgames.
The proverb says 'don't use thickness to make territory', which has to be
read carefully. Of course if you get into the endgame, one template says
you are thicker and you just lean on your opponent a bit to take some extra
profit, which is your winning margin. That's allowed :). In fact I guess
the reason no pro is supposed to lose to another on four stones is that
White can't really stop this happening, though four stones isn't really
enough for a forced middlegame win.
The proverb is aimed at those who make fiddling bits of territory with thick
positions in the middlegame. Properly you use thickness in fighting - but
there are exceptions, it seems.
Probably direction-of-play proverbial wisdom trumps pattern-matching in go,
but can one say these templates trump direction-of-play? Sometimes the
answer is yes, as in the recommendation 'go ahead and win'.
My question is something like - exceptional templates based on a big centre
enclosed, or case-by-case?
This is a typical occidental-style query, no doubt. I believe the Asian
approach will always convict template-based thinking as tending to rigidity.
Most unlikely that you can tie Takemiya down with it.
>I take this to mean without attacking an
> enemy group with it; even making terrritory directly without going through
> the atsusa stage. However, the first comment on the game is that "In
modern
> go, when we speak of a thick style, the first person who comes to mind is
> Takemiya Masaki. He is able to combine atsusa with atsumi." The author
does
> not expand on this here - except by implication of what is in the game, of
> course - but Takemiya is one of the players specially discussed later on.
>
> The first thickness comment on the game is that sanrensei not only creates
> moyos but has atsusa through "stones being connected."
Mmm - T's go looks inexorable - when he wins.
I wonder if the atsusa/atsumi conflation is a further way of expressing T's
'mazy' go. He likes to say things like; he has no idea where his opponent
will play next; he plays to maximise his own potential; delays onset on the
endgame etc.
It's a bit as if you can't tell whether his stones are infantry (designed to
hold ground) or artillery (approach at your peril). You'd naively say
framework play (at first sight) is cavalry tactics - take ground rapidly for
later consolidation.
Charles
Charles Matthews
Bobby Six wrote
> The British Championship current system is obsessed with forcing you to
play in
> tournaments held around the UK at weekends, at great incovenience to those
who
> a) work weekends/nights, b) have demanding family/carer responsibilities,
c)
> poor transport arrangements and/or d)are poor.
There are those who feel this is quite right, BTW (see
correspondence in the BGJ). It isn't as if the point hasn't been put to the
BGA. The older system of inviting all dan players and some others was
abolished in 1999.
You could add, re the league, forcing players to take a day's holiday to
play on a Friday (making a four day weekend). Also, the geographic
concentration of the events in the SE.
> It will become increasingly anachronistic as playing Go by server grows.
I hope not. Tournament attendance in the UK seems to be down a few percent
on a couple of years ago, but isn't experiencing the downturn reported from
North America (where distances to travel are so much larger).
Charles
Nina Notomi
[snip]
> So it works, thanks! However, now I am faced with a language problem.
> I can guess that each book costs Y1800 but is it possible to order
> by email using one of the addresses at
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/643018/250-6027560-1982604
> ? What would surface shipping/handling be if sent around the globe?
> I guess that somewhere there would be a WWW page translation tool; is it
> worth installing? (Netscape 4.7XX) OTOH, a list of the 6 book titles in
> order would be fine enough.
Those addresses are not for ordering. To order, you'll have to click the
light orange button on the right hand side of the book details page to put
it into the shopping cart. When you are ready to place an order click on the
shopping cart icon at the top, and check the contents of the cart (which
could be challenging for non-Japanese ..) and click on a light orange button
again etc. etc. If you are not in a hurry, I'll try to get some screen shots
and do some translation. Unfortunately I'm kind of busy until at least
mid-January so you may end up waiting for a while. :( If you are still
interested please e-mail me.
And the internatioal shipping costs for books:
(http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/642982/249-5829210-2025110)
*** International Economy (2 - 5 weeks) ***
Asia: Each order costs 1000 yen, plus for each book add 300 yen
Oceania/South Asia: Each order costs 1200 yen, plus for each book add 300
yen
North America: Each order costs 1200 yen, plus for each book add 300 yen
Europe: Each order costs 1450 yen, plus for each book add 300 yen
South America/Africa/Middle East: Each order costs 2050 yen, plus for each
book add 300 yen
*** International Express (2-5 working days) ***
Asia: Each order costs 1900 yen, plus for each book add 300 yen
Oceania/South Asia: Each order costs 2700 yen, plus for each book add 300
yen
North America: Each order costs 2700 yen, plus for each book add 300 yen
Europe: Each order costs 3400 yen, plus for each book add 300 yen
South America/Africa/Middle East: Each order costs 4400 yen, plus for each
book add 300 yen
Hope this helps.
