Haengma / The Fifth
Robert Jasiek
He likes to see functions and purposes of moves. If we simplify a
little and classify all moves into two categories, then they have
the following characteristics:
I II
immediately territory-orientated not immediately territory-orientated
static dynamic
peaceful fighting
settled moving
not haengma haengma
Example:
. 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2116. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 18152 2012. 14. . . . . . 5 . . . .
. . 1917. . . . . + . . . . . + 1 . .
. . . 9 . 11. 13. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 24. . 26. . . . . . . . . . .
. . 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . .
. . . 25. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4 . . . . . + . . . . . + 7 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
rather not haengma rather being haengma
5, 8 9..26
In the sequence 9..26 especially the black moves are haengma but white
cooperates in creating it and also gets his own share in the development
of stones. You might say that 14 is not so much a haengma move because
the white group is already settled. Settled? Life and death may be settled
but 14 not only develops the white group towards a direction like 8 but
also retains a second development direction of the group. In contrast 8
merely settles the one and only reasonable development direction. If we
consider haengma to be a concept with varying degree of intensity, then
we might call any move a haengma, even 8. However, usually haengma is
used in a way that distinguishes a high from a low degree of mobile
development.
Particular shapes of haengma get their shape name like "diagonal haengma",
etc. However, Korean baduk language is said to be not too consistent from
a theoretician's view. Some particular names for shapes, etc. might
confuse a general understanding of the concept haengma.
When Mr. Jeong asked some Korean amateurs what haengma might be, he did
not get any profound or even precise answer. This seems to be caused by
the problems resulting from a broad possible range of resolution with
that one could distinguish degrees of haengma of stones. One could use
haengma with a strict dark versus bright view or with a broad view that
permits every intensity.
He continues to compare Korean and Japanese go by attributing a higher
degree of haengma and flexible functions to the former and of shape and
acknowledged technique to the latter.
--
robert jasiek
Dieter Verhofstadt
... a text, part of which I represent again, now with the word
izukutaipa replacing the word haengma. With this slight modification,
what is said is not more nor less true, neither does it win or lose
any meaning. Apparently, both haengma and izukutaipa are so
meaningless that professionals need amateurs to explain their precise
meaning - an endeavour in which they gloriously fail, as could be
expected.
Dieter
> Prof. Soo-Hyun Jeong 9p has kindly explained me his view on izukutaipa.
> If we
> consider izukutaipa to be a concept with varying degree of intensity, then
> we might call any move a izukutaipa, even 8. However, usually izukutaipa is
> used in a way that distinguishes a high from a low degree of mobile
> development.
>
> Some particular names for shapes, etc. might
> confuse a general understanding of the concept izukutaipa.
>
> When Mr. Jeong asked some Korean amateurs what izukutaipa might be, he did
> not get any profound or even precise answer. This seems to be caused by
> the problems resulting from a broad possible range of resolution with
> that one could distinguish degrees of izukutaipa of stones. One could use
> izukutaipa with a strict dark versus bright view or with a broad view that
> permits every intensity.
>
> He continues to compare Korean and Japanese go by attributing a higher
> degree of izukutaipa and flexible functions to the former and of shape and
Charles Matthews
Dieter Verhofstadt wrote
> Robert Jasiek wrote ...
>
> ... a text, part of which I represent again, now with the word
> izukutaipa replacing the word haengma. With this slight modification,
> what is said is not more nor less true, neither does it win or lose
> any meaning. Apparently, both haengma and izukutaipa are so
> meaningless that professionals need amateurs to explain their precise
> meaning - an endeavour in which they gloriously fail, as could be
> expected.
If this is intended as criticism of Robert's posting, I don't see the
justification. I am by no means able to extract all the inwardness of all
that Robert Jasiek writes - nor do I share his outlook on go in general -
but this topic is one that has been the subject of thorough discussion on
rgg in the recent past.
To put it all in context, then:
- the Korean technical term haengma is a relative novelty to Western go
readers (and writers);
- the primary source we have for it is its mention is in the Janice Kim
introductory series (which as all should know is jointly written with Jeong
Soo-hyun);
- so Robert is posting Professor Jeong's own explanation of how he uses the
term (as contrasted with amateurs), he being a pro 9 dan speaking for
himself.
