[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Referenced by
GoBooks
BigWall
WhatIsYourFavorit...
BruceWilcox
WhatIsYourLeastFa...
FiveLibertiesComm...

Homepages
LordOfPi

 

EZ-GO
    Keywords: Tactics, Strategy, Culture & History

EZ-GO is a book by Bruce Wilcox.


Dieter cites the author who calls himself the leading go theorist. Peter is extremely fond of the book, the described overall theory of go, the use of examples to explain theory, and the excellent advice on how to teach. When I was German 4d I got a look into the book but after 20 minutes I lost interest. The author does use his experience from programming in the book and presents more principles than the average book. However, I was very disappointed about the book. Is this because a) I am too strong for the contents, b) I might be a more profound theorist, or c) I use theory for teaching in my books as well but more extensively? Whatever, I have little clues on the following:

  • What characterizes a leading go theorist if the EZGo author were the leading one?
  • How does EZGo describe overall go theory?
  • What is so particularly good about theories described in EZGo?
  • What is the use of examples to explain theory? Is this just the same as introducing theory first and then showing examples for that it can be applied? Are examples used to introduce theory that is then described in prose and can thereafter be applied to further examples?
  • What is the excellent advice on how to teach?

--RobertJasiek


BillSpight: I have not read any of Wilcox's books, but I was around when he published the first EZGo articles in the American Go Journal in the '70s.

My impression is that EZGo is great for beginners. I think some of it is just wrong. E. g., counting 1 stone as 6 points of territory. At the same time, I think that some of his heuristics are quite helpful.

In particular I like the idea of sector lines and the importance of cutting them. You can add to that the idea that cutting shorter sector lines is generally more severe than cutting longer ones. (I learned that from a Japanese book long before EZGo came along. It did not talk about sector lines, of course.) Cutting sector lines fits with the idea of kurai?, which is more general, probably more important, but also vaguer and harder to explain. Sector lines are concrete, and therefore helpful to beginners. Using sector lines to define keshi and the idea that the best place to play keshi is at the center of a sector line is much more problematic. (I do not know if that idea is Wilcox's, though.)

Discussion moved to five liberties comments.


RobertJasiek: What is kurai?:) - Every computer program developer should be able to invent sector lines and a concept of shorter sector lines cutting longer ones, even if it is not used in a program. - I am a strong tactician (though a slow reader), so I am not impressed by liberty or territory rules of thumb. - To summarize: I remain unimpressed:( Bill, thx for your attempt anyway.

DieterVerhofstadt: Robert, I know you think poorly of most English publications in terms of their topic coverage. Do the essays of RichardHunter on CountingLiberties and capturing races get a higher rating ? In any case, they are a rare example of theory then examples and very straight forward and to the point. Is this the style of writing on go theory that you have in mind ?

RobertJasiek: I have not read the BGJ articles nor seen the new Slate and Shell book yet. I see only the [ext] Liberty Counting Tables. I like that they are systematic. However, they are simplifying, basic knowledge only, and presumably Richard's book contains more details. Certainly, such a table allows a first theory, then examples approach. So in principle what Richard is doing there is promising. On the other hand, currently I do not think that one can treat semeais and liberty counts thoroughly in just one book, unless it is meant to be an introduction into the topic just for kyu players. If it is just one book, then - judging from nothing but the table so far - I would presumably set a Rank Improvement rating as o, +, or ++ but a Topical Coverage rating at - or --. If the book contained really dense theoretical contents, then it might get a o rating. If it is strictly about semeais and nothing else and contains very convincing research, then I might even issue a + rating. However, I have a rough idea of what semeai theory can be about and how extensive theory can become here, so a ++ rating for Topical Coverage is hardly possible with a single volume book. I know that I could write a + book (or series of books) on semeais but I would need about half a year of non-stop research! You should not underestimate the complexity of semeais...

I do not give higher ratings just because theory and examples are given in a book; it also depends on how well the theory is treated and presented. Anyway; I have to see his book before I could actually rate it.

I do not say that there would be only one good style of writing. Instead I say that so far too few books use some good style at all.

I think poorly of most English books' topical coverage, yes. However, on average Asian books are worse:)



This is a copy of the living page "EZ-GO" at Sensei's Library.
(C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.