From Nina
Jon Diamond
tournaments.
I must confess as an ex-British Champion who doesn't play in many
tournaments (actually very few ones which provide qualifying places) I'm a
little non-plussed by those changes. It just means I probably won't play in
the tournament again for a long while. OTOH some may say that's not a great
loss................
I feel that leaving open the possibility of (once) strong players being able
to play without having to enter qualifying tournaments MIGHT have encouraged
them to come along and still have some participation in Go. It's of course
arguable that the Championship should be for active players, but I don't
think I remember seeing anything about the motivation for this change, but
my memory isn't what it was.................
"Charles Matthews" <cha...@sabaki.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1008514113.19080....@news.demon.co.uk...
Charles Matthews
White wins on the final ko). Anyone care to identify (a) when White becomes
thick? (b) atsumi and atsusa? (c) the losing play?
Charles
(;EV[Autumn Oteai]RO[1]DT[1935-10-02]PB[Sekiyama Riichi]BR[5
dan]PW[Hashimoto Utaro]WR[5 dan]TM[11
hours]KM[0]RE[W+1];B[qe];W[pc];B[qo];W[dp];B[df];W[ph]
;B[ne];W[mc];B[op];W[ed];B[dd];W[dc];B[cc];W[cb];B[cd];W[eb];B[ee];W[fd];B[c
j]
;W[gf];B[fq];W[jq];B[cn];W[dn];B[dm];W[co];B[en];W[do];B[cm];W[fp];B[gp];W[f
o]
;B[ip];W[hr];B[gq];W[lq];B[dr];W[cr];B[nq];W[er];B[ko];W[qd];B[pf];W[qk];B[l
e]
;W[kd];B[qm];W[ke];B[kf];W[lf];B[rd];W[lg];B[rc];W[qg];B[ob];W[oc];B[nb];W[n
c]
;B[pb];W[rf];B[qc];W[pq];B[rq];W[lo];B[ln];W[kn];B[jn];W[km];B[lp];W[kp];B[m
o]
;W[jo];B[lo];W[jp];B[hn];W[in];B[hm];W[jm];B[fm];W[nr];B[mq];W[mr];B[or];W[o
q]
;B[pr];W[np];B[mp];W[pp];B[qq];W[oo];B[lr];W[kr];B[kq];W[eg];B[dg];W[lq];B[n
m]
;W[qr];B[rr];W[om];B[kq];W[os];B[qs];W[lq];B[ol];W[nl];B[ml];W[nn];B[mm];W[p
l]
;B[nk];W[pm];B[kq];W[ei];B[dh];W[lq];B[pj];W[oj];B[kq];W[gl];B[hl];W[lq];B[o
k]
;W[pk];B[kq];W[hk];B[lq];W[gk];B[jr];W[ir];B[ks];W[iq];B[gm];W[el];B[em];W[k
j]
;B[lc];W[ld];B[mb];W[jb];B[fg];W[fh];B[rl];W[mj];B[nj];W[oi];B[rj];W[rk];B[s
k]
;W[qj];B[ni];W[ri];B[kb];W[kc];B[lb];W[me];B[oh];W[pi];B[il];W[jk];B[bn];W[b
o]
;B[eh];W[dk];B[ck];W[di];B[ci];W[gg];B[fi];W[ff];B[gh];W[fg];B[ej];W[gi];B[d
j]
;W[bc];B[bd];W[ab];B[li];W[ki];B[gj];W[hi];B[ja];W[ib];B[fr];W[ds];B[ij];W[i
k]
;B[hj];W[ii];B[ao];W[ap];B[an];W[bp];B[ad];W[pd];B[jj];W[lk];B[jl];W[lm];B[m
k]
;W[lh];B[mi];W[lj];B[og];W[nf];B[re];W[of];B[ng];W[pe];B[qf];W[pg];B[mn];W[j
i]
;B[fj];W[ho];B[go];W[hp];B[fl];W[qp];B[rp];W[sg];B[sj];W[si];B[sl];W[mg];B[e
q]
;W[dq];B[nh];W[qn];B[rn];W[pn];B[fk];W[kk];B[hq];W[io];B[ac];W[bb];B[no];W[q
l]
;B[rm];W[ia];B[ka];W[fe];B[ro];W[on];B[op];W[po];B[se];W[ef];B[sf];W[rg];B[d
e]
;W[es];B[fs];W[np]C[White wins final ko])
Charles Matthews
Jon Diamond wrote
> I must confess as an ex-British Champion who doesn't play in many
> tournaments (actually very few ones which provide qualifying places) I'm a
> little non-plussed by those changes. It just means I probably won't play
in
> the tournament again for a long while. OTOH some may say that's not a
great
> loss................