This complements what has been said, by John Fairbairn, about haengma not
being a well-targeted term (any more than suji in Japanese), but something
like 'technique' or 'manoeuvre', applicable on the face of it to quite
generic operations. That can come from the side of consulting a dictionary
or everyday usage - as Prof. Jeong employs it, it is a clearly a distinctive
term of art of go (should I say, baduk) in the making. Anyone can mock
jargon as 'buzzwords' and so on, but the other side of that is to monitor
emergent terms as reflecting the state of the art (as Korean baduk as been
for the past decade).
Charles
Pieter Mioch
"Charles Matthews" <cha...@sabaki.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1013851619.5560.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
<snip>
> This complements what has been said, by John Fairbairn, about >haengma not
> being a well-targeted term (any more than suji in Japanese).....
Running the risk to be mistaken for the Monty Python 10-ton weight (or for
that matter the Spanish Inquisition) I've not a clue as to what haengma is
all about but to me suji certainly seems to be a well-targeted term. For
that matter, I cannot believe that John would ever say that suji is not (a
well-targeted term).
(I don't mean that you wrote he said so)
The meaning of “suji” applied to a move in the game of go describes the
ability of given move to make itself useful with regard to neighboring
stones in move 2 of a sequence which might follow or move 20.
In many situations there is more than one “suji” move which might mystify
the issue a bit but actually does not; the purpose of suji move A can be
different from suji move B which is located just one space to the right/
left.
Connecting against a peep is a perfect suji move (it is very useful :-)
although it isn’t very original and the suji story (almost) stops the
moment the thick connection is played. More often it is the case that a suji
move does (or can do) more than a single thing at a time.
“Tesuji” are those beasts that are in no way refutable; if played out
correctly they will always fulfil their intended purpose (btw, a tesuji
might capture some enemy stones but still not rescue the dying group i.e.
the group was dead anyway and the tesuji (e.g. a snapback) did what it was
meant to do: capture enemy stones).
So, for a move just because it is suji or good shape does not automatically
mean that it always will (or can) do what it played for: Suji, a versatile
move often helping the local situation and/ or forcing the opponent to play
less versatile move(s).
Pieter
PS good to hear you are picking up your internet articles again
Robert Jasiek
Pieter Mioch wrote:
> I've not a clue as to what haengma is all about
If you reread the ca. five series of threads about the topic, then this
would seem an exaggeration. What have you not understood about it? Even
a rough description like "flexible development potential" is already
rather useful. What haengma will then be all about in practice largely
depends on the player's ability to see such potential associated to a
stone or stones.
In contrast, from what I understand about your description, suji is about
the current flexible meanings of a stone or stones. Even if the current
meanings are assumed many moves later, the finally realized meanings would
be constantly among the same as given in the presence. In contrast, haengma
refers to the future. Expand the dimension of time for suji so that not
only the move numbers proceeds but so that also the meanings around suji
become functions depending on time and you get haengma. With proceeding
time suji has a static environment of meanings while haengma has a dynamic
enviroment of meanings. Consider the move number sequence of a game. For
each number in it you can postulate suji for a stone or stones. You get
suji-1, suji-2, ..., suji-n for a stone or stones and all this together
can be the haengma at the moment of move number 1 of the stone or stones
in question.
This is still too simplifying. Suji, IIUYC, is a shape concept, a concept
that gathers shape meanings. OTOH, haengma is a collective concept
gathering shape meanings, strategic meanings, fighting meanings, etc. So
to describe all the haengma potential of a stone or stones one must
reconsider it after 1, 2, ..., n further moves in a game and include all
gained insight. You may say that I over-interpretate the concept once more.
In practice you might be right because simply no player is able to predict
sufficiently profoundly 1, 2, ..., n further moves. However, in theory I
think I am right that the intention of haengma goes in that direction and
that only practical shortcomings of a player's abilities create
restrictions. Hence I repeat that your haengma understanding is a matter
of your ability to associate future potential with a stone or stones. As
a term haengma is the proclaimed desire to describe such potential as
extensively as possible. Should we even claim that the Koreans (Korean
teachers) are so strong because they know how to support the (our) desire
of improving?
--
robert jasiek
Pieter Mioch
"Robert Jasiek wrote
>> Pieter Mioch wrote:
> > I've not a clue as to what haengma is all about
>
> If you ....
<snip>
> robert jasiek
Wow, I admire your energy and apologize if I sounded ungrateful in respect
to your and other people's postings explaining about haengma.
