Is a One Point Jump Never Bad?
Robert Jasiek
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . A . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is a problem from a book. The next move should be clear at once.
At or around A. (One space above would be a modern variation.)
However, the professional author gives a different answer:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . . . . . . 4 . . 1 . . . . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . 3 . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So 1 is an intervening kikashi. Now the troubles start.
1) Why isn't 1 aji keshi?
2) Is 1 the right direction in view of the 4-5 follow-up? Why?
3) Is 4, provoking the good (or necessary) one point jump 5,
the correct direction? Why not 4 at 5? (At least 4 is at the
right local distance from 1.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . . . . . . # . . O . . . . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
. . # . . . . . . . A . . O . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . I J . .
. . . . . . . . . . C . . B . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . H G . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . E . . D . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . F . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4) Is A next correct? Why?
5) Is instead B correct? Why?
6) Is instead G or H correct? Why?
7) Is instead I correct? Why?
8) After A, is B correct? Why?
9) After A, is G correct? Why?
10) After A, is I correct? Why?
11) After A-B, is C correct? Why?
12) After A-B, is D correct? Why?
13) After A-B-C, is D correct? Why?
14) After A-B-C, is I or J correct? Why?
15) After A-B-C-D, is E correct? Why? Or maybe a right side defense?
16) After A-B-C-D-E, is F correct? Why?
17) After A..F, why no more one point jump?
--
robert jasiek
Andre Engels
would still think I can make some useful comments:
Robert Jasiek wrote:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
> . . O . . . . . . . 4 . . 1 . . . . .
> . . O # . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . .
> . . # . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
> . . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . O . . . . . O . . 3 . . # . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> So 1 is an intervening kikashi. Now the troubles start.
>
(snip)
> 3) Is 4, provoking the good (or necessary) one point jump 5,
> the correct direction? Why not 4 at 5? (At least 4 is at the
> right local distance from 1.)
I have the feeling that 4 at 5 would be an attempt to extend blacks
right-side moyo into the center. However, to make that work, black
should be able to make a similar extension at the bottom. Which the
white move at 3 makes impossible (and the 'modern' move one higher that
you mentioned makes impossible even more clearly). On the other hand, a
white move around 4, even though played on the uninteresting upper side,
does work towards making a moyo. In other words, black is making a
non-existing extension to his moyo, while white makes an uninteresting
moyo. Uninteresting is better than non-existing, so white is better off.
If on the other hand black plays 4 and white plays 5, neither player is
getting anything, but white is left with a weak group (which means that
he cannot, for example, as easily invade the left side proper).
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
> . . O . . . . . . . # . . O . . . . .
> . . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
> . . # . . . . . . . A . . O . . . . .
> . . . # . . . . . . . . . . . I J . .
> . . . . . . . . . . C . . B . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . H G . # . .
> . . . . . . . . . . E . . D . . . . .
> . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . F . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> 4) Is A next correct? Why?
It looks like a good move, black is strengthening his own weak stone
while weakening white's weak group. A white or black move here makes a
big difference for the balance of influence.
> 5) Is instead B correct? Why?
Strange shape.
> 6) Is instead G or H correct? Why?
Has, I feel, the same disadvantage that I mentioned for 4 at 5 in the
last diagram - black is building up a moyo that white has already
reduced with 3. Black has little hope of effectively extending his right
side moyo to the center, which is what these moves seem to be doing.
> 7) Is instead I correct? Why?
Too much focused on direct territory. White will have no time to invade
here with a weak group nearby, and compared to a white reduction this
simply takes too little.
> 8) After A, is B correct? Why?
I think so, white has to avoid being sealed in.
> 9) After A, is G correct? Why?
Interesting move. I have no idea whether it is correct.
> 10) After A, is I correct? Why?
No, black will answer at B, and either white gets completely surrounded
and has to look for eyes, or I is getting cut off from its friends.
> 11) After A-B, is C correct? Why?
> 12) After A-B, is D correct? Why?
I would prefer C over D here. C makes influence that could translate
into a moyo in the left center or security for the territory at the left
edge. D, like several moves before, is being negated by the white stone
at 3 - black has not chances of a moyo.
> 13) After A-B-C, is D correct? Why?
