Forum for String Connection

Is there any need for this term? [#2575]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

 
reply
84.250.84.15: Is there any need for this term? (2011-06-04 12:56) [#8522]

I have never ever heard anyone use this term. Do we really need it?

The only purpose as far as I can see is that Robert seems to be unable to discern a solid connection from a solid group without inventing new words. Outside his head, I do not think there is any risk of confusion.

X
RobertJasiek: Re: Is there any need for this term? (2011-06-06 19:47) [#8523]

The question is rather whether we need to confuse ourselves by using solid connection with two different meanings. Everywhere else I have heard solid connection used in the thick cut protection meaning. The only place where I have seen solid connection used with the meaning of string connection is Sensei's Library. This is some indication that SL is being careless about solid connection.

Definitely we do not need the Japanese term in English.

String connection is the better phrase than solid connection for the meaning of connecting strings because string connection expresses exactly what it does: connecting strings!

There has been sort of a gap in English terminology until recently. Usually awkward and long phrases like "A stone is placed to connect several strings and unify them as one combined string." were used before. Definitely a term is needed. Choosing solid connection was bad though for the reasons above.

String connection is a rather new term, published in 2009. So it is not surprising that it is not widely used yet. The same applies to solid connection in the meaning of connecting strings; I have never heard that use outside SL yet. Contrarly, solid connection in the thick cut protection meaning has been used for a long time.

I am not associating solid group here.

From a practical POV, there are times when one needs to refer to the connecting strings meaning and other times when one needs to refer to the thick cut protection meaning. So one needs two terms for sure. Using two different terms is better than using the same phrase for both. E.g., an example application of solid connection as a thick cut protection is to create or reinforce thick shape with increased outside influence. This does not apply to all string connections! Thus using solid connection in the (there too general) meaning of connecting strings in this context would lose a lot of meaning and create confusion instead.

68.122.8.24: Re: Is there any need for this term? (2011-06-07 15:46) [#8571]

Bill: This discussion has gone on for some time. I have not read it, and am not responding to anybody.

There was a time on SL when people invented terms almost willy nilly, with no regard to the go literature. My reaction at the time was that, inasmuch as SL is a reference, readers should be told who invented the term, if it was not in the literature. That way they would not assume that everybody used it or knew what it meant.

Now, in this case we have a term that is in the go literature, invented by the author for the purposes of his writing. Whatever we may feel about the term, or whether we need it, since SL is a reference, we should have a page for the term. Especially since the inventor of the term is identified.

What is the problem with that?

tapir: Re: Is there any need for this term? (2011-06-07 19:55) [#8582]

No problem with that.

There are several discussions merged in this thread as is usual in thread mode, asking for explanation, questioning the value of some distinctions etc. pp.

reply
tapir: ((no subject)) (2011-06-05 14:28) [#8531]

In fact I don't understand it. What is the difference to a solid connection Robert? That a stone was in atari and is now connected as well? Can you tell, where those awkward and long phrases were used in English language go literature. Never occured to me. In the example in question, I would just write "Black connects." without attributes.

In my opinion, terminology should be invented as economically as possible.

X
RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-06-05 14:56) [#8532]

There is no difference to solid connection if the latter is used in the meaning of a string connection.

The difference to solid connection if used in the thick cut protection meaning is that such solid connections are those string connections that

  • are thick cut protections (Definition from Vol. 1 Fundamentals: "connects a player's stones while making thick shape and protecting against an opposing cut", where a move creating thick shape is defined "leaves behind little or no aji, the opponent cannot capture, cut or play painful forcing moves against it". Note that types of thick cut protection are: solid connection, hanging connection, empty net, thick throw-in.)
  • connect exactly two strings not in atari
  • then block opposing stones

Currently all the examples on the page SolidConnection are such solid connections. See the StringConnection page for a string connection that is not such a solid connection.

So the difference is that all string connections that do not fulful all the extra requirements mentioned above are not solid connections in the thick cut protection meaning.