Let me rephrase my perhaps unfortunate sentence and add the original context
back again:
"Charles wrote
> This complements what has been said, by John Fairbairn, about
>haengma not
> being a well-targeted term (any more than suji in Japanese)
I would like to avoid a discussion about whether or not it is at all
possible to compare haenga and suji like this.
Furthermore I also would like to stay away for now on the subject of haengma
is a well-targeted term or not.
I would like to talk about the image I have of what "suji" is about,
however, and although it would take a book or two, again, to give ample
examples and text as to explain the matter to everybody's satisfaction I
boldly state that suji is a well-targeted term with properties which indeed
can clearly be put in words, shown in examples and made clear.
Btw the way, I likened myself with a 10-ton weight for coming down on
Charles'
"(any more than suji in Japanese)" in what I thought was a heavy handed
fashion, somehow I now feel I worry too much :-)
Pieter
John Fairbairn
news:3C6E5730...@snafu.de...
>
>
> Pieter Mioch wrote:
> > I've not a clue as to what haengma is all about
>
> If you reread the ca. five series of threads about the topic, then this
> would seem an exaggeration. What have you not understood about it? Even
> a rough description like "flexible development potential" is already
> rather useful. What haengma will then be all about in practice largely
> depends on the player's ability to see such potential associated to a
> stone or stones.
>
> In contrast, from what I understand about your description, suji is about
> the current flexible meanings of a stone or stones. Even if the current
> meanings are assumed many moves later, the finally realized meanings would
> be constantly among the same as given in the presence. In contrast,
haengma
> refers to the future. Expand the dimension of time for suji so that not
> only the move numbers proceeds but so that also the meanings around suji
> become functions depending on time and you get haengma. With proceeding
> time suji has a static environment of meanings while haengma has a dynamic
> enviroment of meanings. Consider the move number sequence of a game. For
Oh, I do get tired of trying to point out that suji has a dynamic sense (and
so do many other Japanese technical terms that are rendered as static words
in English e.g. ponnuki; but I do think the charge that Japanese players
overemphasise good shape is probably justified).
Despite this, I think Robert is moving close to the truth. As I understand
it, both suji and haengma imply a process. Both are dynamic concepts. But
the difference comes when that process is evaluated. It seems to me that the
Japanese (even pros) evaluate a process statically (using good shape, tewari
etc). The Koreans (lacking a proper word for good shape as far as I can see)
evaluate it more dynamically, and in particular by assessing its potential
for future development.
This is not to say the Japanese do not assess future developments, but they
seem to do this more by applying different filters such as aji and miai, and
in effect apply two or more processes where the Koreans apply only one.
Robert Jasiek
John Fairbairn wrote:
> Oh, I do get tired of trying to point out that suji has a dynamic sense
IMHO, you have almost succeeded in convincing us after all:)
--
robert jasiek
Dieter Verhofstadt
> justification.
(...) Anyone can mock
> jargon as 'buzzwords' and so on, but the other side of that is to monitor
> emergent terms as reflecting the state of the art (as Korean baduk as been
> for the past decade).
>
> Charles
I really appreciate any effort done on behalf of our Western Go
community to understand technical aspects of Go. Especially the
attempts to open up the Korean realm is highly welcomed. My post was
not intended to disrupt that process - if it would ever have that
power - but to express the state of dazzlement I was in after reading
the post. It meant nothing to me. When my pupils frown or gaze I
reconsider the explanation and try again. Of course, if one of them
tries to make a fool out of me, I'll be less complacent.
I'll look up the thread on haengma.
Dieter
Charles Matthews
> "Charles Matthews" wrote
>
> > This complements what has been said, by John Fairbairn, about >haengma
not
> > being a well-targeted term (any more than suji in Japanese).....
>
> Running the risk to be mistaken for the Monty Python 10-ton weight (or for
> that matter the Spanish Inquisition) I've not a clue as to what haengma is
> all about but to me suji certainly seems to be a well-targeted term. For
> that matter, I cannot believe that John would ever say that suji is not (a
> well-targeted term).
> (I don't mean that you wrote he said so).
Previous and quite long-running discussion has made it clearer what JF means
than I could in five words. (BTW those weren't metric tonnes, as we write
them in England - but the slightly different imperial ton = 2240 lb.)
I hope I do have a clue at least what haengma means, considering that I have
written a book chapter on it with a strong Korean amateur (no, I have no
idea when it will be published). That chapter is about the longer, lighter
jumping shapes. For example the large knight's move (ogeima, the relation
between say K10 and N11). It gets a few pages, but there is a book to be
written about how pros use it.