> 14) After A-B-C, is I or J correct? Why?
After I, black will answer at J, and have no troubles securing the
territory here. Looks like aji keshi.
After J, black will answer at I, and it seems that white cannot avoid
being cut through. Might be playable, though, because the black stone at
the right side would be made worthless.
D seems like the 'normal move'
> 15) After A-B-C-D, is E correct? Why? Or maybe a right side defense?
Black is now building up a moyo on the left center. A right side defense
seems less urgent, because neither can white completely destroy, nor
black completely secure it.
> 16) After A-B-C-D-E, is F correct? Why?
I think so. It does much good for the strength of the white group.
> 17) After A..F, why no more one point jump?
After F, the white group is coming into more open terrain, and closer to
his friends. Because of this, a next one-point-jump would be less
severe, and white might well not answer it. Furthermore, the left center
has already turned into a black moyo. Further strengthening his position
here without starting to enclose the moyo is worth less than the
previous moves. So not only is it less severe on white, it is also not
as big for black.
--
Andre Engels, eng...@win.tue.nl, ICQ #6260644
http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html
The joy of computers is that they allow people to repeat their mistakes
much more efficiently than would otherwise be possible. -- anonymous
Jan van der Steen
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . O # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . O . . . . . O . . A . . # . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> This is a problem from a book. The next move should be clear at once.
^> At or around A. (One space above would be a modern variation.)
^> However, the professional author gives a different answer:
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . A # . .
^> . . O . . . . . . . 4 . . 1 . . . . .
^> . . O # . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . .
^> . . # . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
^> . . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . O . . . . . O . . 3 . . # . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> So 1 is an intervening kikashi. Now the troubles start.
Nice move! Which book did you take this problem from?
^> 1) Why isn't 1 aji keshi?
Black is miserably low on the right side so white will never want to
invade there. Not much to destroy there in the first place. White 1
prevents that black occupies this point which would give the right
side more interesting shape.
^> 2) Is 1 the right direction in view of the 4-5 follow-up? Why?
Yes, imagine both players keep on playing ikken-tobi's then white
will seriously weaken the right side while black's ikken-tobi's
don't accomplish a lot on the left since white's upper-left is
very solid.
^> 3) Is 4, provoking the good (or necessary) one point jump 5,
^> the correct direction? Why not 4 at 5? (At least 4 is at the
^> right local distance from 1.)
I guess because then white will play 1 herself and get nice shape
at the top (with for example A in the above figure left as a large
follow-up).
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . O . . . . . . . # . . O . . . . .
^> . . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
^> . . # . . . . . . . A . . O . . . . .
^> . . . # . . . . . . . . . . . I J . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . C . . B . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . H G . # . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . E . . D . . . . .
^> . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . F . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
^> 4) Is A next correct? Why?
^> 5) Is instead B correct? Why?
^> 6) Is instead G or H correct? Why?
^> 7) Is instead I correct? Why?
You should ask these questions to a pro like Guo Juan
(http://home.wxs.nl/~guojuan/). She can explain such
flows, including the fighting and shape details very well.
best regards,
Jan van der Steen
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jan van der Steen Jan.van....@cwi.nl
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
The World Wide Web "http://www.cwi.nl/~jansteen/"
Robert Jasiek
> Nice move! Which book did you take this problem from?
It is of a series of Chinese books that have 350 pages each.
I never care for a title or an author if only the contents is
interesting, and it is. The only information I know is
ISBN 7-81051-193-9. Before I read ...-194-7. This is the
strangest book ever. It contains 20k problems as well as 6d
problems. Every third diagram contains at least one wrong
stone. That makes reading even more exciting:( Anyway, it is
a valuable book as well. If anyone should have more of those
demanding (advanced) strange books for selling, please let me
know. I eat them:)
--
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/
Barry Phease
I agree with your answers Jan
I would also like to see Guo Juan's answers. Personally I don't like
'A' for black. My approach to such problems is to assume that if black
doesn't play 'A' (playing somewhere on the right instead) then white
will. If that is true then black should consider where the stone should
be. The 2 choices that look like good shape are 'I' and 'G'. OTOH if
black plays 'B' and then white plays 'A' then black can reinforce the
right giving the position below with white to play. The question then
is can black get enough at the right?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . . . . . . # . . O . . . . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
. . # . . . . . . . O . . O . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . # . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . # . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White seems better to me.