>
> I feel that leaving open the possibility of (once) strong players being
able
> to play without having to enter qualifying tournaments MIGHT have
encouraged
> them to come along and still have some participation in Go. It's of course
> arguable that the Championship should be for active players, but I don't
> think I remember seeing anything about the motivation for this change, but
> my memory isn't what it was.................
Of course there are reasons this one gets under my skin. I was organiser of
the 1998 running, which included Jon plus four 5 dans, and was I believe the
strongest ever gathering of British go players in one place. The system was
immediately attacked by a number of British 4 dans.
I was very much influenced by a visiting strong player from another European
country, who presumably was giving disinterested advice when he said that,
considering the time it takes to make a 5 dan, it is lunatic to let this all
go to waste. Other counsels have prevailed. For example John Fairbairn's
point is a bowdlerised version of the comment made that "you'll be inviting
Paul Prescott next". Paul having been the player to give Jon a hard time
when I was coming up to dan level, this isn't something with which I'd have
had a problem.
There is more printable stuff justifying the changes in the BGJ, but I'm not
at all reconciled to what happened.
Charles
Jackie & Barry
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Bobby Six wrote
> > The British Championship current system is obsessed with forcing you
> > to play in tournaments held around the UK at weekends, at great
> > incovenience to those who
> > a) work weekends/nights,
> > b) have demanding family/carer responsibilities,
> > c) poor transport arrangements and/or
> > d)are poor.
> There are those who feel this is quite right, BTW (see
> correspondence in the BGJ). It isn't as if the point hasn't been put to the
> BGA. The older system of inviting all dan players and some others was
> abolished in 1999.
Plus ca change...
___________________
I played at the 1969 (Easter?) British Go Congress in Bristol, which
doubled as the AGM, as I recall.
There was much debate on the issue that only those who troubled to
attend should be entitled to vote on By Law matters and elections.
My recollection is that points a - d as above were all brought up before
the meeting and rejected.
___________________
... plus ca meme.
Barry
John Fairbairn
>
> > 3. "stickiness of - KOU": I do not have the slightest idea. What is
> > this?
>
>
won't take time out to explain it, but if you know any of the Oriental
martial arts you'll understand it straightaway. Most amateur play is not
tight enough to make nebari of much use.
John Fairbairn
> Spanner in the works time. Here's an interesting old-style game (no komi,
> White wins on the final ko). Anyone care to identify (a) when White
becomes
> thick? (b) atsumi and atsusa? (c) the losing play?
>
V. good question. I presume we can all agree that Black has atsusa on the
left early on, but W's position at the top remains only atsumi because of
defects. However, I was astounded at the way B found those non-obvious
defects. Losing move? No idea.
John Fairbairn
>
> go to waste. Other counsels have prevailed. For example John Fairbairn's
> point is a bowdlerised version of the comment made that "you'll be
inviting
> Paul Prescott next". Paul having been the player to give Jon a hard time
> when I was coming up to dan level, this isn't something with which I'd
have
> had a problem.
Normally I am noted for rashly not employing the services of Mr Bowdler, but
I was not making the point myself in any case. I was passing on what I had
heard was a prevailing view. At the time, I actually argued, though not with
much passion, in favour of letting very strong players play whenever they
liked irrespective of what else they do for the game. Though I did not make
any quotes about Mr Prescott, I would be happy to see him play. I was also
delighted to see Jon Diamond come back recently.
But since I could sense the strength of feeling in the opposite camp, I
recall suggesting that it would be OK to limit entry provided the tournament
organisers should be allowed to issue invitations. I'm afraid I also had the
sense that the strength of feeling against the "freeloaders" was so strong
that no compromise would be entertained. Too extreme a view, I believe, but
perhaps the alleged "freeloaders" should look in the mirror and ask
themselves whether they really are being too self-centred. Is it worth
upsetting your potential victims to that degree?
I recall this debate coming up in a minor way at one of the MSOs. There was
a view that if the prizes were too high, this would only encourage the
7-dans to come from Europe. Since they would not come if the prizes were
low, this was taken to mean their hearts were not in the right place. My
response to that is best Bowdlerised.
John Fairbairn
VARIOUS KINDS OF THICKNESS
When we say "thick" (atsui) the usual image that comes to mind is "thick
shape" (atsui katachi). However, you must appreciate that there are, in
addition, a "thick game" (atsui go) and thick states (atsui keisei). We
shall begin by distunguishing them.
"Thick shape" is also called "thickness" (astumi). The condition for atsumi
is that remains stable even if the opponent approaches. If stones are simply
facing the centre, they may have "influence" but they are not atsumi.
