Life In 19x19
http://prod.lifein19x19.com/

Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=12684		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Kris2476 [ Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Hey all,

I have been saving up for a nice set of slate and shell stones. Currently I am looking at KGT and Kiseido. I'd like to say, both Mr. Kuroki and Mr. Bozulich have been immensely kind and helpful.

Of these two, KGT has more expensive stones, but a wider range of sizes available. I am interested in size 36, 37, or 38, which Kiseido does not have. But they do have cheaper yuki in other sizes.

From pictures I have seen, I actually think I prefer the darker lines of Jitsuyo over Yuki, but I like the consistency of Yuki-grade (i.e., I have seen standard grade stones with few or no lines whatsoever).

Can someone who owns both chime in on the quality of jitsuyo? Or offer pictures of both side by side. Is Yuki worth the extra cost? Are the grain patterns on Jitsuyo noticeable?

Thanks for the help!
-Christopher
Author:  EdLee [ Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hi Christopher,
I have used both Kuroki Yuki Snow size 36, and Kuroki Jitsuyo Standard size 38; and Kiseido Snow size 33.

My opinion is KGT Standard size 38 ( 10.7 mm )
offers excellent bang for the buck.

Yes, the Standard grains are very noticeable --
in fact, I kind of prefer them, as you mentioned.

If money is not an issue,
and if you must have the Snow White look,
then go for Snow grade. :)

Otherwise, I highly recommend KGT Size 38 Standard.

( If you prefer the grains for character,
then Standard gives you the best of both worlds:
noticeable grains AND MUCH cheaper ! :mrgreen: )
Author:  sybob [ Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
As EdLee said, it's a trade-off and matter of personal preference.
I like to add: perhaps you want to (re-) consider thickness.
You speak of stones 36, 37 up to 38.
I do not like such thick stones very much. 36 mwah, but 37 and 38 too thick for what I am used to and my fingers can handle. You may want to opt for (say) 35. Saves you money, freeing up some to upgrade to yuki, perhaps.
Author:  oren [ Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
I prefer around size 33. Playing with size 38 would feel very strange for me.
Author:  gowan [ Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
I have slate and shell stone sets in sizes 30, 32, 33, and 35. I think my favorite is 33 (9.2 mm). I also find the very thick stones, 37 or thicker, difficult to manipulate as I want to without their frequently slipping and dropping onto the board. If you have a Japanese kaya board with lacquer lines using the very thick stones it is easy to dent the board. Some denting is appealing, showing use, but eventually the lines are likely to be damaged and if you aren't in Japan it's a project to get the board planed and the lines reapplied. This can be done for a fee by Kuroki Goishiten but ...
Author:  EdLee [ Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Hi Christopher,
Quote:
I was curious about your thoughts on the size 38 stones. Do you have any issues with stones slipping, or significant dents on your board? These are problems I never assumed I would have, but I want to be sure!
No problem with stones slipping;
I heard that Mr. Cho Chikun's favorite size is also 38 -- 10.7 mm.

As for "dimples" on the board, this depends on the hardness/softness of the wood.
For shinkaya (spruce?), which is quite soft, I still don't have problems with dimples.
For other woods (kaya, etc.), I don't have any experience,
but I've heard people actually enjoy the aesthetics of the dimples. :)

Overall, my experience with the various thicknesses -- 8 mm glass stones, size 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 shell & slate, 10 mm plastic ING stones -- have been gradual over 10+ years.
My favorite is KGT Size 38 Standard -- 10.7 mm -- IMO unequaled in excellence. :mrgreen:
Author:  Kris2476 [ Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Thanks, Ed! Do you by chance have pictures of yuki and jitsuyo grade for comparison?
Author:  EdLee [ Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hi Christopher,

( Photo resolution: 3264x2448 ):
Attachment:
image.jpg
image.jpg [ 1.99 MiB | Viewed 14815 times ]
Left: KGT size 38 (10.7 mm) Standard.
Right: KGT size 36 (10.1 mm) Snow.

Completely "straight out of the bowls" from daily use;
stones have not been washed for months.
iPhone 4S; lens not even wiped cleaned; 100% raw snapshot, unedited. :)
Author:  Erythen [ Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Yuki stones are also superior in more than just ascetics. The grain gives strength. Like with boards, The straighter and more prevalent the grain, the stronger the stone. I've also noticed it makes them much easier to clean, though I can't say why.

If you buy Jutsuyo, make sure to get the best kind.

There are two styles. The first is where the grain wraps around the surface of the stone. This makes them more prone to chipping and any yellowing over time is more pronounced.

The second style has mostly strait grain like in Edlee's photos. They're the stronger of the two.

Mr. Kuroki doesn't list Moon grade anymore, but other's do. They're an excellent combination of Snow aesthetics/durability and Jitsuyo price.
Author:  Galation [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Erythen wrote:
Mr. Kuroki doesn't list Moon grade anymore, but other's do. They're an excellent combination of Snow aesthetics/durability and Jitsuyo price.