So I guess 'I' giving the following with black to play (probably at
'a').
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . . a . . . # . . O . . . . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
. . # . . . . . . . 2 . . O . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Barry Phease
Robert Jasiek
>>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<<
Commentary from Katsura 2p:
The UR exchange before is good for W because it prohibits a B stone at
the now W stone after which W would have greater problems of R
reductions.
Next A-B is doubtful since it weakens R. The following is better:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . 6 8 A . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . 2 1 4 7 9 . . . O . . . . .
. . O # . . . 5 . . . . . . . # . . .
. . # . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Y . . . F . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . E . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . D B . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . X C O . . O . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Then X, Y are miai.
The W top is small and B gets nice thickness in sente.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . O . . . . . . . # . . O . . . . .
. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
. . # . . . D . . . # . . O 5 1 2 6 .
. . . # . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 8 .
. . . . . . . . . . # . . O . 7 9 A .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . .
. . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . O . . . . . O . . O . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-3 allows W to settle in sente.
Dr. Ruthless
jas...@berlin.snafu.de wrote:
> Robert Jasiek wrote:
....
>
> Commentary from Katsura 2p:
>
....
These comments are not bad, if a bit oversimplified.
Question: Did Katsura-san give permission to have these comments
published in a public forum such as rgg?
Dr. Ruthless
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Robert Jasiek
> Question: Did Katsura-san give permission to have these comments
> published in a public forum such as rgg?
Better I avoid to mention sources and thus ensuing copyright
flames in future;( In more earnest, I was kindly answered my
kind questions by the presented contents. Thus it has become
my go knowledge as well. I then kindly spread it to make the
knowledge universally available. Now, where is there any
problem? If you ask a fellow go player C for his opinion, don't
you tell any of your friends about it because you fear that C
would own a copyright? Would you hesitate to play according to
professional advice just because you owe respect as to origin
of ideas?
--
robert jasiek
Thinking is free!
Dr. Ruthless
jas...@berlin.snafu.de wrote:
>
> Better I avoid to mention sources and thus ensuing copyright
> flames in future;( In more earnest, I was kindly answered my
> kind questions by the presented contents. Thus it has become
> my go knowledge as well. I then kindly spread it to make the
> knowledge universally available. Now, where is there any
> problem? If you ask a fellow go player C for his opinion, don't
> you tell any of your friends about it because you fear that C
> would own a copyright? Would you hesitate to play according to
> professional advice just because you owe respect as to origin
> of ideas?
>
No need to get all worked up, Robert, even less necessary to stretch
your defense so far. There are two reasons for my asking the question.
One is that a professional is quite different from just a "fellow go
player", his go knowledge is his livelihood. I have given friendly
advices many many times, and some of them have seen print. But
invariably people have asked my permission to do so. It is simply a
matter of courtesy.
Second reason is that sometimes we give opinions depending on the
questioner, even if we give simplistic ones. If our names are attached
to a published version, however, we would likely not be giving the same
answer. Such is probably the case here.
Robert Jasiek
> One is that a professional is quite different from just a "fellow go
> player", his go knowledge is his livelihood.
FYI, Mr. Katsura is sponsored by Stefan Liesegang to teach go
in Berlin.
Still, if a professional just gave friendly advice, it would be his
free decision. If he wanted to earn from every word, he ought to
ask money for each in advance.
> I have given friendly
> advices many many times, and some of them have seen print.
That raises the question whether you are a professional:)
> But
> invariably people have asked my permission to do so.
Invariably.
> It is simply a matter of courtesy.
What is courtesy? Apparently opinions differ greatly, which is
rather interesting. In your opinion if a journalist hears
someone saying something, he first has to disturb the someone
with permission questions. IMO someone saying something in public
has already implicitly given permission by saying it. If he were
afraid of journalism, he would not say anything.
I played two public games against Mr. Katsura, one of which was recorded
by someone. I was quite surprised to hear the question whether I
would agree that the game be published. By playing in public I
already agreed to that possibility. There was no need to ask. If
I were afraid of recorders, I should not play publicly. Still
probably your sense of courtesy would let you ask for my permission
first. Really, there is no need; since I play in public, my games
if reported are public.