These thick shapes are in most cases acquired as compensation for giving
actual profit to the opponent. It is clear, therefore, that the need to
convert the atsumi somewhere or at some time into actual profit follows from
the fact that the final result of the game is decided by the sizes of the
territories.
If possible, you should want to convert your atsumi in to actual profit at
an early stage by using it for attacks or moyos. However, there is a proverb
that says "Do not play close thickness" and so chances to do this in the
opening are not easily grasped.
Consequently, you turn your atsumi into atsusa and so bring about, overall,
a "thick(er) game" (atsui go). If you get a thicker game, you are likely to
be able to keep the initiative and to make decisive incursions by aiming at
favourable trades.
With a "thick game" you have a margin in your favour in the power relations
on the board, and you can bring the game to a "thick(er) state" (atsui
keisei) without any tightrope walking. A thicker state is one where slightly
but somehow it seems better for you. The various extra profits (yotoku) that
are associated with atsusa will in the end materialise as a favourable
position.
Kos often become a weapon when there is a thick shape, thick go or thick
state. Even if a ko is not actually started, merely the possibility that it
can arise can cause the opponent to retreat. It is a fundamental make-up of
a position that there are no ko threats against atsusa and lots against
thinness.
Attitudes towards atsusa differ in the opening, middle-game and endgame.
However, the basic undercurrrent to all of them is a "thick way of playing".
Note from JF
-------------
Atsui go is tricky because go can be used to mean go, game, match and style.
Normally when a pro says he has atsui go he means he has a thick style. That
is not the meaning here, however, and that is probably why, when each of the
listed types of thickness are discussed in detail later in the chapter,
atsui go is changed to the new (?) term atsui gokei. Keisei = state refers
to a well developed situation, and in go usually refers to a position where
territories are not sealed off but are fairly well defined - they are
countable in the sense of counting during a game. The Japanese word for this
kind of counting is keisei handan (aka assessment of prospects).
Each of the three types of thickness are discussed next in the book by means
of rather a lot of diagrams. I do not intend to deprive you of the joys of
buying the book to learn more, but I will give a couple of examples from the
thick shape section as I think they will surprise some people. Incidentally,
despite what was said above, there does seem to be a gradation from atsui
katachi to atsumi.When an atsui katachi is attacked and stones are added in
its defence, the book says of one example: "This is also atsui katachi. Or
perhaps such shapes are more generally acknowledged as atsumi." Another
significant sentence is: "Solid groups which are clearly alive = atsui
katachi."
1. The joseki: c4, e4, e3, f3, d3, f4, c6, k4 (or k3 - nb omitting i). In
this position the positions of BOTH sides are thick. If k4 is omitted the
three outside stones are NOT thick.
2. The Takemiya joseki: c4, e4, e3, f3, d3, f7. Is this outside shape thick
or thin the book asks. It says one point of view is that it is thick because
it does not fear attack. It has a cutting point but a cut leads to the
outside player making a wall (this seems to be the only time wall is used in
the book!).
3. The joseki: c5, d3, e4, e3, f4, g3, c10. The outside position is thick.
However, it is the group as a whole that is thick. Take away the c10 stone
and the wall left is not thick. Furthermore, if the other side now plays h3
(a "thick move"), the outside position is no longer thick. If the other side
plays not h3 but g4, g5, h5, g6, h6, g7, h7, the h7 side's position is NOT
thick because of the defect at h4.
Compare all of this with traditional western views of thickness:
(a) From Jan van der Steen's Intergo dictionary: strong formation of stones
facing the center or facing
along a side
(b) From Sensei's Library: Thickness = Strength + Influence. Atsumi is a
Go-term meaning "the influence of strong stones". We translate it into
English with the word thickness. In order to be thick, a group of stones
must be strong and it must have influence in a certain direction. [And
also:] Influence is also refered to as thickness. Both terms, which have a
slightly different feeling, can be a translation of the Japanese atsumi .
Robert Jasiek
By accident I happen to read a book that I would have given the
title "Direction of Play and Thickness during the Opening". It
contains the following position and game sequence:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . O . . . . . . . . # . . . .
. . . O . . . . . + . . . . . + # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . # # . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . O # O . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # # O . O . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # + . O . # O + . . . . . O . . .
. . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . O . . . . . . . 59# . . . .
. . . O . . . . . + . 60. 58. + # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . 44. 22. .
. . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403935. .
. . . . . . . . . . . 56. . 423841. .
. . . . # # . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . O # O . . . 54. 3733. 26. 47.
. . . # # O . O . 57. 523653. 4645. .
. . # + . O . # O 29. . . 25. O 4849.
. . . . O . . . 2827. 55. 2324. 4350.