For example:
- the way Go Seigen employs it in certain positions, as a part of his light
style
- using ogeima to shut in a group on the side which isn't actually going to
die
- Ishida's comment that the ogeima is part of the Rin Kaiho style
- Otake talking about one of his title series
and I've not even got onto Cho Hun-hyeon yet.
To adopt JF's dogma, though, I should speak about process. This has
clarified in my mind: let's keep the haengma meaning of a shape for the idea
that a strong player may avoid playing to fix a the shape too much, but make
a loose shape that induces the opponent to fix things in an acceptable way.
Call this haengma1, if you like. The second example I gave for ogeima must
be familiar to good players: you're attacking a group on the side, and shut
it in, not expecting to kill it, but that your opponent will play forcing
moves from the inside. You therefore don't play the most severe attack, but
concentrate on playing a shape that is at least sente, and will leave good
shape and influence (less cutting aji) when the expected sequence is over.
Usually when the diagonal jump (hazama, relation between K10 and M12) is
played, it has this sort of haengma1 feel. When you play it you expect an
answer, and a settled shape to emerge.
Another big field of enquiry like this seems to be sliding moves (suberi,
hashiri) down to the second line. The longer ones (up to
extra-large-knight's move, relation between K3 and O2) often appear in pro
go, but tend to induce an immediate sequence that fixes up the shape. There
is a book by Ishii about this.
So I see a perfectly sensible specialised process-meaning of haengma here (I
don't exclude others, which is why I call it haengma1). You play a shape
which only *looks* dangerous ... and the point is to allow the opponent to
come at you, with the result that fixed, safe shape emerges in the way you
want.
The next chapter, in the book I mentioned, is on sabaki. I draw a few
parallels:
- there is a meaning sabaki1, which is to play some contact plays and
crosscuts etc., sacrificing a few stones but emerging with good defensive
shape;
- that may not be the whole meaning of sabaki, but this sort of process is
certainly used by strong players all the time;
- another aspect of light play;
- looks dangerous to weak players, not really for an expert.
So, there is a big idea in go that you can let the opponent play "attacking"
or "aggressive" or "forcing" moves against you; but it really doesn't matter
if you know how to reply in the position. There is an opposite idea, that
you should play steadily, and then win in an orthodox way by converting some
extra thickness into an endgame win. The point is that either can be
strong. I suppose the first way looks harder to understand ... I doubt
that's really true, but the initial concepts of this "bullfighting" approach
take more explanation.
Charles
Michael Sullivan
> Pieter Mioch wrote:
> > I've not a clue as to what haengma is all about
> If you reread the ca. five series of threads about the topic, then this
> would seem an exaggeration.
What do you mean by "the ca. five series of threads about the topic"?
Are you referring to threads on this newsgroup? Recently?
Okay, I just googled on haengma for rec.games.go and found a few places
it's been discussed in the last couple years. I don't think I'm very
close to getting the meaning. About the most I can figure is that it
refers to various ways multiple stones can be connected.
What you say in the next few paragraphs that I have snipped (or
everything else I read in the previous threads about it) gives me
nothing whatsoever to work with in figuring out what might be meant by
haengma beyond the bare simplistic concept of "the geometric
relationship between two different stones". Clearly more is intended,
but I sure don't get it.
What you're saying here seems aimed at people who already understand the
concept and are trying to compare it with other japanese or english
concepts.
Some of us just want to understand what haengma means when you or others
use it. Maybe I need to read Janice Kim's books.
> What have you not understood about it? Even
> a rough description like "flexible development potential" is already
> rather useful. What haengma will then be all about in practice largely
> depends on the player's ability to see such potential associated to a
> stone or stones.
This sounds like sophistry. Flexible development potential? This seems
to relate only very vaguely to Kim's "basic relations between two
stones" that was discussed two years ago here. It sounds like you are
describing "sabaki", a little. Is that a good translation? If so, it
doesn't seem to mesh with what I read about haengma in the previous
threads.
Clearly there's some steps missing in the connection from the bone
simple basics to what you are experiencing as the meaning. I think this
is what Pieter is talking about when he says "I've not a clue as to what
haengma is all about."
I don't either.
Michael
Robert Jasiek
Michael Sullivan wrote:
> What do you mean by "the ca. five series of threads about the topic"?
> Are you referring to threads on this newsgroup? Recently?
OC in this newsgroup. Since ca. last April.