> Second reason is that sometimes we give opinions depending on the
> questioner, even if we give simplistic ones. If our names are attached
> to a published version, however, we would likely not be giving the same
> answer. Such is probably the case here.
What is the difference between speaking publicly and being
reported to have spoken publicly? It is created by the reporter
rather than the speaker. So I see no need for a public speaker
to reconsider speech before any report. The speaker might
consider the report afterwards though.
--
robert jasiek
Dr. Ruthless
jas...@berlin.snafu.de wrote:
>
> What is courtesy? Apparently opinions differ greatly, which is
> rather interesting. In your opinion if a journalist hears
> someone saying something, he first has to disturb the someone
> with permission questions. IMO someone saying something in public
> has already implicitly given permission by saying it. If he were
> afraid of journalism, he would not say anything.
>
I think you know what courtesy is. As for "journalism", see comment
below.
> Really, there is no need; since I play in public, my games
> if reported are public.
>
That's nice of you. Then of course when my 9-yr old daughter plays
cello and gets recorded and retransmitted, I would be flattered too. On
the other hand, all decent people would know better to ask Yo-yo Ma
first before doing the same with his playing, public or private.
>
> What is the difference between speaking publicly and being
> reported to have spoken publicly? It is created by the reporter
> rather than the speaker. So I see no need for a public speaker
> to reconsider speech before any report. The speaker might
> consider the report afterwards though.
>
So, you are now the reporter role, before it was a student role. It is
now public pronouncement by your sensei, before it was private "kind"
information. Be a little less fast and loose here.
Robert Jasiek
> So, you are now the reporter role, before it was a student role. It is
> now public pronouncement by your sensei, before it was private "kind"
> information.
The professional commentary was never private. It may have been
restricted to a public that was initially more limited than now
but it was public all the time. Learning does not prevent from reporting
and vice versa. E.g., to get back to discussing go contents, when
you do not merely judge the professional commentary to be simplified
but explain your reasoning, I will continue learning.
--
robert jasiek
Bill Spight
> Question: Did Katsura-san give permission to have these comments
> published in a public forum such as rgg?
>
I believe that it is OK to copy brief quotations for the purpose of discussion or comment. (Called the Fairness Doctrine in the U. S.)
Example: Your quotation of Robert.
Best regards,
Bill Spight
Dr. Ruthless
Dear Bill Spight,
No legal issues were raised by me, see the follow-up posts. My concern
was "courtesy".
Mr P
<dr_ru...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Dear Bill Spight,
>
>No legal issues were raised by me, see the follow-up posts. My concern
>was "courtesy".
>
>Dr. Ruthless
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dear Dr Ruthless
Good to see someone taking an interest in such an old-fashioned area
as courtesy.
Perhaps you could provide some thoughts on the following two tricky
areas of etiquette?
1) My opponent records the game we play in tournament. Let's say he
does this after the game, from memory, and I am unaware that it has
been preserved for posterity. The game then appears in a national Go
journal with his commentary. Should he have asked my permission first
to a) record the game and b) publish it?
2) I don't wish to feature in tournament results posted on the net
(e.g. Go Association webpage). For example, the reason maybe that my
girlfriend objects to me playing Go and may check the results to see
if I've really been working overtime at the office as claimed or
playing Go which is strictly forbidden... Or I may just be embarrassed
to see my results posted on the net for one tournament where I did
particualry badly. Can I ask the tournament organiser to not post my
results? Is he/she justified in posting them without asking
permission?
Grateful for any thoughts.
Mr P
Alden.Charles
>Perhaps you could provide some thoughts on the following two tricky
>areas of etiquette?
>
>1) My opponent records the game we play in tournament. Let's say he
>does this after the game, from memory, and I am unaware that it has
>been preserved for posterity. The game then appears in a national Go
>journal with his commentary. Should he have asked my permission first
>to a) record the game and b) publish it?
There is no need to request permission - this was a tournament, a public
event, and it is just as much his game as it is yours. Surely you weren't
also prohibiting spectators from observing the game while it was being
played?