Simply saving a string in atari by connecting it to another string does not make the move a solid connection in the thick cut protection meaning.

I have not compiled a reference list of long phrases, sorry. Of course, sometimes also shorter phrases like "Black connects" occur. However, you have to understand that such a phrase is very imprecise: It could be a string connection or large scale connection or some other sort of connection. Writing "Black's move connects his strings" is already too nasty when instead the shorter "string connection" can be used. We do not want to use longer phrases at places where two or more terms are applied like in the phrase "a string connection or direct connection".

I agree that terminology should be economical. Having a term for the particular kind of connection describing the act of connecting strings is more economical than not having any such term because it can be necessary to refer exactly to that type. (E.g., in some principles or higher definitions the term is used.) Having only such terms with clear meaning is preferable to having terms with ambiguous meaning. (E.g., current the two-fold meaning of solid connection lets this phrase be ambiguous, unfortunately.)

tapir: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-06-05 21:59) [#8533]

I really would like to see any case were something longer than "Black connects." or "Black solidly connects." is written by any Go author about a situation similar to the example. To me it looks like you arbitrarily limited the meaning of solid connection (to connection of exactly two strings not in atari) to invent a new term string connection. This strikes me as uneconomical, as you now have two terms for the same end, that is to describe the act of irreversibly joining strings/stones together that form one string afterwards.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-06-06 02:55) [#8535]

I did not bother to collect references of long phrases; it is something that annoys rather than motivates to be studied. IIRC, it was in translations of Japanese texts. So the probably credit goes to the translator rather than the author.

I found myself in the position of need for a term because phrases like "Black connects." or "Black solidly connects." are too imprecise and ambiguous.

When defining the thick cut protection meaning of solid connection, I defined it like I had seen used everywhere. So I did not arbitrarily limit that meaning but did carefully write it down. At that time, I was not aware of SL creating a different meaning of its own.

One can also ask why SL changed the prior solid connection meaning by arbitrarily replacing it by something more general.

It is not uneconomical to have two terms because they are not "for the same end" but for different things (except that they are related by both being string connections).

With which phrase do you call the thick cut protection meaning of solid connection?

tapir: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-06-06 12:33) [#8539]

I don't see any evidence to the claim that SL changed the prior meaning of "solid connection". The emphasis clearly is on the process of joining stones or strings of stones irreversibly together, so even with unlimited plays the opponent can't divide the stones.

Your "thick cut protection" is only a part of the common meaning of solid connection. B1 is probably the most basic example of a solid connection, but you put it in a different category (that is string connection) for no good reason. And writing "B1 string connects." doesn't add any explanatory value to the diagram, in my humble opinion.

[Diagram]
Solid connection  
RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-06-06 13:00) [#8540]

It seems that under-employed SL users might do some history research in the old books and journals:)

Why do you say that for solid connection "The emphasis clearly is on the process of joining stones or strings of stones irreversibly together"? Solid as a word suggests various things but not necessarily the nature of strings and nothing else. Strings are solid. Groups can be solid. Etc.

Thick cut protection is not part of solid connection (used in the meaning of string connection) but is a type of solid connections having the earlier mentioned extra characteristica.

Your example move 1 is a solid connection (used in the meaning of thick cut protection). Let me repeat:

The thick cut protection meaning is that such solid connections are those string connections that

    * are thick cut protections (Definition from Vol. 1 Fundamentals: "connects a player's stones while making thick shape and protecting against an opposing cut", where a move creating thick shape is defined "leaves behind little or no aji, the opponent cannot capture, cut or play painful forcing moves against it". Note that types of thick cut protection are: solid connection, hanging connection, empty net, thick throw-in.)
    * connect exactly two strings not in atari
    * then block opposing stones

Check the criteria and you see that all of them apply.

So I do not put it in a different categeroy. What I do is using solid connection in only this specific sense because that is how I have seen it used everywhere else (except here since 2003).

