[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Referenced by
GoBooks

 

What Is Your Least Favorite Go Book
   

MortenPahle -- Yes, I know it's a good book, but it is the book I still dislike the most, mostly because of the dreadful introduction to endgame theory which takes too long and is at a level intended for players who already master the endgame. If you ever want to read [ext] 'The Endgame' in the elementary Go Series, do yourself a favour an skip the introduction until you are dan-level ;^)


DaveSigaty: Another vital book is [ext] Life and Death, by James Davies. I have owned it for about 25 years and from time to time I feel guilty enough about my poor study habits to dip into it. However, in all that time I have never been able to read it through. Either the delivery is too dry for me (it must be the book's fault, right?) or I just get too depressed about the simple shapes that I still don't remember properly! :-)


DieterVerhofstadt: 38 Basic Joseki, how noble its intentions may have been, sends the Go player on the doubtful path of pattern copying. All about thickness, by Ishida Yoshio, treats the subject somewhat "lightly" . And how refreshing some of the ideas in EzGo may be, it gives a strange feeling when the author speaks of himself as "the leading Go-theorist" and "the father of Computer Go".


AlainWettach: Nie Wei Ping on Go is a book I wouldn't advise to buy. It is written in a propagandist style which disturbed me. I never managed to read this book until the end.


Neal: My least favorite go book would have to be Go and Go Moku by Edward Lasker. Talk about an unclear book. This book begins to uncover a new and interesting topic, then it leads you into a complicated pattern which is useless in an everyday game. The diagrams are hard to follow and his methods of explanation are even more so. Hopefully it's clear that I don't recommend it.

TakeNGive: I guess it filled a niche in its time; but I agree, Go and Go Moku is annoyingly unclear. I have to wonder: how much more popular would Go be today, if Bozulich and Davies had been around to ghost-write this for Lasker? (Their slim volume, An Introduction to Go, remains my favorite book to give to new players.)

JJarmoc: I'd have to agree entirely. This was the first go book I bought. Ack, it was utterly unreadble. The multi-page diagrams where you find yourself flipping back three pages to look at the diagram that goes with what you're reading was especially annoying. Avoid this book.

TimBrent It should be remembered that at the time of publication in 1934, Go and Go-Moku was one of no more than 2 English Go Books in print (the other being 1908's The Game Of Go by Arthur Smith). Lasker's writing is typical of most game books of its era, for example Aron Nimzovitch's My System (Chess). I wonder if this was originally in German,then translated, as were some of Lasker's other books.


RiffRaff?: One of the first Go books I ever read (after Go For Beginners by KaoruIwamoto) was the first edition of Basic Techniques Of Go. People who think the second edition is dense and difficult to understand should have seen the original version, with more Japanese terms than you can shake a stick at. "If White doesn't like the idea of the Black Hasami at 4 in Dia. 27, instead of playing Suberi with 3 at 'a', he might try to immediately extend to 3 as in this diagram. But in this case, Black will play the Kosumi-Tsuke with 4 and after the Tachi of White 5, Black's result is good." Who on earth were they trying to kid about this being a good followup to Go For Beginners?



This is a copy of the living page "What Is Your Least Favorite Go Book" at Sensei's Library.
(C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.