Yes, and all I'm saying is you should really learn to be a bit more humble where you fall short. That is all.

I think for a good teacher, presentation is also important.

When I am essentially absolutely convinced that the contents is correct, then my books (or research articles) do not need peer-reviews. I am a mathematically experienced person and studied maths at university, so I have a good thinking foundation to judge whether my work's contents is factually correct.

When I am not essentially absolutely convinced, then I let experts or at least well educated (for a topic in question) people read the critical parts of a work. E.g., Bill Spight saw an early draft of Joseki 2, chapter 4.4.4, when I was still dreaming of using average per move values in it. I realised that I would not understand my theory foundation for that chapter within time, so I made the more modest approach with territory efficiency.

The factual mistake rate in my works is low. (IIRC, the still only noteworthy factual mistake in Joseki 2 is the pronunciation of haengma. Maybe you are motivated now to find a second mistake;)) In this respect, the early drafts of the Japanese 2003 Rules were more difficult by a factor 10 because the rules had to be correct AND application of the rules must not produce any critical anomaly. Writing books is a much easier task. Even Capturing Races 1 with its all-integrated contents was easy from the POV of factual proofreading (but would have profited from English proofreading). (My other books are English-proofread.)

way to evaluate joseky can not be done at your level.
you are not strong enough to evaluate or formulate a way to evaluate anything.
it is a product of many many professionals opinion and even that are open to an arguement.

ROBERT!!! HOW CAN YOU TEACH WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW????

I AM STRONG AS YOU BUT I KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT BECAUSE I KNOW BETTER!!!
I HAVE BEEN TUTORING SO MANY ON MATH CLASSES BUT GO IS BEYOND SCOPE OF MY BRAIN.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

There are cases (such as the contents of Capturing Races 1) where teaching absolute truth is possible and so is done. (This does not exclude the possibility of other approaches to classification a la Thomas Wolf.) Once an absolute truth is known, there is only one correct answer (for a semeai's current status in a given position). Everybody can then know the truth (if he wants).

For more ordinary projects (where absolute truth is not available yet), it is by far not so much a matter of claiming or not claiming to kniw the one answer. Rather what I have tried to argue in related previous messages of this thread is that other authors (such as stronger players, professionals) should teach certain minimal standards for specific topics.

Influence assessment in joseki books is an example of such a minimal standard. Everybody should want to know how to assess a joseki's influence but professional player authors do not provide such basic information. They bother all their readers with even more basic trouble: to determine the stone difference. A book's statement "equal" is worth nothing if one does not also know the stone difference. Why do the professionals make it unnecessarily difficult to learn josekis?! Firstly, the innocent kyu has to create the idea that stone difference is a factor at all. Secondly, he needs to determine it afresh whenever he studies a diagram to hopefully learn another joseki. Dictionaries should relieve their readers of unncessary tasks and simply state the basics.

Everybody knows that strategic choices are of ultimate relevance for applying josekis well. Professionals do not care to teach their dictionarys' readers about strategic choices (with rare occasions for a few diagrams). How very bad! Strategic choices are basic information for understanding josekis but professionals do not provide even such basic information in their dictionaries.

Do you disagree and like it that professionals let work out very much by the readers themselves? It takes very much time for a reader! I only started to have a clear view on strategic choices after finishing my book...! Before I had to work out the choices again and again whenever I wanted to think about it. Do you wish to repeat the same experience? I suggest that you share my view that dictionaries with strategic choices are much more useful than dictionaries without them.

There is very much variation for what to include in a joseki dictionary, which variations etc. But all-important basics should be there!

You seem to be missing my point when I reply... I have no issue with your books or writing what you believe. The problem is generally in your presentation of the facts and the advertisement on the forum.

Actual professional mathematicians have their work peer-reviewed, despite being the most mathematically experienced people on the planet. Even the greatest among them make mistakes.

As someone from the assessing by reading variations camp, I understand why you think that.



Please understand that there are also other factors to be considered whether to send free review material. Our forum history is such a factor. As a oncsequence, if you want to review a book, then you need to purchase it (or its PDF). BTW, this I have done for almost all the books I have reviewed. Somebody having paid for a book shows a serious interest in it and so tends to generate fairer reviews.



I would send you a free copy of another book for a review: First Fundamentals. It is not your traget group, so you would not buy it. But you expressed a preference for weak players' improvement, so it would be interesting to see your opinion on the possibility by this book. (Oops, danger, it is not only about reading, how can Magicwand like that book...? :) )



Frankly, I expect to know only what you would say about the early definitions in the book. The rest of the book is nice for a mathematically minded person (who can accept that it is not a strict maths book with formal proofs for each principle) but bad for a lover of reading sequences. So you might come to pretty much any conclusion:)



Yes, because Hunter has prepared their minds (well, if they have read Hunter).