The good reasons are... see the earlier replies above.

Saying "1 string connects" adds value to the diagram when one also knows principles, more advanced definitions etc. using "string connection". One can then apply those also to this particular string connecting move because one does recognize it as such.

Saying "1 connects solidly" (in the thick cut protection meaning) adds much value to the diagram because one also knows that the additional criteria mentioned above apply here.

Saying "1 connects solidly" (in the string connection meaning you are suggesting, although possibly not wishing to call it string connection) does not add extra explanatory meaning to the diagram because you may not apply the extra criteria of the thick cut protection meaning because you reject to use solid connection in that meaning.

It is you who rejects specific meaning - not me.

reply
velobici: ((no subject)) (2011-06-06 14:14) [#8543]

Trying to summarize the discussion so far, it appears that string connection vs solid connection distinguishes between moves that may physically appear to be the same but serve different purposes.

Background questions:

  • Must a string contain more than one stone ? String talks of solidly connected classes of stones and says that other terms include ''chain. Chain says that a single stone is a chain.
  • Does Chinese, Japanese or Korean differentiate in this way between string connections and solid connections ?
  • String connections join together separate strings of stone(s) into a single string that cannot be cut.
  • String connections join strings by connecting solidly.
  • Hanging connections tiger's mouth, are excluded from string connections
  • Connect and die is included in string connections.
  • String connections may be not only useless, but even self-harmful moves.

By contrast solid connections must fulfill several requirements

  • must be Thick cut protections which is defined as "connecting a player's stones while making thick shape and protecting against an opposing cut", where a move creating thick shape is defined "leaves behind little or no aji, the opponent cannot capture, cut or play painful forcing moves against it". Note that types of thick cut protection are: solid connection, hanging connection, empty net, thick throw-in.
  • must connect exactly two strings not in atari (What of the following questions?)
    • thereby excludes connect and die ??
    • excludes filling a ko, when doing so connects more than two strings ??
    • allows for one of the two strings to be in atari, so long as the connection saves the stones in atari ??
  • then must block opposing stones
[Diagram]
What type of connection ?  
  • When Black plays a to connect the ko and live unconditionally, is this solid connection?
  • What type of connection is create White move at a taking the ko and followed by a white move to end the ko by connecting?
X
RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-06-06 14:49) [#8544]

In my usage, string can consist of one stone.

Solid connections (in my usage) exclude oiotoshi because that does not create thick shape because the opponent can capture.

Solid connections (in my usage) can exclude filling a ko for different reasons; connecting more than two strings is such a reason. (Filling a ko can be called "filling a ko". If it also serves other purposes, then it can have those other meanings, too. E.g., usually it would also be of the general move type connection. If it is also creating / maintaining thick shape, then it is a thick connection and, more specifically a thick string connection. See Joseki Vol. 1, p. 153.)

Solid connections (in my usage) exclude either of the two strings to be in atari. I call moves escaping from atari "escape from atari". (There are the types string connection, ladder, net, moving to empty space.)

Your example move a is not a solid connection (in my usage) because it is not a thick cut protection because it is not protecting against an opposing cut because, if the opponent wins the ko, what the opponent gets is not a cut but either a ko filling or a capture of the ko stone and some adjacent string.

When White captures and then connects the ko, the most obvious type is, of course, string connection. More specifically, it is also a thick string connection because it creates thick shape. After the White ko capture, it is not also of the move type thick cut protection because then the opponent Black cannot cut at all (the condition "protecting against an opposing cut" does not apply at that moment).

reply
194.78.35.195: ((no subject)) (2011-06-06 17:50) [#8545]

Define the term at will. We'll see if it is picked up by the community. Tapir, it seems at least one user sees a strong reason to coin the term. Maybe it will take off, maybe it won't.

It's different when all common terms start to be replaced by contrived terms. There may still be a good reason to do that, but then resistance is called for.

