Sub-page of Archaic

2012 discussion

Archaic: I think I've *possibly* defined Direction of Play pretty well with my article, and it is consistent with and also common to the knowledge of most dan players who play a pretty traditional style. I hope you enjoy this write-up and even if it is disregarded as dogma hopefully it'll be recognized as a common sense article to be cleaned up and the general idea to be introduced to beginners (with associated diagram examples that I was too lazy to add). This is so beginners can get a good foothold on the game due to resources being more abundant in Asia. Hopefully for Go players in the Western hemisphere, a methodical study method (knowing what to study) can be developed, as is available in the chess world.

edit: I realize now there is probably no definition to Direction of Play other than to leave it open-ended. That's because it inherently has no possible definition. Playing out proper openings etc. aren't necessarily a direction for play but are merely essential strategies in Go. This is the reason I believe.

tapir: While fascinating to read, I find, that you wrote about many things but direction of play. (Positional struggles in the opening, ways of learning, importance of shape, Korean innovations, importance of investing thinking time in the opening...) Personally, I believe "direction of play" should be an easy concept. With the main application being the question: How well do my stones work together? I would like to say "oh yes" in the game review when I recognize my trouble started with approaching from the wrong side, without being mystified what direction might mean exactly. (Starting to look that way you might end spending more time in the opening, looking for the best move instead of playing a standard opening etc. but these don't explain the concept.)

Archaic: Hi, tapir. I since changed the definition and I think it is pretty well defined now. Now, I think playing a purely defensive style is the correct guiding direction for play. Concentration on the opening is important. Direction is only for guidance. That's also how a lot of the better players on certain servers play. It is very effective and the best style. Fighting games fall within playing a proper opening as long as the fights are sound in form. How well your stones work together probably falls into the category for "specific" Direction of Play rather than overall. But, I'll add that Direction of Play is more specific than I mentioned, thanks. It is obviously also about accurate solutions, but in reality this is a principle that has been commonly shown to work. It's also common knowledge to higher level players and not just some guiding ideology. Hopefully this is a pretty decent attempt nonetheless.

I think I understand what you mean now. If we were to classify and categorize all the specific areas for improving Direction of Play such as approaching from the wider side or jumping out towards the center to split enemy stones and exert influence, it would be lengthy. But it might be worthwhile, you're right, and I'm sorry I didn't understand this before. That would definitely be practical application for direction. But I think that type of thing is best left for teachers to explain on merits of strategy. Here we just attempt to provide the grounds for considering overall direction. Now what benefits does all this provide us? Following these principles allows us to effectively choose between certain moves and sequences we may want to play out on the board during the game. This is very effective in providing that guidance. I think this is fine.

tapir: we still don't understand each other. i don't see the definition in your essay. i don't get what "defensive style" has to do with direction of play at all, i simply do not. also, how stones interact (of the same and of different colour) is not some specific addition but imho the core application of the concept, it is plain obvious in the book.
what i see is an interesting essay about go at a certain level, but while direction of play seems to be the starting point i don't see you returning to it. i.e. i would prefer to have your essay stand-alone as "archaics thoughts about xy", thus we could discuss it for itself without having to worry that it is presented as exploration of the term "direction of play".

Archaic: Someone told me on kgs some time ago before I was banned, that theory and practice were a dialectical. If I were only to discuss theory without practice, then he said we could finally agree. What does this mean? This meant that this person understood that by relying on pure theory and not actual specific application itself you already have the guidance necessary for playing most general moves. If you only rely on specific application, that is fine for practice and it also reveals many things but it does not reveal the core mechanic at work.

Once again, pls don't be stubborn and believe only in practice without theory. This is the modern arrogant mindset of youngsters and modern "scholars" nowadays. Theory has long been established as genuine in educational practices, this cannot be dismissed at will. Don't be like KGS, pls, thank you. Don't remind me of that place.