. . . . . . . . 323031. . . . . . 51.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . O . . . . . . . # # . . . .
. . . O . . . . . + . O . O . + # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . O . O . .
. . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . O # # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . O . . O O # . .
. . . . # # . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . O # O . . . O . # # . O . # .
. . . # # O . O . # . O O # . O # . .
. . # + . O . # O # . . . # . O O # .
. . . . O . . . O # . # . # O . # O .
. . . . . . . . O O # . . . . . . # .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Already 22 may have anticipated the strategic development until 60.
It is skillfully played by both. I dismiss tactics, strategic
choices, and book variations since I prefer to talk about this
thread's topic.
Before 22 we start with thickness of type I. That kind of thing
that John is not too pleased if called a wall. With 42 white has
built the formation 50-24-O-46-26-38-42-40. It is, according to
John's book, IIUC, thickness of type II, a kind that is thick by
cutting and preventing the opponent to run through it. Until 60
white has constructed the formation 56-42-40-22-34-58-60. In
"Thickness for 5-dans" this would be thickness of type III. It is
a thickness transformed out of earlier thickness of a different
type (or of different types) and is scattered around wider and
more loosely.
Now my questions would be: What are that book's terms for the
three types of thickness, how does it advise to transform
thickness, how does it advise to use it, how is type III
recognized in general?
(After 60 my book ends the fuseki sequence. Thus yose gains as
a result of thickness are not analysed.)
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> Here, rather brutally translated,
Kind and helpful rather than brutal, IMHO.
> These thick shapes are in most cases acquired as compensation for giving
> actual profit to the opponent. It is clear, therefore, that the need to
> convert the atsumi somewhere or at some time into actual profit follows from
> the fact that the final result of the game is decided by the sizes of the
> territories.
QED, nice proof:)
> Consequently, you turn your atsumi into atsusa and so bring about, overall,
> a "thick(er) game" (atsui go). If you get a thicker game, you are likely to
> be able to keep the initiative and to make decisive incursions by aiming at
> favourable trades.
>
> With a "thick game" you have a margin in your favour in the power relations
> on the board, and you can bring the game to a "thick(er) state" (atsui
> keisei) without any tightrope walking. A thicker state is one where slightly
> but somehow it seems better for you. The various extra profits (yotoku) that
> are associated with atsusa will in the end materialise as a favourable
> position.
For me it is (still?) easier to imagine a continuous process
of a transformation from thickness via thinner but more globally
distributed thickness to territory. I do not understand the exact
meanings of atsui go and atsui keisei. Are there any exact meanings?
> 1. The joseki: c4, e4, e3, f3, d3, f4, c6, k4 (or k3 - nb omitting i). In
> this position the positions of BOTH sides are thick. If k4 is omitted the
> three outside stones are NOT thick.
Omitting k4 makes a life+death difference for the thick white shape.
The black corner shape is thick but does not radiate influence
towards some open direction of the board.
> 2. The Takemiya joseki: c4, e4, e3, f3, d3, f7. Is this outside shape thick
> or thin the book asks. It says one point of view is that it is thick because
> it does not fear attack. It has a cutting point but a cut leads to the
> outside player making a wall
Maybe I would call this a proto-thickness until white adds another
move or is forced by black to add moves so as to form a more solid
wall. This proto-behaviour is comparable to what I call a
proto-group:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . O O . . .
. . . . . O . # O # . .
. . . # . . O O # # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Often # will play elsewhere and leave his three upper stones alone
for some time as a proto-group that may either be sacrificed or
developed later. Currently, this group lacks eye potential, so it
is hardly a group yet. (It is a connection group but not a life
group yet.)
> 3. The joseki: c5, d3, e4, e3, f4, g3, c10. The outside position is thick.
> However, it is the group as a whole that is thick. Take away the c10 stone
> and the wall left is not thick.
Again, this is just a question of eye potential of the wall's
group.
--
robert jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw
Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Petrosian was actually a very economic player: his gift was seeing his
>> opponents' threats -before- they did, thus requiring minimal defensive
>> contortion. His style was to gain small structural advantages and
>> exploit these; a necessary corollorary of this is not allowing ones'
>> opponents tactical resources to complicate affairs.
>
>Well, that's thick play ... after a slow-looking start you should have all
>the forward momentum. BTW, shouldn't that be corollarollary :)?
Right; that makes a lot of sense, actually.
(Corollary? It's a word I never know when to stop spelling. :))
Andrew
--
"Maybe I'm crazy, maybe diminished; maybe I'm innocent, maybe I'm finished,
Maybe I blacked out - how, how do I play this?"