Dieter

reply
Sebastian: discussion from article page (2011-06-06 18:16) [#8546]

(The following has been moved from the article page:)

Discussion

Anonymous: It is a solid connection under standard go terminology.

RobertJasiek: Where is the evidence that that would be "standard terminology"? Isn't it rather the case that SL created the claim of such abnormal usage being standard and that now some readers of SL believe what SL has written? Which would be the term for the solid connection kind of thick cut protection if it could not be 'solid connection' when intended in the too general string connection sense?

[Diagram]
One bad example  

Without an extra term, this would also be a solid connection and, as a term, would not distinguish it from a thick shape creating move.

Tapir: This is a really bad example, this is adding a stone to a dead group *full stop* And all troubles in inventing new terms doesn't prevent the construction of similarly silly examples with a "thick cut protection" kind of move being played, which "would not distinguish it, as a term, from a thick shape creating move."

[Diagram]
Another bad example  

RobertJasiek: Of course, the example is bad. So bad that it shows how bad solid connection in the too general meaning of string connection is. If you claim that there can be silly examples for thick cut protection, then you are invited to present them!


RobertJasiek wrote: Where is the evidence that that would be "standard terminology"? Isn't it rather the case that SL created the claim of such abnormal usage being standard and that now some readers of SL believe what SL has written?

Bass: Dear Robert, considering yourself the only worthwhile source of go information is very arrogant. If you think an entire international community such as Sensei's Library might be mistaken in their go term usage, it would have been prudent to at least [ext] check [ext] some [ext] readily [ext] available [ext] sources before making a fool of yourself again.

RobertJasiek: I do not consider myself the only worthwhile source of go information. Factual discussion does not require throwing around words like "arrogant".

Checking the links your are offering I get (so far):

gobase.org: The example given fits both SL's and my definition of solid connection. Therefore the example does not add new information. Nor does the comment "defending the cutting point" add new information. Either it could be understood as an additional information beyond SL's definition or it could be understood as leaving SL's definition by going a step towards my definition.

From google, the first non-gobase.org, non-SL URL is [ext] this and it writes: "There is no way to separate, and not easy to become bad shape". This is evidence against SL's definition of solid connection and moves towards my definition of solid connection.

Korean Baduk Association writes "A play that defends a cutting point by linking the stones". This is evidence against SL's definition of solid connection and moves towards my definition of solid connection. (It is evidence against SL's definition because is characterises something more specific than SL's general definition. It moves towards my definition because it mentions at least one of the extra criteria I mention in my definition.)

Shape Up: I will check the PDF later. Note though the Shape Up was written by Charles Matthews who also contributed a lot to SL's definition of solid connection. So evidence there merely means that the same person created it.

Second PDF link: I will check it later.


RobertJasiek: Now I have checked the two PDFs.

Baduk Terminology states two meanings: a) katatsugi (I do not know what this means.) b) one-point jump. The latter meaning disagrees with both SL's definition and my definition. There is the question though how reliable a Korean dictionary can be for listing English Go vocabulary. There is a good chance that they did not watch uses of solid connection in English literature but sought a word for stability and used "solid" for that purpose.

Shape Up: Apart from ambiguous uses, there are these occurrences: 1) "The solid connection A demonstrates no ambition to be efficient, but allows Black nothing at all in the way of later forcing moves." This is more about writing about other move characteristica (efficient, forcing) than about clarifying what solid connection means. 2) Mostly other uses of solid connection either are ambiguous in their meaning or let both SL's definition and my definition apply. 3) One use supports SL's meaning, except that the major author of the relevant SL pages in their prior versions is also the author of Shape Up. At the same time, the evidence is doubtful because what is being called a solid connection in the example is actually a nobi (Japanese word used in English) aka thick extension (my term). A nobi example is evidence more for nobi than for solid connection in either SL's or my definition.

Summary of your URLs (except for more google study): They do not provide clear evidence, except that most of the authors were more interested in using some phrase instead of trying to define it carefully. Much clearer evidence would be needed.