My article also reveals the evolution from Japanese opening theory to practical application of it with Chinese players and how they've solved a lot of secrets in the opening. It is also the style the Chinese players employ and players in the West recommend being even more passive than the Chinese. The Korean fighting style is in decline and this is a new revolution circling Go that has sprung up on KGS a long time ago and they've made great progress. They've contributed great applications and furthered specific moves and movesets for amateur play without realizing that they were providing the correct doctrine for how Go should be played out on the board in general.

I honestly feel that I have provided a good definition. If you remove this article you are removing a very, very golden opportunity to spread correct Go doctrine to the world and once again it is but the common style of how KGS players play but they don't realize it. It is in fact common knowledge to many players in the West who realize theory is just as important and employ correct methodology and principles for evaluation and systematic analysis. This also explains why music theory in the West has allowed its music to dominate much more so than Eastern music because they haven't had a chance for a Renaissance in musical thought since ancient times. They've established correct and proper notation, etc.

Here, I've revealed it all.

But I think you're right in that I need to clarify and get rid of the confusion with the terminology I'm using. By "defensive style", I meant you should be passive with your moves and play for the "edges" of the game as well as the overall framework rather than just evaluating "core direction" using artificial force and practical application of certain moves. I'm not sure what is listed in that book you spoke about, but I can infer that it provides good groundwork for specific application for moves in overall Direction of Play such as emphasizing and playing for corners first. Now, that is fine and all and I realize it is also a part of general theory but you must realize that my theory is even more general and important and is even more basic. In evaluating the overall framework, fighting games fall into this category just the same as long as the fights are sound in form and you're playing moves that provide the most open-ended possibilities and opportunities.

If we do not understand each other at this point, then you will need to clarify further what you mean personally, I'm sorry. You tried removing my probe article, and in reality it revealed the actual workings of the probe that many amateurs did not know about, despite it being only a theory article.

Actually, I had a sudden realization, now I realize what you're talking about. You are saying that the theory for understanding practical and core application for Direction of Play concepts such as approaching corners first etc. is what should be explained on the page. Yes, you may be right in that it is the better thing to do, however what I wrote is by no means trivial. It establishes correct guiding principles for overall play. What you're talking about is the 2nd, more advanced layer for defining Direction and that is to categorize specific applications and turning points in the game. That is called application of theory. In fact, approaching corners first isn't mandatory, it is only effective.

Tapir, it is hard to spot at first, but if you realize that what I wrote is at the real core for general direction, then you'll realize that everything else such as playing in the corners first or influence vs. territory is just adhering to the form of the game. You'll also realize that the article points something out very clearly, namely that is not to apply concentrated analysis as a general mindset to playing out the Game of Go. You are supposed to do the exact opposite by considering the overall framework and principles of the game first to be more important. By working your way down from the opening to more specific and localized situations, you are playing the correct way. By evaluating local positions first before working on the more general overall positions you are playing the wrong way. Once again, the opening is what's most important for a beginner to analyze and not things like specific joseki, which is also important but comes later.

Put some thought into it, you'll understand what I mean by placing emphasis on the framework of the game before local evaluation.

tapir: Hello. Just for clarification: SL is not KGS, my condolences for being banned there. I certainly do not intend to remove your contributions. And none of your other contributions was removed from SL, although some were moved around within (from a mainpage to a subpage for example). Please don't see moving things around as removing them. It isn't. Also, we both are not native speakers and hopefully we don't misunderstand too much. I certainly prefer working together cordially.
The term "direction of play" was as far as I know popularized by the english translation of the book by kajiwara takeo the direction of play. What most people will understand under "direction of play" will be more or less exactly what is written in this book. Your take on the topic isn't inspired by the book at all, so it is not surprising that you don't stick to how the term is used in the book. That doesn't reduce the value of your effort, but it is the reason why it doesn't look related to the term the page tries to define for me.
I would like to write much more, but I won't manage to do so before the weekend.
P.S. I actually did enjoy your other essays and I keep thinking about "adding depth to an area". By the way, I took lessons from Chinese professionals, so I doubt, I am a partisan of "practice without theory". (Would I write in SL otherwise?) May I ask what your native language is? Mine is German.