> Okay, I just googled on haengma for rec.games.go and found a few places
> it's been discussed in the last couple years.
Google, advanced groups search, RGG, my name, and haengma should find
the threads for you. I do not remember the subjects except Haengma / The
Fourth:)
> I don't think I'm very close to getting the meaning.
This is hardly a surprise since its meaning is complex, rarely described,
flexible, dynamic, and connected to other concepts.
> Clearly more is intended, but I sure don't get it.
>
> What you're saying here seems aimed at people who already understand the
> concept
I have written mainly at an abstract, defining level while presuming
knowledge of earlier discussions on the topic.
> Some of us just want to understand what haengma means when you or others
> use it.
Since the term is very complex, it requires a book to explain it so that
everybody understands it.
> Maybe I need to read Janice Kim's books.
>From quickly looking into them I do not think that they explain the
concept well. IIRC, they only explain a small portion of its meaning
and applications. Likewise Shape Up! seems to concentrate on a few
rather trivial aspects like particular, regularly occurring shapes or
maybe connections between two stones. Expect similar coverage in the
two Korean haengma books I reviewed. However, these two are the best
you can currently get and if you take the RGG threads as a hint, then
you find much more beyond their text commentaries in them, although
maybe it requires a (strong) dan player and experienced reader to
notice such. If all this is not enough for you, then you might need to
wait for someone with sufficient time to illustrate the threads'
contents in many examples here or for me to write a haengma book,
however, books about joseki, problem solving, middle game strategy, or
rules have a higher priority in my current schedule, although to some
extent I should cover haengma in them.
> Flexible development potential? [...] "I've not a clue as to what
> haengma is all about." I don't either.
I give you a few examples here but beyond that you have to wait for
detailed explanations elsewhere or by somebody else, see above.
Haengma Meaning 1:
(upper left corner)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
# needs an extension. He has virtually only one development direction.
So there is little flexibility. Therefore normally one would rather not
speak of haengma. Nevertheless, the development of a stone in the sense
of moving it by means of an extension to some direction is called haengma
of type 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . A B . .
. . O . . . . . C D . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Normally the development potential of the # stone includes the
possibilities A..D to make an extension. Either is good haengma_1 in
the meaning of being a reasonably possible extension development
(movement) of the # stone.
Haengma Meaning 2:
(upper left corner)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . # . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
The left # stone has realized its haengma_1 potential by the actual,
specialized shape extension in form of the right # stone. This creates
a connection relation between the two # stones. Such is a haengma_2.
In this particular case it is called "two space extension haengma". You
may notice that this is like naming a particular shape. Yes, but when
we view a shape in the sense of haengma, we mean the movement, the
development in form of an extension from one stone (the left one) to
another stone (the right one) that by choice assumes a particular
instance of shape. Haengma_2 wants to describe the process of turning
an option of an extension (haengma_1) into chosen reality. The actually
chosen extension is good haengma_2 if among all haengma_1 options for
the purpose of extension the actually chosen extension is the best one.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . # . O . . . O . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The right black stone is good haengma_2 because it is the only one of
all typical haengma_1 options for an extension from the left # stone
that provides reasonable eye potential.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . # . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
If we take another look at this diagram, then we can see the right #
stone as an extension of the left # stone and the left # stone as an
extension of the right # stone. They form a mutual connection. This sort
of connection relation is also part of a haengma_2 meaning.
Haengma Meaning 3:
(upper side)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . 1 . O . . . O . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Haengma_3 is the flexibility of a development. # has no choice but to
play 1. This is without options for him, he has no flexibility of
developing an extension. Therefore the move 1 is not a haengma_3.
(upper side)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This extension 1 is a haengma_3 because it is made as a choice among
several possible extensions (haengma_1 plays). 1 is played as a
flexible move that does not only provide static territory but that
also creates future moyo potential. The latter, the investment in the
future is an aspect of haengma_3. However, in particular the
flexibility of such an investment is meant. Here # has the flexibility
not to make territory out of his moyo but, e.g., to force O to reduce
or invade and use such by other # strategies later. The move 1 as a
haengma_3 creates future strategic possibilities / developments.
Haengma Meaning 4:
(upper left corner)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . #c. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . #b. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . #a. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Mutual connection potential (haengma_2) can be extended from two stones
like a and b or b and c or a and c to several stones like a and b and c.
They get functions for them altogether. Since haengma is a development
concept, we should especially speak of functions that express future
potential. a,b,c together have the haengma_4 relation of being a wall
and its potential is strategic usage of this wall.