X
62.237.44.16: Re: discussion from article page (2011-06-06 20:27) [#8547]

Bass: Oh, you must have mistaken my intent. We already [ext] reached a mutual agreement that discussing with you is a complete waste of time. In hopes that you might be annoyed enough to keep your contributions elsewhere (L19 is a nice site, no?), I am currently experimenting with abuse, but this does not seem to be working, as you don't seem to have any dignity to hurt; who else would try to assert their expertise in the subject matter by claiming that they do not know [ext] the first thing about it?

RobertJasiek: Re: discussion from article page (2011-06-06 18:58) [#8548]

An intention by you to abuse fake discussion to try to annoy somebody (hier: me) is, of course, missed by me because I expect reasonable usage of forums regardless of declared intentions of abuse. In particular, I do not violate the [ext] first recommendation just because somebody else might violate it.

Babelfish translates: "Tsugi / When 1 it is cut in white, black - the stone becomes weak. Black is connected in order not to be cut, black 1 striking. This is called tsugi. Calling that this kind of stone grindstone is connected perpendicularly completely katatsugi, there is no tsuga? directly, a way shifting the stone grindstone you call that it connects kaketsugi. / Dia. 1 katatsugi [a string connection is shown] / Dia. 2 kaketsugi [a hanging connection is shown]"

Now I have to look up those Japanese go terms. According to SL, tsugi = connection, katatsugi = solid connection, kaketsugi = hanging connection.

Now this does not help us with evidence of English usage, except that SL was somewhat consistent in using solid connection for what everybody incl. SL and me calls a solid connection.

What is "the first thing"? I consider the first thing English / Western Go terminology (and not Japanese Go terminology in Japanese) because in English Japanese has not been copied 1:1 but the translation process has lost, changed and substituted terms or phrases. The "first thing" is also not SL; SL is only as good as its average user.

62.237.44.16: Re: discussion from article page (2011-06-06 19:47) [#8551]

Because it is difficult for you to connect the dots, I will do it for you.

  • Dot 1, Nihon Ki-in: "katatsugi" (Japanese) is a connection that completely connects the stones. Here's a picture.
  • Dot 2, Jasiek: "katatsugi" (Japanese) seems to mean "string connection" (Jasiekese)
  • Dot 3, Several sources referenced above: "katatsugi" (Japanese) equals "solid connection" (English)

Connected: several credible and/or authoritative sources say that "solid connection" is the standard English language term for the Jasiekese expression "string connection".

  • Dot 4, Jasiek: "Now this does not help us with evidence of English usage"

Connected: As long as facts would undermine Mr. Jasiek's opinion on anything, he feels to entitled to ignore any or all of them.

  • Dot 5, Jasiek: "SL is only as good as its average user."

Connected: There is a very easy [ext] way for you to improve SL.

Cheers,

  -Bass
Sebastian: Re: discussion from article page (2011-06-06 19:48) [#8552]

Bass, as a librarian here, I have to officially warn you. We do not condone that abuse of our discussion forums; you can get blocked for that kind of behavior.

62.237.44.16: Re: discussion from article page (2011-06-06 20:00) [#8553]

Bass: Ok, sorry, I promise to behave.

reply
velobici: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 04:18) [#8558]

Seems that Robert is trying to distinguish between a type of connection that can be understood even without knowing the rules of the game. A string connection can be identified because it removes the single open point between two strings. A person can be taught to identify string connections without being taught the rules of alternating turns, capture, ko, counting, etc.

A solid connection can be identified only if one understands such concepts as making thick shape, leaves little or no aji, leaves no painful forcing moves.

Would suggest that the difference is that a string connection is a matter of what does it look like, whereas a solid connection is a matter of what does it mean.