- R.E.M. , 'Diminished' ("Up")
ad...@cam.ac.uk (academic) | http://www.lexical.org.uk
gowan
> "Robert Jasiek" <jas...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:3C1C679A...@snafu.de...
> [snip]
> > So it works, thanks! However, now I am faced with a language problem.
> > I can guess that each book costs Y1800 but is it possible to order
> > by email using one of the addresses at
> > http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/643018/250-6027560-1982604
> > ? What would surface shipping/handling be if sent around the globe?
> > I guess that somewhere there would be a WWW page translation tool; is it
> > worth installing? (Netscape 4.7XX) OTOH, a list of the 6 book titles in
> > order would be fine enough.
> [snip]
>
> Those addresses are not for ordering. To order, you'll have to click the
> light orange button on the right hand side of the book details page to put
> it into the shopping cart. When you are ready to place an order click on the
> shopping cart icon at the top, and check the contents of the cart (which
> could be challenging for non-Japanese ..) and click on a light orange button
> again etc. etc. If you are not in a hurry, I'll try to get some screen shots
> and do some translation. Unfortunately I'm kind of busy until at least
> mid-January so you may end up waiting for a while. :( If you are still
> interested please e-mail me.
>
To order from Amazon.co.jp you have to set up an account there.
Registration consists of email address plus password. It works rather
like the registration system on the non-Japanese Amazon sites. If you
know the ISBN for the book(s) you want you can use the search feature
without having to input Japanese characters. If you are familiar with
the function of any of the other Amazon sites you can probably figure
out how to add books to your cart and how to check out. It does work,
I've tried it.
Under the "Igo" heading the site listed 750 titles, which must be
almost everything in print in Japan, including the other books in the
"Jitsuryoku Godan" series.
best,
gowan
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
>I'm afraid I also had the
> sense that the strength of feeling against the "freeloaders" was so strong
> that no compromise would be entertained.
Oh, I know all about the strength of feeling. In other places it's called
the 'politics of resentment', isn't it?
The current BGA line on the history of this, by some people who weren't
there, is revisionist - that I was unwilling to compromise, on Balkan war
principles that you can always improve your negotiating position. Just
untrue, I think, as John's comment suggests. I hung on in the job until the
office politics got quite out of hand. I did get that rare thing, a
decisive vote, on reducing the time limits, something the minority of one
really wasn't prepared to accept.
Since no one who wasn't a 4 dan seemed to mind enough to complain to me, you
can work out how broad the support was. The whole business was
distinguished for quantity of discussion over quality.
So I'd like to apologise here to Jon, Tony Goddard and others - they were
too many for me (all four or so of them). It would be tedious to list here
all the tricks used to defend this vested interest, but it does make a
thorough case study (ending with the ill-constructed survey and the classic
'no system pleases everyone, so
we'll have the one I want; and then I'll retire from the job').
Charles
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
>
> "Charles Matthews" wrote
> > Spanner in the works time. Here's an interesting old-style game (no
komi,
> > White wins on the final ko). Anyone care to identify (a) when White
> becomes
> > thick? (b) atsumi and atsusa? (c) the losing play?
> >
>
> V. good question. I presume we can all agree that Black has atsusa on the
> left early on, but W's position at the top remains only atsumi because of
> defects. However, I was astounded at the way B found those non-obvious
> defects. Losing move? No idea.
My answer to (a) is that White is thick(er) after 60. The game then flows
along (given some profound reading) as an attack on Black's floating
group(s) on the lower side.
Apart from White 52, which looks like the creation of atsumi to me, it is
hard to see conventional thickness plays from White. White 32 does end up
doing a lot of work.
According to brief commentary, Black erred at 173 and 175, which should have
been the big play in the top left corner White got next. OK, hardly a fair
question.
Charles
John Fairbairn
keisei, I mentioned its Chinese origins, and that reminded me of a reference
to katachi (i.e. kei-) that may be of interest.
Chapter 4 of Sun Zi's Art of War is headed "katachi" and the first paragraph
gives a good description of our atsui katachi: Those adept at war in ancient
times first made themselves invulnerable and then waited so that they could
thereby defeat the enemy.
The rest of that chapter is highly relevant to the business of thickness.
Bill Spight
> Here is game 4 (of 5) from the scene-setting part of the book.
Many thanks for posting these games and excerpts. A labour of love. :-)
[snip]
> When thickness is referred to here it possibly means exclusively the white
> thickness on the right. The wall on the left may not be thick. White 24 is
> referred to as a thoroughgoing attempt to play using thickness (atsumi) but
> it is not stated in the commentary whether this group constitutes it . A
> definition of thick shapes later on says a shape is not thick if it is
> threatened when approached, so this wall may only be semi-thick????