>2) I don't wish to feature in tournament results posted on the net
>(e.g. Go Association webpage). For example, the reason maybe that my
>girlfriend objects to me playing Go and may check the results to see
>if I've really been working overtime at the office as claimed or
>playing Go which is strictly forbidden... Or I may just be embarrassed
>to see my results posted on the net for one tournament where I did
>particualry badly. Can I ask the tournament organiser to not post my
>results? Is he/she justified in posting them without asking
>permission?
Just what sort of reaction would you expect, or have, if the organizers of
a tournament *refused* to present the standings afterwards? The person
who was awarded second place on tie-breakers might have something to say
if afterwards the directors demurred from presenting the results so as not
to embarrass any of the contestants. Implicit in entering a public
competition is the expectation that the results will be made public. Oh,
and the girlfriend - if she is strictly forbidding you to play go, it's
time to dump her anyhow. But if she is this controlling, she probably
already has punished you for bad-mouthing her in the news group.
Charles Alden
Dr. Ruthless
> <dr_ru...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Ruthless
>
> Good to see someone taking an interest in such an old-fashioned area
> as courtesy.
>
> areas of etiquette?
>
> 1) My opponent records the game we play in tournament. Let's say he
> does this after the game, from memory, and I am unaware that it has
> been preserved for posterity. The game then appears in a national Go
> journal with his commentary. Should he have asked my permission first
> to a) record the game and b) publish it?
>
> (e.g. Go Association webpage). For example, the reason maybe that my
> girlfriend objects to me playing Go and may check the results to see
> if I've really been working overtime at the office as claimed or
> playing Go which is strictly forbidden... Or I may just be embarrassed
> to see my results posted on the net for one tournament where I did
> particualry badly. Can I ask the tournament organiser to not post my
> results? Is he/she justified in posting them without asking
> permission?
>
>
> Mr P
>
Dear Mr. P,
For your question (1), recording a game, especially by a participant,
seems to be her right. As for publishing the game record, as long as
the sponsors have exercised or refused to exercise their right for first
publication, it also seems fair game. The commentary and analysis, on
the other hand, should be considered the right of the commentator.
For (2), I am afraid that tournament result is in the public domain and
there is not much one can do to prevent its publication. As for the
kinder gender, perhaps you can interest her in playing pair go? (A word
of caution, there are folks who insist that pair go was invented by
divorce lawyers...)
Regards,
Nick Wedd
<hamd...@hotmail.com> writes
>1) My opponent records the game we play in tournament. Let's say he
>does this after the game, from memory, and I am unaware that it has
>been preserved for posterity. The game then appears in a national Go
>journal with his commentary. Should he have asked my permission first
>to a) record the game and b) publish it?
IANALB legally I think he is ok. Ethically, I think he has done wrong.
>2) I don't wish to feature in tournament results posted on the net
>(e.g. Go Association webpage). For example, the reason maybe that my
>girlfriend objects to me playing Go and may check the results to see
>if I've really been working overtime at the office as claimed or
>playing Go which is strictly forbidden... Or I may just be embarrassed
>to see my results posted on the net for one tournament where I did
>particualry badly. Can I ask the tournament organiser to not post my
>results? Is he/she justified in posting them without asking
>permission?
I post most British tournament results on the BGA web site. I have
never yet received or heard of a request for someone's name to be
omitted. If I do receive such a request, I will be happy to comply with
it.
This cannot be done by simply deleting all the person's games, because
their presence could still be inferred from their opponents' games.
Instead, I would replace that person's name by "A. N. Other", and delete
mention of their club and grade.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
T Mark Hall
<Ni...@maproom.co.uk> writes
Some years ago, Matthew Macfadyen and Brian Castledine played for the
British Championship (this is going back to the '70s) and Brian lost. He
asked for the games not to be published because he was unhappy with his
play. It was pointed out that games played in tournaments are part of a
public record and the Journal could not accede to his request. He was
still unhappy but accepted that the games were to be published. I was
one of the editorial team that had to decide the question.
Private games played between two players are a different matter.
However, normal tournament etiquette is that the players should be able
to produce an agreed game record not only for the organisers but any
other players who may have tournament results affected by the game.