X
RobertJasiek: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 07:21) [#8562]

My major motivation is different from what you suspect: general term versus specialised term. String connection is the most general term describing the unification of strings. Thick shape move is the most general term describing the creation / improvement of thick shape. Thick cut protection is a more specialized type of thick shape moves. Solid connection is a more specialized type (and the most frequent type) of thick cut protection. At the same time, solid connection is a special type of string connection.

Usually I use terms to describe meaning or function. Sometimes there is a coincidence to appearance. In that case, I might use the appearance description to express the meaning. E.g., hanging connection uses appearance. It is a good move not because of its appearance but because of creating thick shape and protecting a cut while possibly sometimes being more efficient than a solid connection. Writing down all these aspects meaning to form a term would be nasty; the much shorter phrase "hanging connection" is more practical. Since a hanging connection always has the same (basic) appearance, this can be used in the term. For other move types (such as a reduction), the appearance is not always the same so using it in the term's name would be a bad idea.

Sebastian: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 07:46) [#8563]

Ah, now thanks to your first paragraph I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to achieve with this term. Could you please add an example for a string connection that's not a solid connection to the article? Thanks!

213.73.121.96: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 09:24) [#8564]

The example there is such an example.

Sebastian: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 16:41) [#8574]

Sorry, I don't see that. Why is that not a solid connection? It seems clear to me that this is connecting two stones that otherwise could be disconnected (in two steps, which you might call 2-disconnected), which neatly fits the definition of a solid connection. However, since people here already warned against definitionism, let me put it differently, in two questions:

  • Question to Robert: What do you gain by not calling your example a solid connection?
  • Question to everyone else: Is there anyone else who wouldn't call Robert's example a solid connection?
RobertJasiek: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 17:07) [#8575]

I have not said that it would violate SL's (versions of) definition(s) of solid connection. I have said that it violates my definition of solid connection.

By not calling the example a solid connection I gain the nature of solid connection of being (on average) more efficient in creating thick shape than this dual meaning "thick string connection" and "thick cut protection move" move. The example move also connects a single stone that does not contribute to increasing outside thickness at all. (There are other topics to this example shape but they do belong to another type of the move: "threatening cuts".)

[Diagram]
omitted move is not solid connection  
[Diagram]
 

There is another difference why (in my terminology) not calling it a solid connection makes sense: If Black does not protect against cutting, then an immediate white cut is not possible but a cut occurs only a bit later. Contrarily, in the usual solid connection examples, an immediate cut is possible.

If Black can win the ko after blocking with 2 at 3 (very likely), then there is not even a cut.

[Diagram]
omitted solid connection  


[Diagram]
omitted solid connection  
Sebastian: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 17:08) [#8576]

I just saw your page SolidConnection/Discussion, and realize that that already provides the same answer in more detail. Ultimately, I am more concerned about the recent back and forward of definitions in the solid connection article, so I will reply there.

tapir: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 11:08) [#8565]

Yes. Thanks for the clarification work Velobici.

I have at times trouble to understand what Robert is aiming at. I am sure, nobody would use (as Robert claimed) the term "solid connection" for the connection in oiotoshi, but what for most people is solved implicitly, by context, examples etc. needs a definition for Robert. So he came up with the "thick cut protection" meaning for solid connection. If we would limit the discussion to real examples, I believe there wouldn't be much difference in usage of solid connection between Robert and other deshis.

Where does that leave string connection? Isn't it just a complicated way of saying connection, after all? So in oiotoshi, do we gain anything if we call it "string-connect-and-die" over "connect-and-die"? I would say, no.

Though I fear connection is too ambiguous for Robert's taste, as it can mean a "direct" connection joining stones/chains/strings together here, and all the other ways to connect less directly by being able to capture cutting stones or incur a loss elsewhere.

RobertJasiek: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 12:36) [#8566]

Whenever unclear about my aims, ask! :)

If for some people things solve implicitly, fine - unless at the same time they insist on SL's definition of solid connection ("A stone or play forming or belonging to one string."), which contradicts what they perceive implicitly.