>
First, I think that thickness is a fuzzy concept, that there are degrees
and dimensions of thickness. Second, context and potential are
important. For me, the left-hand wall is thick because of its role in
the game. It acts as thickness, regardless of its defects.
> On 34 the comment is that White's strategy is to make his thickness (atsumi)
> work by forcing the black stone 7 to move out and by attacking this group,
> because he can't swallow up this stone.(My comment: i.e. he can't capture
> but he can bully. It is repeated a few times that Black has no problem
> living, so presumably this is a point you are supposed to think more
> about.).
>
Deep.
> W36 is seen as important (ajikeshi, ijime and overall attack - and can chew
> gum, too, no doubt). Capping at 39 instead is rejected. (Actually it says
> yoritsuki against the corner, not ijime, on this occasion, if you want to be
> pernickety - but ijime later).
>
> Otake saw 37 as a mistake. It should have been 39 (W caps then B 37). Since
> B gets both 37 and 39 in either variation this seems an interesting point to
> analyse.
>
B 37 provokes W 38, which looks to W 50. If W caps in response to B 39,
instead of W 48, Black will develop to the right, protecting against W
50. If W 48 instead of capping B 39, B 49 without provoking W 38.
> W48 is very important because it makes thickness without attacking. This I
> regard as a "new" concept (by new I mean not properly or explicitly
> discussed in the literature before). The book, anyway, does not claim
> novelty but goes on to say that this piling on the pressure without rushing
> to attack gives rise to the same effects as attacking. 48 is described as a
> move that shows a thorough understanding of thickness (atsumi).
>
I would call W 48 a dual purpose move, solidifying White's position
while attacking.
> W50 is described as a strong (i.e. forceful) move which attempts to utilise
> his atsumi for fighting. (This apparently trite comment is in the context of
> frequent talk earlier of White's moyoisation.)
>
> The timing of the kikashi at 67 is praised. This looks like another
> interesting point because it is kikashi against the thickness.
>
Difficult questions.
> There is then quite a long discussion of tactics mainly. The strategic
> points touched on are W76 (the sort of move that can be used for peace or
> war - nice concept!)
Another dual purpose move. :-)
> and the way White keeps deciding it is too early to
> attack so shifts elsewhere and finally ends up making territory at the top.
Best,
Bill
Bill Spight
> Spanner in the works time. Here's an interesting old-style game (no komi,
> White wins on the final ko). Anyone care to identify
> (a) when White becomes thick?
W 128? Conceivably W 78.
> (b) atsumi and atsusa?
With W 128 White has palpable atsumi, with which he makes central
territory (gasp!).
With W 78 White has overall atsusa with which to make and fight ko,
leading to atsumi.
> (c) the losing play?
Pas moi.
Stefan Verstraeten
news:1008590146.17261....@news.demon.co.uk...
For those unfamiliar with the text, here is an English translation of Chapter
4, from Project Gutenberg.
IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS
1. Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put
themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then
waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.
2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our
own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy
is provided by the enemy himself.
3. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat,
but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.
4. Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer
without being able to do it.
5. Security against defeat implies defensive tactics;
ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.
6. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient
strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength.
7. The general who is skilled in defense hides in the
most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in
attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven.
Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves;
on the other, a victory that is complete.
8. To see victory only when it is within the ken
of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.
9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight
and conquer and the whole Empire says, "Well done!"
10. To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength;
to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight;
to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.
11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is
one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.
12. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation
for wisdom nor credit for courage.
13. He wins his battles by making no mistakes.
Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty
of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is
already defeated.
14. Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into
a position which makes defeat impossible, and does
not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory.
16. The consummate leader cultivates the moral law,
and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is
in his power to control success.
17. In respect of military method, we have,
firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity;
thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances;
fifthly, Victory.
18. Measurement owes its existence to Earth;
Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to
Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation;
and Victory to Balancing of chances.
19. A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as
a pound's weight placed in the scale against a single grain.
20. The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting
of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep.
--Stefan
--
Posted from pg4px.pg.com [192.229.17.113]
John Fairbairn
"Rafael Caetano" <rcae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> It's not a question of "true" or "false" 5-dans. I wasn't alluding
> to the fact that many Japanese players "buy" their ranks, if that's
> what you mean.
> It's a simple question of different scales. If my assumption is
> correct, even the "true" 5-dans in Japan would be substantially weaker
> than European 5-dans, generally speaking.
I don't think it is a simple question, precisely because different scales
exist. The practice of Japanese buying diplomas or being awarded them for
reasons other than over-the-board ability does, willy nilly, affect the
overall perception of how strong a Japanese dan player is.
