Forum for Chris Hayashida
The most inefficient stones are in the lid of your opponent's bowl. [#289]
tderz: Chris, that could also be the most efficient one's! (think of squeeze). The wish is the father of the thought, make it positive wishful thinking (hence not unrealistic), that all your stones, whether on board, dead or alive or in the bowl, are effective stones. (feel free to erase)
Chris Hayashida: When I thought up this "proverb" I came up with the idea that the stones had no memory... Once they were removed from the board, there was no more aji, and no more potential. You might be able to use your dead stones to force your opponent's stones to be less efficient, like with a squeeze or sacrifice. In the end, though, his inefficient stones are still in play, and yours are not. Granted, after the sequence, he might have more stones that are inefficient, but I thought of this as a trade in efficiency - I make you less efficient, and you make me less efficient (by taking my stones off the board) but I come out ahead because more of your stones are inefficient than mine. It makes sense in my head, but I think this is the proverb that I get the most comments about. :)
Chris Hayashida: I just thought of another way to explain this: efficiency is measured by territory/stones played. For most live groups, this rating is a positive number. For a dango, the efficiency rating is 0. But for captured stones, the efficiency rating is negative. It makes sense to me, but I can't seem to explain it better.
tderz: The article
Attachment and Detachment in Go in the column The Empty Board by William Cobb illustrates very well the point I wanted to make: please read paragr. 3 and 4.
Actually his book Reflections on The Game of Go claims (page ii, 3rd par.) that all "writings have been reproduced (...) as they were originally published", but his book words it better (p. 7) than the given link above.
I thought it was odd to link to that in this discussion. Then I realized that you might be reading my "proverb" as "Don't let your stones get captured!" It wasn't what I meant, but I see how it could be read that way.
Hicham: Think of it like this: The efficiency of the sacrified stones, lies not in the territory they convey you at the end, but in the raised efficiency of the stones that do the squeezing or force the opponent to take your stone/group. So yes, their rating as you put it might be negetive when you just look at their position at the end, but they raise the rating of you other stones. Same goes for your opponent's overconcentrated stones. They are still in play, and their rating might be positive when you just look at their local endpostion. But they augment the efficency(rating) of your outside stones, so their netresult will be negative.
You have to see the big picture, not just the efficiency of one stone on it's self.
Well, I agree with you there. I think of using a squeeze or an endgame tesuji as sort of a trade in (in)efficiency. I lose an additional stone, but you have less efficient shape. In total, my position is better than yours, but when you look at two specific moves, my captured stone is a point for you, while the stone played to capture may or may not take away a point of your territory.
I don't think sacrificing stones or setting up squeezes are bad. But I also don't think prisoners are efficient stones. :)
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")