Haengma Meaning 5:
(upper side)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . a 1 b O . . . O . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now we come to the more interesting meanings of haengma. To understand
such, you need to know of the existence of strategic concepts (general
concepts for describing strategy). Efficiency is a strategic concept.
[If you are weaker than 5 kyu, then this short explanation might be far
above your head.]
Haengma_5 is a haengma of another, simpler type referring to aspects like
extension options that is used as a fundamental strategic concept of
level 1 that is combined and associated with a higher strategic concept of
level 2 like efficiency. In this diagram, when considering efficiency, the
haengma_5 of #1 is creating an extension so that it is the most efficient.
The level 2 strategic concepts efficiency provides us with a criterion to
optimize the level 1 strategic concept haengma_1. #1 at a would be less
efficient because its haengma_2 connection is too narrow, #1 at b would be
less efficient because the far extension would allow a O invasion.
If we get an optimum, then you might say that we lose all our flexibility,
which has been supposed a feature of haengma. However, finding the best
move is not meant to prohibit the existence of haengma as a term. Now
where is that flexibility in haengma_5? It lies in the variable choice of
selecting a level 2 strategic concept for a level 1 calibration! E.g., we
can also choose another strategic concept at level 2: The strategic concept
eye potential. Which strategic concept is best? In general you might ask so
when looking for a haengma_5. However, then you have not grasped the full
potential hidden in haengma yet: Already as a concept it is flexible. Why
should we not insert efficiency and eye potential as our level 2 concept
one after another?! A haengma_5 (development, potential) of a move becomes
the better the more positive meanings we get by successfully analysing the
more level 2 concepts.
If we look at a stone placed on the board like #1, then we can also take
the postplacement view: Which functions / purposes has #1? It is a
connection, extension, and provides eye potential. Thus its haengma_5
includes to maintain connection potential in the future, to maintain its
status as an extention in the future, to provide eye potential in the
future, but also to sacrifice either in exchange of other potential
developments later. Sacrifice. This is yet another level 2 strategic
concept that can be associated with a haengma_5. The more level 2
concepts are considered the more convincingly we find moves with
good and flexible haengma. Also you see the time dimension; haengma is a
concept that analyses and tolerates changes with proceeding time.
Haengma Meaning 6:
(upper left corner)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . a . . . . . . .
. . . O . # . . b . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . c . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Haengma_6 is the future potential of a stone. Here, simplifyingly only
considering extensions, the # stone has the future potential to develop
towards the directions a, b, and c. At the end of the game we will see
how well its haengma_6 potential will have been realized. You have played
well if all your stones have performed much haengma_6 potential, i.e.
worked well together in efficient coordination.
***
There is more to haengma, but here I stop listing some of this low-level
strategic concept's features.
--
robert jasiek
John Fairbairn
most players not only prefer to be told "hane at the head of two stones" is
good rather than have a disquisition on hane_1, hane_2 and hane_3, but may
actually find it more useful.
I suggest an alternative explanatory sketch. Haengma means "proper
development of groups". A typical example is a kosumi. The Japanese, who
prefer to talk in terms of (static) good shape would assess the value of
this shape as being good because it cannot be cut. The Koreans, who prefer
the dynamic concept of haengma, would assess it as good if it has scope for
follow-ups such as a knight's move.
Beginners need to learn the basic shapes that constitute good haengma
(kosumi, tobi, keima etc). More advanced players will learn how to follow up
from the follow-ups to these shapes, but they will still learn to assess
them as good according to whether they offer scope for further development.
There will come a point when it will be possible to talk to them about
further development not just in terms of shapes but if goals (making a base,
leaving an escape route, aiming at an invasion - the more goals that become
available the better). Advanced players will learn, mainly by repeated
observation, how certain sequences (follow ups to follow ups) lead to groups
which do not so much develop in themselves (by addition of stones) but
develop by making available follow-up strategic ideas (e.g. a reduction
sequence on one side of the board leads to a long-term threat against a weak
group facing it on the other side of the board). All these players are using
the same basic materials, but in more advanced ways as they improve.
So, in this version of the description, we build a structure of
understanding by using building blocks. As beginners we just pile one block
on top of another, somewhat artlessly. As we become more familiar with the
properties of the blocks we learn to stack them more artfully, maybe trim
them a bit, learn to go round corners. If we stick at it and become really
adept, we even learn to build an archway with the same blocks. It seems to
me that most people prefer to learn about building blocks in this hands-on
way, rather than doing a chemical analysis of the composition of the stone.