Archaic: Hello, I am Chinese and my native language is English. I believe English to be one of the best languages alongside Chinese. As I cannot help but be brutally honest sometimes, here as well I am not lying. I know a little Chinese, too. My other essays are bogus, the only good one there is the probe one. It reveals the mysteries of the probe, of which I am certain you are already familiar with having a sense about these things. The "creating depth" one is just a common sense article to people who are smart enough to be able to figure that stuff out themselves. Perhaps you can explain to me a little about what's in that book so I can get a better idea of what exactly I am missing out on (being the Go fanatic that I am)? Go is a bit annoying to me now because now I realize I've wasted so much time on this stupid game. Anyhow, Go is a fantastic game nonetheless. But in the end it is just a game and not life. Sometimes my opinions on certain subjects are a bit off, and now I realize that. So I will try to improve on inaccuracies or as some people would like to put it, my delusions ;), in the future. This does not mean though that some of my other opinions are incorrect. As a Go player, I have now developed for myself very strong theory, but as for *many* specific sequences I am still unclear. I don't plan on studying either :/, I think I have reached a decent level of mastery but just am unclear on some move-sets. Also, being able to counter mirror-go in practice is also a gift which I don't have (yet?). I am semi-clear on how mirror go works at this point now though and I've added some stuff on that page before in the past. If you want to discuss your specific strengths/deficiencies in Go, pls feel free to start a private discussion somewhere.

I think I have a better understanding of why my theory works now, I didn't before (even though I knew it worked). So it goes back to playing a Positional Game, and it works concretely if you give it some thought. I don't have a 100% clear idea of the concrete reasons why it works yet but it might be because of the theory that the more open-ended and central the move is in the variational tree, the better opportunities you have. There exists the idea that the game is orderly in form, and that because of balance checks there exists a central path and route to go down in terms of choosing the best moves. This centralization theory exists at every layer and different playing levels. There is always a certain best move scenario which exists. This might be one of the reasons also why "standards" exist. In order to understand how the Korean players viewed the game, you must understand they viewed even the opening as being something orderly. But, they were doing it wrong and they were trying to read everything out. In the end, a positioning theory is what they needed and it will prove once again that their idea of an orderly playing style is not incorrect. This idea of an orderly universe or playing field may also revolutionize how academics work and even wrestling. With wrestling, there appears to be stabilization techniques that have been discovered and implemented, however the key is they didn't realize in the past that this stabilization was exactly the starting point for discovering all other techniques in wrestling. It is not a false guiding ideology or engineering approach but merely the idea that you should work your way down from a centralized point instead of pursuing the scientific method. As a side-note, I am also religious and I believe religion can pioneer the sciences in a new and better direction without having to resort to delusions. That is a common misconception about religious theories. It just has to be done more correctly.

tapir: What I try to gently hint at is that what you wrote is not a definition / explanation of "direction of play" but an essay on how to play Go in general. A definition is meant to be short and concise, your essay brings much food for thought, but it is everything but short and concise. In fact, you are not even familiar with the term and how it is used in the book by Kajiwara Takeo. How can you claim, that you defined the term?
Your essay has a place in SL, but it would be better placed either on a subpage of yours or at least an independent page. I would like to move it accordingly, but I hope to get your approval for this move before I act.
What also makes it hard to communicate is that you treat comments like mine as mere suggestions, but SL is a wiki. That means on main pages like this one there is no ownership of text and everyone is perfectly able to remove, rearrange, rewrite parts or the whole of it. If you intend to "own" this essay with other people merely commenting, but editing being your privilege archaic/go - the positional game? would be the more appropriate place. All your comments indicate that this is indeed the perception you have, e.g. giving "permission" below to sudoman to edit your text.
Also, I have to admit, I find it quite patronising when a player, who is about as strong as I am (if that 2 dan KGS is any indication), claims mastership in any area of the game.
To make it perfectly clear: your essay won't remain on the "direction of play" page. I just hope I managed to convince you that moving it is a good idea. I would prefer to get your suggestion whereto it should be moved, by default I would say a subpage of your homepage is the best place, as in archaic/go - the positional game?.