Since most people in the west meet a cross-section of Japanese players, on
average their grades will seem lower than ours. But within Japan, players
form local clusters far more than we do in the west. They effectively set
their own grades and the range across clusters can be enormous. I remember
being startled at one club near Sakai where all the players' names were
stuck up on a board (about 200 of them - about 40 players attended on an
ordinary day). Several of these were 9-dans! At that club I played as 5-dan
and could not beat the 9-dans with four stones. They normally only play for
money and then they really try. They let me play for nothing but didn't
really try. These are the sort of amateurs who can give a pro a hard time
but they never take part in proper events such as the Amateur Honinbo.
In contrast, there are also areas in Japan where they keep the grades very
deflated. It may have changed now, but at one time a Hiroshima 4-dan (the
maximum allowed) was known as a truly awesome creature, whereas a Tokyo
4-dan was just a salaryman with too much money. Yet even within the same
area, many clubs are really just a nexus around a local lesson-pro and so
grades vary wildly there according to the whims of the pro. As everyone is
playing the same bunch of people every time, they tend to quote their
strength as: I give 2 stones to X but take 3 from Y.
The Japanese themselves are aware that, on average, their grades are lower
than ours and often refer to the fact in reports of visits to western
congresses. It doesn't seem to bother them. But when it matters, they do
refer to "true" 5-dans. Anyone below that level is presumably so weak they
don't seem to bother differentiating, though I have seen one article that
commented, in a manner rather reminiscent of an old-fashioned anthroplogist
reporting the peculiar habits of pygmies, on our curious habit of
distinguishing a strong 2-dan from a weak 2-dan. They didn't get the pun, of
course.
John Fairbairn
"gowan" <gow...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fab2a28f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Myers" <r...@gol.REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:<5ecS7.3596$NL4.58...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> > I would be interested in hearing anyone's comments on the relationship
> > between the points John discusses about "atsumi/atsusa", and the common
use
> > of the word "atsui" in Japanese go (perhaps more among pros than
amateurs?)
> > to simply mean "ahead/winning".
>
> I don't think this use of "atsui" means "winning" or "ahead". It
> seems more to be used when the game is actually close, but one side
> has the potential to make more points than the other. Indeed it may
> be applied to a situation in which the player who is "atsui" may, in
> fact, be behind at that moment.
I'd side with Bob on this as regards actual use rather than theoretical use,
which gowan seems to be quoting. The Book actually refers to this usage and
points out that one reason the term has become popular is that with short
time limits it is no longer possible to work out the endgame as accurately
as before. So pros make an assessment rather than a count and declare that
the one who is probably ahead is atsui (i.e. thicker, i.e. ahead!). The
phase atsui keisei is reached when the game becomes assessable like this (we
often refer to counting, of course, but that is ambiguous).
Go terminology is a living language in Japan and changes fairly rapidly.
Even a 100 years ago you can easily find technical texts where not a single
word (apart from stone and so on) would appear today. An example is given in
The Book where a long quotation is given from a 17th century master of
thickness, Honinbo Sanetsu, only he didn't know it - he called it something
else. The related term then was kurai, which I'd say was popular because it
was prevalent in other senses among samurais. It's still used a lot in
shogi, but is rare in go (though some pros like to use it in high-level
talk). It refers to occupying the better position in a confrontation (e.g.
the high ground, the way out, or backs to the river).
Robert Jasiek
gowan wrote:
> To order from Amazon.co.jp you have to set up an account there.
> Registration consists of email address plus password. It works rather
> like the registration system on the non-Japanese Amazon sites. If you
Thx!
> Under the "Igo" heading the site listed 750 titles, which must be
> almost everything in print in Japan, including the other books in the
> "Jitsuryoku Godan" series.
After dozens of minutes of excercise how to find a Japanese topic
if the Japanese search engine does not precess latin words, I have
found Game of Go at amazon.co.jp at
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/500552/250-6027560-1982604
This is called page 1 of 25. Now I will have something to read using
http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/
Second radio button below is Japanese->English and the button to the
right executes.
--
robert jasiek
Denis Feldmann
"Dieter Verhofstadt" <Dieter_Ve...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le
message news: bbfd31ad.01121...@posting.google.com...
> Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<3C1817BF...@pacbell.net>...
> Dear Bill and John,
>
> Although a high degree of accuracy in translating Japanese terms is
> desirable and probably the best way to enhance our understanding of
> the concepts involved, proper translation and thorough understanding
> are not synonyms. I mean, even if we haven't yet found a nice English
> counterpart for each subtlety in French erotic literature, that should
> not prevent us from making love, or, for those who are bad at doing
> it, from discussing it, don't you think ?
I thought those who were bad at things should teach them (and thse who are
bad at teaching should give pedagogy lessons)?
>
> Dieter