If I'm right, it seems to follow that most people will also prefer to learn
by being shown examples of good practice and trying to imitate. Robert has
consistently declared his dislike for examples that do not also contain the
equivalent of a detailed chemical analysis, but as far as I can see the
copy-and-do way of learning is the most natural. It's how we learn from the
cradle onwards.
I am not decrying the analytical word as typified by Robert. It benefits all
of us if someone is prepared to do it, but once it's done it has to be
repackaged and presented in a more natural way - re-synthesised. Hane at the
head of two stones. Haengma is the proper development of groups.
It would be valuable to hear a wide cross-section of views on this matter of
presentation. Quite a few r.g.g. readers are also writers and teachers of
go. It would help all of them to know what the preferred approaches are.
(Extra note for Robert: You have given me the impression that you
differentiate in some cases between a stone and a group. Remember that in
Korean there is no distinction between singular and plural so haengma
**seamlessly** covers stone and stones. "Group" seems the best word if it is
accepted that a group can comprise one stone.)
"Robert Jasiek" <jas...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:3C70C983...@snafu.de...
Barry Phease
<john...@harrowgo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert: I wonder if this isn't overegging the pudding. It seems to me that
>most players not only prefer to be told "hane at the head of two stones" is
>good rather than have a disquisition on hane_1, hane_2 and hane_3, but may
>actually find it more useful.
well I think Robert's approach is good for a dictionary of Haengma,
but perhaps too much for usenet. Usenet works best with one line
explanations that can then propagate into threads of millions of
articles.
>I suggest an alternative explanatory sketch. Haengma means "proper
>development of groups".
Yuo have to have a very flexible idea of what a "group" is. you say
later that a group can emcompass a single stone, but I think you also
have to allow it to spread over much of the board.
>A typical example is a kosumi. The Japanese, who
>prefer to talk in terms of (static) good shape would assess the value of
>this shape as being good because it cannot be cut. The Koreans, who prefer
>the dynamic concept of haengma, would assess it as good if it has scope for
>follow-ups such as a knight's move.
Perhaps this is the best statement I have yet seen of the difference
between Suji and Haengma. (I hope I am thinking along the right
lines). As you say Japanese go students are taught shapes that are
good. Buried within that is the reason that they are good, which is
because they are secure and/or allow scope for development.
The kosumi is a good example. We already have had on RGG (from China
via S. Africa) the concept of "compromised kosumi". The idea that a
kosumi is bad shape, if the opponent has already got a stone on one of
the diagonal points nearby. This means that the kosumi would have
less potential development.
Beginners like to play kosumi because it cannot be cut and it makes
them feel safe. Stronger players avoid it because it feels too slow.
Very strong players play it when they can see the development
potential of it.
Perhaps the Korean approach makes it easier to travel this path.
Barry Phease
Robert Jasiek
John,
> I suggest an alternative explanatory sketch.
The more presentations the better:)
> It seems to
> me that most people prefer to learn about building blocks in this hands-on
> way, rather than doing a chemical analysis of the composition of the stone.
Go theory describes strategy (besides other aspects). Strategy is as
complex as nature. If we want to understand either, then we cannot
describe it well enough by building block above block. The inherent
orders are not a linear chain but a jam of mutually interdependent,
dynamic objects. We need to identify the objects and their relations.
Everything is involved at any time so dependencies are much more
complex than consisting of nothing but pairwise relations. With such
a grade of interaction a block by block model is insufficient. It may
still be appropriate for weaker players but stronger players need to
understand more complex models. Currently haengma literature may use
a block by block model aimed at weaker players. For a broad understanding
of all potential in that strategic concept models need to become advanced
and maybe advanced models can only be understood easily by stronger
players. A possibly required non-trivial mental effort, however, would
be no reason to hide advanced models entirely.
> If I'm right, it seems to follow that most people will also prefer to learn
> by being shown examples of good practice and trying to imitate.
Follow from what? Does it follow from piling block above block, which is
a basic learning method? Do you say that all go theory can be presented
in a block by block scheme? As said above, I doubt this because of the
complexity of strategy. In fact, I go further and claim advanced go
knowledge cannot be acquired by a pure, simplistic block by block
learning. It would be interesting to test this claim. Why do so many
players remain at a kyu level? Because they are not able to learn by
methods more advanced than block by block or because so far virtually
no attempt has been made to expose them to other methods? I believe that
players can use different learning techniques and so I will use more
variation of methods than example after example after example!