--
T Mark Hall
Nick Wedd
<tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> writes
>Some years ago, Matthew Macfadyen and Brian Castledine played for the
>British Championship (this is going back to the '70s) and Brian lost. He
>asked for the games not to be published because he was unhappy with his
>play. It was pointed out that games played in tournaments are part of a
>public record and the Journal could not accede to his request. He was
>still unhappy but accepted that the games were to be published. I was
>one of the editorial team that had to decide the question.
>
>Private games played between two players are a different matter.
>However, normal tournament etiquette is that the players should be able
>to produce an agreed game record not only for the organisers but any
>other players who may have tournament results affected by the game.
I accept that the Journal editors were acting within their legal rights,
but I would prefer not to act this way myself. As BGA webmaster, my
policy is not to publish anything that the people concerned do not want
published. Of course, the BGA Council may ask me to change this policy.
Steve Bailey is working through past issues of the British Go Journal,
preparing them for the web site. One day he will come to these
Castledine games. I have not yet decided how to handle this. (Brian
Castledine died 20 years ago.)
Charles Matthews
as a writer on go at various levels, from club newsletter through magazine
articles to a book.
It seems to me that a convention that one always requests permission to use
material from others' games is too parochial to be sustained. It is hard
enough to find good illustrative positions in writing about go. The point
is different from Nick Wedd's view that as webmaster (in the editorial
position) he would not post or would take down anything that is found
objectionable. I'd like to add that the case cited about Brian Castledine,
for whom I had great personal admiration as the first dan player I met and
a model of how to carry off that role, is one I can sympathise with, as
followers of the British Championship will know.
The positions that seem to me sustainable in a larger world of go, where it
can't be assumed that everyone is a friend, can be based on (a) traditional
academic convention; (b) commercial considerations based on copyright and
also custom in the oriental countries; (c) practice in the chess world.
The conventions of type (a), which I'd much prefer, were hard won in the
eighteenth century, but are now well established, and depend on a measure
of trust and mutual respect (they emerged from a European background
quickly described as plagiarism plus flame-war-by-pamphlet, eg
Newton-Leibniz). One is allowed to quote the ideas of others, with proper
attribution, provided every effort is made to be fair and to give an
undistorted rendition, and studiously to avoid personal attacks. That is,
we assume an open forum for all *fair* comment on how everyone plays.
However it is true that hundreds of players round the world make their
living from go, and we come to (b). Now the position on copyright on go
games seems not to be clearly understood - in law it may arise from the act
of copying (for example, over the shoulders of the players). What is clear
enough is that custom in Japan and elsewhere limits the free use of records
of professional games.
Coming to (c), it appears that during the 1920s Emanuel Lasker attempted to
enforce his rights under (b), but was bullied out of them by editors of
chess magazines (source for this is Schoenberg, 'Grandmasters of Chess').
Since then there has been little attempt to enforce rights on game records,
and possibly for individual chess problems too. This has the advantage for
the chess writer or student that books can be compiled simply by sorting
through the published sources for games or positions, without considering
need for permissions; but commentaries on games are attributed. This means
that the conventions are quite close to those of (a).
I think it is a bad idea to assume the chess conventions (c) apply in go,
since they aren't likely to be acceptable to the professional organisations
in the Far East. On the other hand I think they are the most useful ones
to adhere to in respect of amateur go, if one thinks the point is to raise
the level of play by producing teaching material. Since go players are
touchy to a fault, it is certainly the case that one should pay regard
quite strictly to the type (a) conventions. However blunders are blunders,
and no one likes their bad games published ... it is surely up to a writer
to make sure that the point of the story is something a bit more profound
than the observation that humans are fallible.
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek
[more reasonable comments deleted]
> academic convention; (b) commercial considerations based on copyright and
> also custom in the oriental countries; (c) practice in the chess world.
I largely agree with your observations about (a) and (c).
Concerning (b) I would like to add a few remarks:
> [...] What is clear
> enough is that custom in Japan and elsewhere limits the free use of records
> of professional games.
This is true to some extent. E.g. within a short period of time
after a game a sponsor has the right of broad first publication
beyond a TD's announcement. E.g. for a newspaper the period might
be one day.