I fully agree with Erythen, I have a set of Moon grade from Kuroki ;)

Galation

Attachments:
Moon_Tsuki.jpg
Moon_Tsuki.jpg [ 39.57 KiB | Viewed 14720 times ]
Author:  mhlepore [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
I know the topic here is Yuki vs. Jitsuyo, but since stone size has also come into play, I'd like to offer my two cents.

As others mention, stone size is not one size fits all. The 10.7mm stones Ed loves would be too big for my skinny fingers - I'd probably get arthritis. :-)

One thing that is relevant besides how it feels in your hand is how it plays. I bought a set of stones about 15 years ago - I think 9.2mm, which I was told was the "optimal" size. Turns out they felt too big. So I went to a thinner stone - I think 8.4mm. These stones felt better, but turns out they were shaped in such a way that there was very little surface area touching the board. The stone that felt better in my hand ended up wobbling for a while after being placed on the board. Certainly not aesthetically pleasing.

Finally, I found my ideal set on eBay - antique stones that are roughly 4mm, which I discuss here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12232.
Author:  Erythen [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Quote:
Finally, I found my ideal set on eBay - antique stones that are roughly 4mm, which I discuss here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12232.

mhlepore, I took a quick look at the set and thought you'd be interested to know that the stones are Suwabute (Native Japanese Shell from Hyuga)...at least the ones I could make out are. They look to be in better condition than most older shells that size which is a great plus.
Author:  mhlepore [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Erythen wrote:
Quote:
Finally, I found my ideal set on eBay - antique stones that are roughly 4mm, which I discuss here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12232.

mhlepore, I took a quick look at the set and thought you'd be interested to know that the stones are Suwabute (Native Japanese Shell from Hyuga)...at least the ones I could make out are. They look to be in better condition than most older shells that size which is a great plus.


Thanks for the info! Not only are they in good condition for their age, but there were 180 white and around 185 black stones - somehow a full set's worth had been retained over the years.
Author:  EdLee [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
mhlepore wrote:
180 white and around 185 black stones
Spares: ~4 :black:, zero :white: . :)
Author:  Galation [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
mhlepore wrote:
These stones felt better, but turns out they were shaped in such a way that there was very little surface area touching the board. The stone that felt better in my hand ended up wobbling for a while after being placed on the board. Certainly not aesthetically pleaasing.
I don't remember where I read it
(possibly fter I have seen one of the trailers of Lee Sedol - Gu Li jubango)
but according Japanese aesthetic (wabi sabi..?), the wobbling is appreciated
(as well as the fact that the stone won't really line due to the slight different measures of black and white diameter).

It is really strange: compare it to double, triple and quadriple weighted chess pieces. :D Sorry for the OT...

Galation
Author:  EdLee [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
The stone that felt better in my hand ended up wobbling for a while after being placed on the board.
Stabilization (placement) of the stones is (yet another) acquired skill. It takes practice.

Mr. Iyama v. Mr. Kono.

The stone placements are quite elegant and stable in these NHK TV blitz tourneys.

As Galation mentioned, some folks actually enjoy the wobbling.

I'm greedy: I like both thick stones (10.7 mm) and stable placements. :)
Author:  Galation [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
EdLee wrote:
I'm greedy: I like both thick stones (10.7 mm) and stable placements. :)
Me too :tmbup:
Still, it happened that guys I played with had unfavorably commented the thickness of my stones due to the added handling difficulty.

:D obviously if they were to drop a stone moving the position of the other stones on the goban...
I would instantly claim I had won the game according tournament rules :D

Galation
Author:  mhlepore [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
EdLee wrote:
Stabilization (placement) of the stones is (yet another) acquired skill. It takes practice.

Mr. Iyama v. Mr. Kono.

The stone placements are quite elegant and stable in these NHK TV blitz tourneys.

...


Hi Ed. I watched the youtube video and was wondering your thoughts on Iyama's move six (at just past the two minute mark). It seems he places the stone below his intended point, and then slides it up. Isn't this frowned upon? At least at our level? I didn't watch further, so not sure if this is an abberation or not.

Deviating further off topic, but I guess that's what I do. Maybe I'll start a new thread in the General Go Chat section on this move. :-)
Author:  gowan [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Yuki vs. Jitsuyo
Placing and sliding is common in pro games. What is frowned on, if anything, would be placing a stone, keeping a finger on it and then sliding to a different place after deciding a different place would be better. The pros do the place-and-slide as a single movement, often when it would be awkward to place the stone without displacing other stones. In fast games this kind of thing also is done as an expression of feelings, in that case the initial placement would be done energetically and also the slide.
Author:  EdLee [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Hi mhlepore,

Adding to what Gowan said, the important thing is that the intended move is very clear and unambiguous, even with any sliding.
HnG made this very clear with their normal, regular slidings throughout the series, and also with Mr. Izumi's resign in his pro exam game (where he specifically moved the stone from the initial point to another spot without lifting the touching finger).
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/