Archaic: How about putting a link on the bottom of this page, and next time don't be so rude. Honestly, I believe the text is a bit long so a link would be fine and pls give it a name that points how important this article is to improving the playing strengths of all players. You can have the coined term definition but then also include my article as a link on the bottom. Something as important as this shouldn't be put in the backlight. You know this all too full well and at this point you are just trying to hide it for some unknown reason. If that's the case, feel free to, because I am done trying to give out charity and getting backlash in return. If you insist on being annoying, then so be it I will treat you like a person on Kgs. Meaning, if you continuously assume that I'm dumb, then I will treat you like dirt just the same. If you do not respect me, then I will not respect you, got it Tapir? The actions of certain persons on KGS are fit deem to place them in jail if they did such things in open society. Don't be like one of them. I never knew why you people in the Go community have decided to stand up and disrespect me out of the blue one day, but I'm warning you now not to do it any longer. This is for your own good as Heaven is much more mean than I am. Also, the definition is to play for overall positioning in direction of play, and the key is not to apply superficial positioning but to treat the entire game as having an intrinsic positioning mechanic. This time i'm not gently hinting to you that i'm not dumb anymore. Next time you won't be so lucky. I'm also not afraid of being banned as you can well tell from many various bans on different sites for the sake of what's Right. And yes this time it's a threat to your life. And no i'm not whining, i'm making a statement. You cannot tell by just mere words that i'm whining or not.

tapir: "And yes this time it's a threat to your life." - Seriously calm down.
PeterHB: Er, Archaic, the bit: "And yes this time it's a threat to your life." is not okay.
Find someone you respect; brother, mother, priest, drinking buddy, stranger in the street, anyone; and ask them whether they think writing that to any other person is okay. It is not okay. Leave it for a few days, let yourself breathe. Then think of something nice to say to apologize. Apologies are okay. I've made many mistakes in my life, and said foolish things in the heat of the moment, and felt there is no way to back down from my mistakes. It happens to us all. You will feel better when you have found a form of words to politely get past this accidental moment.

Archaic: I don't like your tone of voice. The thing is, I don't respect you guys anymore, especially not you guys from KGS. So, if you apologize to me, heaven will forgive you. If not, then you can enjoy your consequences as you are wiped out in the mass elimination. You are no longer deserving of respect Peter. Not from me, not from Falun Gong practitioners, not from society, and definitely not from God. God only respects those who respect me, for I am his right-hand man. I am very close to the Master Li of FLG. That bit was not a threat, it was merely a factual statement, if you do not obey the laws of Heaven, you will suffer. It is as simple as that. I do not care what laws you obey in society but you absolutely must respect Heaven. There are many normal people on KGS, you misfits including the admins are just a small minority. The ones with the loudest barks are the most arrogant as someone told me. Despite what you believe, the mass of society would agree with me that you simply do not show respect for me. Ask yourself in the end, what is your issue with me? And what is your disdain for showing respect to those superior than yourself? You would show respect to a fashion icon, but not to me? Let me tell you something, I AM iconic. But that's not particularly because I dress nicely, that's because you should respect me, otherwise you will feel the consequences later on in your life. And this once again is a fact, and not a threat. I am a key icon in the overall FLG movement, and if you do not respect me, you do not respect the universe in which you live in. I cannot make this any clearer.

Article cleanup and clarification

Sudoman?: I found this article a bit unclear, so I read through it and made improvements to the language where I could. Mostly, this involved trying to understand the author's use of idioms and grammar native to his/her own language, and replacing them with English ones. If anything is wrong here, please feel free to correct it, since I don't know if I got the message right.

Archaic: Thx, Sudoman. I appreciate it a lot, and it might seem that you are still revising it for me. I give you permission to do whatever you want to it and you can indulge in flexibility as long as you're careful not to change the original content. By indulging in flexibility, I am literally giving you the power to switch around entire paragraphs or any word in order to structure it properly. This literally means you can do anything you want to it. If you change the content by mistake that's not a problem as long as the general message gets through and I might come back to fix it even. Thanks again Sudoman!

Archaic/Discussion last edited by tapir on April 1, 2013 - 18:30
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Login / Prefs
Sensei's Library