Besides custom there are also claims that intend to demand as much
as possible just to be sure to get something. E.g. the Nihon Kiin
or the CGF have claimed that they would own every rights. Most
obviously such claims cannot become custom since they even exclude
any players' rights.
In practice the converse claim seems to apply in China; there are
virtually no international copyright laws.
As a consequence one can hardly treat extreme claims as customs.
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek <jas...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article
<37CA8C...@berlin.snafu.de>...
<snip>>
> Concerning (b) I would like to add a few remarks:
> > [...] What is clear
> > enough is that custom in Japan and elsewhere limits the free use of
records
> > of professional games.
<snip>
> Besides custom there are also claims that intend to demand as much
> as possible just to be sure to get something. E.g. the Nihon Kiin
> or the CGF have claimed that they would own every rights. Most
> obviously such claims cannot become custom since they even exclude
> any players' rights.
I am unwilling to criticise the Nihon Ki-in for this. Within the
traditional Japanese concept of 'iemoto', as I understand it, they have a
strong case for using their collection of game records as something like a
pension fund; and a Western corporation might use its patent rights in a
similar way. Even in law the use of a game recorder may establish these
rights. However the point is that the Japanese system has worked to
sustain a very large body of professionals. In the future professional
players of Western origin may benefit.
An example where I personally feel there is a problem is the production of
the collected games of great players only in limited editions. (As if to
have the collected games of Bobby Fischer you had to subscribe $250 to an
edition limited to 1000 copies ...)
Or the existence of the Nihon Ki-in database disk of games only in a
special format, and running only under Japanese Windows. Though these
things bother me, I can see there are two sides to the story.
> In practice the converse claim seems to apply in China; there are
> virtually no international copyright laws.
>
> As a consequence one can hardly treat extreme claims as customs.
My point is that the custom *is* to make such claims, on behalf of the
'insiders' (players), as any traditional guild would. In the case of go we
all benefit from the very high standard of teaching and play within the
tradition.
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek
> However the point is that the Japanese system has worked to
> sustain a very large body of professionals.
During this century neither are the professionals sustained by
the body but rather by external sponsors or by their own work
nor are there many professionals in the system.
> My point is that the custom *is* to make such claims, on behalf of the
> 'insiders' (players), as any traditional guild would. In the case of go we
> all benefit from the very high standard of teaching and play within the
> tradition.
Without such claims everybody would benefit much more from the
admittedly high standard. This also holds for the players
themselves. Nowadays they are too concerned with insider
information only. It is the international exchange of ideas that
causes the quickest improvements. This could be seen from the
example of world-wide science.
Maybe principal isolation is still part of Japanese culture as it
was during past centuries.
Nick Wedd
<cha...@sabaki.demon.co.uk> writes
>The issue raised about publication is one of considerable interest to me,
>as a writer on go at various levels, from club newsletter through magazine
>articles to a book.
< long snip of well-reasoned discussion of copyright >
I would like to thank Charles for the above.
I would also like to point out that his wife is a patent lawyer. I am
sure that she, and he, will vigorously deny that she played any part in
the above posting: highly-paid lawyers do not give free opinions. So
the wisdom of the above must be attributed entirely to Charles.
Adam Atkinson
>However blunders are blunders,
>and no one likes their bad games published ...
It seems quite common in Go books for the example games to be those in
which the author has defeated a much stronger opponent. (e.g. "Go for
Beginners" and several others). I could imagine that this might get up
the noses of these opponents.
Are there any Go authors who tend to use example games in which they
played and lost?
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
I'm sure they'll listen to Reason. (H. Protagonist)
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek <jas...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article
<37CAB3...@berlin.snafu.de>...
> Charles Matthews wrote:
> > However the point is that the Japanese system has worked to
> > sustain a very large body of professionals.
>
> During this century neither are the professionals sustained by
> the body but rather by external sponsors or by their own work
> nor are there many professionals in the system.