It is also not only me who wants definitions. SL had its definition-like description before I have added the other, thick cut protection meaning.

Every specific type of connection is "more complicated" (as you call it) than the most general term "connection".

A more specific term like "string connection" is used when the more specific type is being meant but (most of) the other types are not being meant. E.g., light stones can have connection but they are not string connections.

To show some usage: E.g., thick block is defined as follows: "A thick block is a block that is a string connection creating thick shape." Suppose the term string connection did not exist. Saying "...that is a connection..." would be wrong because too many kinds of moves would be included. Saying "...that connects itself to one or several other strings..." would be possible but longer. We would get: "A thick block is a block that that connects itself to one or several other strings and creates thick shape." Inconvenient! Using the term string connection allows a much more convenient text.

Please do not use "direct connection" for other meanings than direct connection!

tapir: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 14:39) [#8568]

The problem with the insistence on definitions that are unambiguous without giving context and examples etc. is that it leads to a proliferation of new terms. Many of these terms wouldn't be necessary if the presentation were different. And with too many terms, confusion sets in.

A good hint is, that when you added your definition of solid connection, there was no necessity to change the examples, because they all fit either way. Still, I believe you don't escape trouble with your definitionism. See the example below, for you it isn't a solid connection, but a more general string connection. Why? I don't see the compelling reason. (And in fact it is preventing the cut by solidly connecting stones too, although more than 2 at once.)

[Diagram]
What is W1 for you?  
RobertJasiek: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 15:37) [#8569]

Examples or not - proliferation of my good terms is intended! The context and examples are in my books. The terms are all necessary for the sake of having an (almost) complete set of English terms of move / stone types together with their good structure, see [ext] TOC. (Complete for josekis; the middle game needs more terms. Terms related to ko are also mostly missing in that structure so far.)

The terms and their structure in the book have also the purpose of greatly decreasing the number of necessary terms for move / stone types because many traditional terms with little value become redundant. I suggest to use my terminology to replace the traditional terminology. Confusion, which you imagine, arises if somebody sees the new, refuses to abandon the old and so is confronted with too many terms. In fact, I am very confused by the old terminology because it has many more terms than I want to remember, it has too many hard to remember Japanese words and an overall structure is missing.

White 1 in your example is a "thick string connection". It is also a thick cut protection. It is not listed as a subtype of thick cut protection because it is already listed as a subtype of thick connection. All subtypes of thick cut protection might also be listed as subtypes of thick connection. Not vice versa though: thick diagonal connection or thick jump would not fit under thick cut protection. The feature you are wishing to have ("preventing the cut") White 1 does have also under my terminology because it also qualifies as a thick cut protection.

Now let us study White 1 and solid connection. Three more conditions of solid connection (string-connects, blocks opposing strings, strings are not in atari) apply. The not applying fourth condition is "exactly two strings". Only one condition is violated, so it is almost like a solid connection but not exactly what I have defined to be a solid connection. I wanted to exclude the answer to a peep against three strings and the string connection of four strings. I excluded them because they are not the usual wall-like solid connections but they have some greater degree of inefficiency: In your example, the left white stone contributes little to the rightwards wall formation. In a connection of four strings (not in atari) example, a string connection creates overconcentration rather than increasing solidity significantly. Solid connections should be associated with efficiency. Thick string connections can be, but need not be that efficient.

62.237.44.16: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 15:54) [#8572]

This reminds me of a common paradox with go rules: many people recognize that there are too many rule sets around, and everyone's solution to that problem is that they add one more. Because everyone will surely switch to that and forget the other ones.

RobertJasiek: Re: appearance vs meaning (2011-06-07 16:19) [#8573]

Without good attempt, good change will not occur.

 
Back to forum     Back to page

New reply


Forum for String Connection
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
RecentChanges
StartingPoints
About
RandomPage
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Goproblems.com
Login / Prefs
Tools
Sensei's Library