> Robert has
> consistently declared his dislike for examples that do not also contain the
> equivalent of a detailed chemical analysis,
An example is not bad per se. A collection of examples, however, can
become good or bad, depending on whether and how well it goes beyond
being just a succession.
> but as far as I can see the
> copy-and-do way of learning is the most natural.
If so, why should only examples be the object of copy-and-do and why
could structure not be an object of copy-and-do?
> It's how we learn from the cradle onwards.
Now I don't enter that general sociological discussion on this
newsgroup:)
> (Extra note for Robert: You have given me the impression that you
> differentiate in some cases between a stone and a group.
In languages that distinguish singular and plural I do list both where
necessary for factual clarity. I use the term stone or its plural with
meanings other than for the term group; so I cannot use group as a
plural of stone.
--
robert jasiek
Charles Matthews
John Fairbairn wrote
>It seems to me that
> most players not only prefer to be told "hane at the head of two stones"
is
> good rather than have a disquisition on hane_1, hane_2 and hane_3, but may
> actually find it more useful.
Perhaps I started this. If we could have both the proverb, and the complete
"exploded view" somehow showing the full mechanism, that would be good,
actually. My suspicion is that the exploded view goes on producing minor
explosions as you get down to case-by-case - to the point perhaps of
diminishing returns. One of my tenets in writing about go is to keep the
piece of paper with that level of analysis secret, just skimming off some
worthwhile and central comments.
Charles
John Fairbairn
attacking more subtly than amateurs by using a large kt's move instead of
something more aggressive. I just noticed a good example. See moves 36 and
38.
(;SZ[19]FF[3]
PW[Cho Hun-hyeon]
WR[9d]
PB[Kim Chae-ku]
BR[7d]
EV[16th Wangwi]
RO[Challengers' Final, Game 1]
DT[1982-04-10]
PC[Hanguk Kiweon]
KM[5.5]
RE[W+R]
US[GoGoD95]
;B[pd];W[dc];B[dp];W[pq];B[ce];W[dh];B[dg];W[eg];B[cg];W[ef];B[eh];W[dj]
;B[cc];W[ed];B[fh];W[ch];B[cb];W[bg];B[bf];W[de];B[cf];W[cm];B[jd];W[hf]
;B[fj];W[fq];B[fp];W[gp];B[eq];W[fo];B[ep];W[gq];B[bo];W[bn];B[co];W[ii]
;B[em];W[hl];B[hh];W[ih];B[gm];W[hm];B[hj];W[ij];B[gn];W[hn];B[hg];W[ig]
;B[bl];W[cl];B[gf];W[ge];B[bk];W[el];B[fl];W[ek];B[fk];W[bm];B[bh];W[bi]
;B[ag];W[bj];B[go];W[ho];B[po];W[oo];B[on];W[no];B[pp];W[oq];B[pm];W[qn]
;B[pn];W[qq];B[mm];W[pj];B[qh];W[oh];B[qf];W[mk];B[ok];W[oj];B[rl];W[lc]
;B[le];W[if];B[nc];W[md];B[nf];W[me];B[mf];W[lf];B[gd];W[hd];B[kf];W[lg]
;B[ke];W[oe];B[hc];W[gc];B[of];W[od];B[oc];W[pe];B[qe];W[pc];B[qd];W[mc]
;B[mh];W[kg];B[kh];W[lh];B[li];W[jg];B[og];W[pb];B[mj];W[lk];B[nk];W[mg]
;B[nh];W[db];B[kb];W[kc];B[jc];W[hb];B[nb];W[mb];B[qb];W[na];B[qc];W[pa]
;B[kq];W[iq];B[lo];W[mq];B[km];W[ro];B[qa];W[nd];B[kk];W[kj];B[lj];W[dm]
;B[dn];W[ln];B[kn];W[mn];B[mr];W[nr];B[lq];W[kl];B[mp];W[ki];B[nj];W[nq]
;B[lm];W[jk];B[da];W[ea];B[ca];W[fb];B[fr];W[gr];B[er];W[rm];B[qm];W[nn]
;B[nm];W[jp];B[ir];W[hr];B[jq];W[ip];B[ko];W[ao];B[ap];W[an];B[bp];W[gg]
;B[di];W[ci];B[ei];W[ck]
)