These assertions seem questionable:
(a) the setting up of the Nihon Ki-in led to renewed state support, was
perhaps the condition for it;
(b) it led in the 1930s to a kind of "golden age" of go, such as hadn't
been seen for at least a century;
(c) fees for the early rounds of sponsored competitions are tiny, so that a
professional expecting to get to the top at age 30-35 would starve for ten
years on sponsorship money alone (and the vast bulk of the money from these
sources goes to a small number of pros);
(d) unless you have won a title you aren't sought after as a go author
(Kageyama is a known exception ... he was a literate university graduate);
(e) on the figures for chess in Great Britain (between 20 and 30 pros, in
what is one of the most active chess countries outside the ex-Soviet
nations) and taking into account the relative populations, you would expect
to see many fewer go professionals than exist in Japan.
> > My point is that the custom *is* to make such claims, on behalf of the
> > 'insiders' (players), as any traditional guild would. In the case of
go we
> > all benefit from the very high standard of teaching and play within the
> > tradition.
>
> Without such claims everybody would benefit much more from the
> admittedly high standard. This also holds for the players
> themselves.
According to the Schonberg book 'Grandmasters of Chess', Lasker ended up
supporting himself playing bridge - and his case was much better than
others such as Steinitz. A bit like Shusai having to give mahjong lessons
to survive.
I was reading on holiday 'Trust' by Fukuyama, the Japanese-American
end-of-history man; which is very interesting on the advantages of not
having these guild-type traditions swept away by modernisation - the
disadvantages are of course easier to state.
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek
> (a) the setting up of the Nihon Ki-in led to renewed state support, was
> perhaps the condition for it;
> (b) it led in the 1930s to a kind of "golden age" of go, such as hadn't
> been seen for at least a century;
I do not doubt this, however, this does not provide direct income
for professionals. E.g. the Oteai is without revenues.
> (c) fees for the early rounds of sponsored competitions are tiny, so that a
> professional expecting to get to the top at age 30-35 would starve for ten
> years on sponsorship money alone (and the vast bulk of the money from these
> sources goes to a small number of pros);
For this reason I have also mentioned pros' other earnings:)
> (d) unless you have won a title you aren't sought after as a go author
> (Kageyama is a known exception ... he was a literate university graduate);
Above a certain level or type of insight higher playing strength
is almost immaterial for quality of contents. Perhaps popular
pros (title holders) sell more easily. Still this a proof for
popularity rather than contents.
Only very few go books are more serious than game or problem
collections and are good books. Apart from exceptions
one has to buy contents of average or worse quality. Under these
circumstances it is no surprise that secondary criteria like
the coauthor being top title holder become buying incentives.
Example: Tesuji by James Davies is a good book because
it explains how to read, treats the major tesuji classes, and
has a reasonable collection of solvable problems. It is no very
good book because it does not explain how to detect classes
outside their proper book chapters or how they are embedded in
other go wisdom. It is a good and not just an average book
because it can raise the playing level by a few grades.
Example: Kageyama: Entertaining and covers a lot of essential
fundamentals. It has way too few examples and too short
explanations. So it is a good book but not very good.
To find an excellent book for a go player (?) one has to resort
to pure maths, e.g., see On Numbers And Games.
> (e) on the figures for chess in Great Britain (between 20 and 30 pros, in
> what is one of the most active chess countries outside the ex-Soviet
> nations) and taking into account the relative populations, you would expect
> to see many fewer go professionals than exist in Japan.
It depends on how one counts professionals:
- only members of so called professional organizations
- only those who live by winning games
- all who play, teach, write, entertain, program
> According to the Schonberg book 'Grandmasters of Chess', Lasker ended up
> supporting himself playing bridge - and his case was much better than
> others such as Steinitz. A bit like Shusai having to give mahjong lessons
> to survive.
They were top players but not professionals in the sense of earning
their living with go.
--
robert jasiek
David Hanon
>
> ...
>
> Are there any Go authors who tend to use example games in which they
> played and lost?
>
IIRC Cho's book on the san-san (yes san-san again :-) does feature
openings from games which include some of his losses. It doesn't
seem contradictory in the sense that he may feel/know his fuseki was
alright and did not put him behind early...
David
--
David Hanon phone : 32-2-650.55.29
ULB - CP 231 fax : 32-2-650.57.67
B-1050 Brussels, e-mail: David...@ulb.ac.be
Belgium WWW : http://poseidon.ulb.ac.be/groupe/dh/