Tenuki joseki / Discussion

Moved from Future use of SL.

Charles All right, something of interest to me. I'd like to see more information here about tenuki joseki, i.e. tenuki variations of common joseki. The normal books don't really have enough, and this material can be applied in everyone's games. Possible structures:

1. This could be integrated into a general section about joseki;
2. This could be a development of the tenuki page, adding examples which are selected because they are interesting from the point of view of aji, tactics, direction of play, temperature ...;
3. As in the case of any type of joseki, one could try to present the history, in a typical 'genetic method' format;
4. I could set up an index page of patterns and suppose others would write individual pages on patterns that interest them;
5. I could gradually post a number of articles and later set up a path structure to organise them;
6. I could take the attitude that what SL really needs to be is a continuously-published go magazine, and the main criterion should be interest of each individual article, not thorough treatment of any area.

In a sense these are all good ideas, and they are not exclusive: one can have several of these directions happening at once.

Dieter: Very clarifying. Myself I prefer the 1. and 4. approach. I'm convinced it must be possible. Page names may become long. Your earlier suggestion of indexing is a possible workaround. I don't like 6. Thorough treatment of all areas IMHO is the objective of SL.

Stefan: 4 is more or less what I had in mind, but applied to new content - the queen bee sets up a structure and other bees buzz around it. 5 is what we currently have for most of our content. Some of it needs restructuring, and I don't see why we should leave it to one bee to clean up (and that's simply too big for one anyway). What I don't want, which you seem to believe, is that people stop contributing while the cleaning crew's working. That would indeed be WikiHeresy?.

Can you also share what structure you prefer for what type of content? Some that I can think of are:

• life and death: The theory and concepts behind it. Then the shapes. Then problems.
• tesuji: I like the recent idea of listing various types of nifty moves, then thoroughly treating them with a series of examples.
• joseki: Entering in a BQM-like way, preferrably organised per pattern, then branching into on-site reference material.
• fuseki: Opening theory. Then branching into the established patterns and their discussion.
• endgame: The theory and proper ways of beancounting. Then standard patterns and their value. Then problems.
• middle game: Ha! Good one! Any suggestion welcome.
• strategy: Strategic concepts. Then illustrations. Then problems.

Charles My personal preference might be for 2, 3, 6. That could explain a few things ...

Actually, referring to the Dictionaries Page, I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to unify the site by setting up structures that are systematic and cover joseki, fuseki and tesuji. That is, follow a model set up by our Japanese teachers. This would surely work.

The reasons for not doing it that way, or not putting immediate effort into doing that, would be speculative. That whole Japanese model is paternalistic, in a good sense. People like that, in the same way that they like reading Kageyama, and think that letting Sai play for them would be interesting. But it is hard to imagine anything more different from the wiki way.

So, there is even a contradiction in the title? Sensei might become an authoritative online go guru. But I wonder if that is the only possible ambition.

Stefan: Surely not. But people like shortcuts. They like to be told (preferrably in one sentence) what particular piece of study got somebody from x kyu to x-1 kyu. They like 80/20 and they hate to do a lot of hard work without a guaranteed result. (Yes, still talking about myself...)

We appear to have two sets of visitors and contributors: those interested in the destination, and those in the journey. SL should be both. So we go for a nicely built structure for the theoretical topics everybody should know, and let a thousand flowers bloom for the other? Problem is - which is which?