Message-Id: <9306160526.AA14015@thor.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 01:26:24 -0400
From: smg6@po.CWRU.Edu (S. Max Golem)
To: vlevin@acs.ucalgary.ca, qing@iras.ucalgary.ca, mikew@cs.washington.edu,
        adrian@u.washington.edu, jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu, dfoster@maths.tcd.ie,
        randyk@wv.mentorg.com, paul.neureiter@his.com, john.tromp@cwi.nl,
        junger@rsg1.er.usgs.gov, crowner@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu,
        jmb@ideas.com, creare!spock.creare.com!inb@dartmouth.edu,
        carlos_costa@mindlink.bc.ca, ioffe@black.bgu.ac.il,
        yang@titan.ucs.umass.edu, andrew.robinson@anu.edu.au,
        wsharpe@delphi.com, bate@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca,
        wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz, lewis@venus.resntl.bhp.com.au,
        jones@reed.edu, garyb@ultima.enet.dec.com,
        derek@AU-BON-PAIN.LCS.MIT.EDU, chapmand@chdasic.sps.mot.com,
        li@draco.bison.mb.ca, blakeno@ivy.isc.com, kkkken@Athena.MIT.EDU,
        jrm@hprnd.rose.hp.com
Subject: Re: Discussion 1.
Cc: smg6@thor.INS.CWRU.Edu
Reply-To: smg6@po.CWRU.Edu (S. Max Golem)


Hi people --

Andrew Lewis writes:

>Max et al,
>> >   +-------------------------------------+
>> > 19|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|19|
>> > 18|. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 @ 0 . . . .|18|
>> > 17|. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 @ 0 0 2 .|17|
>> > 16|. . . 0 . . . . . @ . . . 7 5 @ @ 0 .|16|
>> > 15|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 @ .|15|
>> > 14|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . .|14|
>> > 13|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|13|
>> > 12|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|12|
>> > 11|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|11|
>> > 10|. . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . .|10|
>> >  9|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . @ . .| 9|
>> >  8|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 8|
>> >  7|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 7|
>> >  6|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 6|
>> >  5|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 5|
>> >  4|. . . 0 . . . . . 0 . . 0 . . + . . .| 4|
>> >  3|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ . . .| 3|
>> >  2|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 2|
>> >  1|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 1|
>> >   +-------------------------------------+   
>> >    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T    
>> >
>> >I was not happy with the resulting position in the upper right.
>> 
>> [MG: Question(s) for the group -- Is this just a variation of a
>> well-known joseki, is there a really punishing rebuttal, or is
>> this just one of those times to lean back and take satisfaction
>> from obtaining a definite, but subtle, advantage (even though the
>> opponent may think he's come out well ahead)?  Would you say that
>> the result is bad for White?  If so, how bad?]
>> 
>As I understand it - in the "pon-nuki" continuation to the double
>hane variation of this joseki White is generally left with the
>pon-nuki on the right and the aji of the three dead stones in the
>corner, which Black secures as territory. In falling back to the
>connection at S17, White ends up securing the corner as profit
>while Black makes a strong outside wall - the common expectation
>from a 3-3 point invasion.
>
>By playing the atari at Q15, black has allowed White to break out
>along the top edge. I would see a possible continuation as being
>a splitting attack, say at M15. But after the play at P9, perhaps
>it would be bigger for White to make san-ren-sei on the left? This
>would keep M15 or the alternative extension along the side to
>undercut K16 as a threat in hand. (This is one of the [many] weak
>points in my game so I offer these thoughts as worth what you
>paid for them ;)
>
>I am left with the impression that Black's final position in the
>upper right is heavy and that White has come out of the exchange
>with a slight advantage.
>
>Andrew (presently a struggling 10k)
>-- 
> Andrew Lewis         Mathematical Modelling Group             
> Tel: +61 49 510618   BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories           
> Fax: +61 49 513740   P.O. Box 188, Wallsend 2287, Australia          
> Internet: lewis@resntl.bhp.com.au  AUSTPAC: 0505249527000::lewis                             

OK.  What do the rest of you guys think about the above?

There's another matter I'd like your opinions on.  Some very
generous people have offered to enter Go diagrams for distri-
bution to the group, and I was wondering what format would be
best.  Are many of you using mgt?  Something else?

I see us accumulating four types of items: problems and their
solutions (joseki/fuseki, tesuji, and life and death), piecemeal
translations of various Japanese Go books that I happen to think
are great, professional games and commentary, and miscellaneous
essays that any of us may write from time to time. 

One of the traditional ways to get stronger is to do lots of
fairly easy problems quickly, without laboring carefully over
each subtree of variations.  The idea is to build up your
intuition in recognizing vital points and reading out their
continuations first.  

Since it's very handy to be able to flip pages quickly as you go
through problems, I don't know if mgt is suitable here -- maybe
ASCII (or postscript, if someone's willing to do the printing and
mailing) diagrams would be better for this.  I really don't know. 
Any opinions? 

I imagine mgt would be quite OK for the other applications,
provided that everybody had a copy.  Or do people prefer some-
thing different? 

I've run across eight Japanese Go books that we might try working
our way through:

   9-kyu Fuseki
   9-kyu Tesuji
   5-kyu Joseki
   5-kyu Fuseki
   5-kyu Tesuji
   1-kyu Joseki
   1-kyu Fuseki
   1-kyu Tesuji

Please pick two or three that we can start off with.  The ones
with the most votes wins.  I translate very slowly, perhaps an
hour a page, so we wouldn't make much progress trying to do more
than a few (until we get another translator 8^). 

By the way, I plan to copyright everything I write for the group. 
I hope nobody minds this.  (You're encouraged to distribute any-
thing you like as long as you give proper credit.)

Well, that's about it this time.  Hope to be back on track fairly
soon.

Max.