Jared Beck / Guest Book

Velobici: One more question: are you willing to share your Java proxy program for playing on KGS via a relay server listening on port 80?

Jared: Of course. I will email the Java source to anyone. You will have to compile it yourself. You must understand TCP/IP to configure it. (Setting port number) And of course you must have a machine to run it on.

Velobici: I will send you an email request. TCP/IP is no problem for me....Stevens' books are my good friends...very well read.

SnotNose: Thanks for the note on my page. You wrote "Go is so abstract that it can be a metaphor for anything". Indeed there seems to be no end to the ideas one can connect to Go. A recent interest of mine is to try to make the connections more precise and rigorous. I'm not even sure what I mean by that but an attempt has been started on PhilosophersStones, though it might not be the right approach. Check it out if you haven't already, and feel free to contribute.

Jared Beck: The game at PhilosophersStones looks fun, and I attempted a move. I hope it wasn't too horrible.

While I think the PhilosophersStones game is fun, I think, as you said, that it is the wrong approach. I like to make analogies to the process of playing go, as opposed to analogies for individual moves.

My favorite analogy to the process of playing go: Playing go means searching for the right move. "Playing" life also means searching for the right move. In this way, the beauty of life is reflected in go, and vice-versa.

This analogy comes from some famous player's comments on tesuji, perhaps Sakata Eio.

SnotNose: I think you are right: both that the PhilosophersStones approach is not the best and that one's approach to Go can be mirrored in life (and vice-versa). Perhaps the PhilosophersStones game is just a fun "warm-up" for something better. Maybe once we have some ideas from it, we'll thinking of a better way to explore them.

A recent realization about my approach to Go is that I make better moves if I do not try to win most of the time. I only try for a win when I see something clear that I can exploit for a gain (i.e., an opponent's error). Until then, I only try for a good, fair move that maintains my chances to win. In some sense, I have to rid myself of the desire to win and only retain the means of maintaining a winnable position, or at least a non-losing one (i.e., focus on good moves and not over reach or be too conservative either). It sounds too simple when I put it in words but there is a very strong mind-set and feeling that has to come with it (for me). If I'm not feeling right and thinking calmly and long-term, I can blow it!

In life, I'm starting to explore circumstances where I might be tempted to over-reach or try too hard. Maybe most of the time, just doing the honest, fair, ordinary thing is the best, to keep the options open for something better but not take big risks to "force it". This can apply to annything from a discussion with a colleague to driving on the highway to making important decisions. It can even apply to posting on SL. I can probably find places where I (and others) have "over reached" in some argument, maybe encouraged by emotions. But, the fair, honest, best thing is something much more ordinary and not too fancy. Hard to explain...