I have, but stronger and more knowledgable are not the same people and can differ from topic to topic. (E.g., Cho whoever is a strong player while Conway is a strong mathematician.)

If you were coming up with knew mathmatical theories, do you think having studied maths at university would be enough to eliminate the need for peer review? It wouldn't, so it's definitely not enough to eliminate the need for peer review in a different subject. I can't work out why you would want to avoid it anyway. If you have a deep interest in Go theory, I'd think discussing it with strong players and other theorists would be something you'd go out of your way to do, not avoid, especially if you've come up with some awesome theories of your own. You certainly seem to be willing enough to to discuss it here, so why not approach some people who's views might be more useful to you?

Read Joseki 3 Dictionary and open your mind!

Joseki evaluation WAS a matter of many many professionals opinion and sometimes of tewari. Now also my joseki evaluation method is a first choice. Let me repeat: success (i.e. agreement to professional judgement or reasonably obviously equivalent where professional judgement does not exist or evidence in databases of professional games) in 399 of 400 cases.

Is it so hard for a maths student to believe that generalising insights can advance theory much faster than tradition and case by case invention?

Study my theory and be astonished!

I know you call me arrogant, but it is the great minds' courage that leads to research revolutions. (How lucky I am to be called only arrogant. Poor Galileo was accused of heresy... Our currently times are so lovely peaceful!)

BTW, it won't be my last revolution. A couple of years later, I want to attack the general life and death problem. It is another thing that many many professionals study on a case by case basis. I want to stop this! There must be some hidden general theory! (Thomas Wolf is already attacking it from the computer program perspective.)

In one or two decades (oh, maybe in five), you will not recognise today's go theory knowledge base any longer. Researchers will dictate the pace, maybe in combination with the aid of programs.

I agree with this completely. Although I felt that (EDIT: Some of..) Robert's work was by and large miswritten for his target audience, I always had held a high respect for the nature of his approach and attempt at veracity in what he found. This respect has just taken a big knock

I work all the time with a number of academics in health fields, and have published a few things myself - the belief that "I went to university and therefore don't need my work to be peer-reviewed" is an utter jaw dropper for me.

I think now I get it:)

Professional mathameticians have the luxury of paid time and the need to be 100% correct. I have the luxury of being able to bear the zero or one mistakes pointed out after publication (and even the luxury of - from a strict mathematical POV - slightly imprecise definitions in Capturing Races 1). Can you find the first factual mistake in my ko paper? I have asked a couple of times now but there appears to be none (other than the historical detail that it is more than a rumour that also triple ko stones were invented by Matti Siivola).

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

Economic necessity. About 4 months for writing a book is the upper limit. Peer review can delay for another 2 or 3 months (or more) because there are only very few experts with sufficient background knowledge and time. It makes much more sense to publish a book and, if necessary, correct a next edition [if creating a correction is economically feasible].



Therefore I am discussing intensely and openly in the internet since 1995. I also discuss with strong players when I expect their willingness to available time, which is a rare case. Discussion with theorists is much more frequent. Also see my earlier replies.



You are invited to [purchase and] comment! [Many ask for free copies to comment, but I cannot give it for free to everybody.]



There are so few of them with ability to judge, time etc.! The internet is the by far greatest pool of opinions.

You are invited to find and blame me for my factual mistakes! (But you will have great difficulties to find any;) )
Let me repeat: I do not have the luxury of an employed mathematician who is "paid for waiting during peer-reviews".

There is another motivation: If I applied a professional mathematician's care for pre-publication reviews, then I would end up producing only half the number of go books per time. I prefer to inform the go players with as much knowledge as I can. The price is infrequent mistakes, but one does not get high frequency for free.

I would suggest publishing your book and sending out 4-5 copies to strong players (preferably professional strength) to review and critique. You don't need to wait and incorporate anything they say, but the feedback could be very useful for you.

Just looked over the paper, isn't ko a mass noun?

_________________
North Lecale

Just looked over the paper
your definition is harder than any math class i took.
and you try to sell that to people?

Name one person who think they learned something and got stronger by reading this.
if you can do that i will not comment on your ad no more.
if you can not.. i rest my case.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

i just noticed that you dont even understand the rules of go.

under current japanese rule:
in the case of triple ko where one side having one eye and other side having no eye, it is an automatic win for side that have one eye.

did you know that??

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Oh boy, this is going to explode. Magicwand, I implore you, don't open up a discussion on the fine details of rulesets!!

Just kick my ass instead

I don't feel it's much of a personal attack since he started the thread. Is not insulting the works of professional players a personal attack? I personally think he likes the attention.

_________________
be immersed