I'd say so. Probably well up to 1k.

I don't own a copy, but have read it a few times (and had a workshop that effectively went over a few chapters in it) but I think it is a great book that covers a lot of important topics. And the fuseki priority system is great. Whenever I'm finding myself lost in an even game opening I try to think back to that and usually don't embarrass myself too much on the strategic level.

Bruce "More Yang, less Yin" Young

_________________
Currently reading: Plutarch, Cerebus, and D&Q 25th Anniversary

None of the books on strategy I have read (The Yang book, The ABCs of Attack and Defense by Redmond, Attack and Defense by Davies, Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go by Kageyama) suggest that following proverbs is a substitute for studying strategy. Most such books offer a fairly in-depth analysis of the application of their principles and often follow that with illustrative problems to study. Nonetheless, my impression is that following strategic principles, such as play at the junction of two moyos or deny an opponent a base or move from the weaker group when attacking or force before defending or avoid bad shape etc., etc., generally leads me to put stones in places where I'm often happy to see them later on in the game. While it's not enough to want your stones to stay connected or your opponent's separated, these sorts of desires are the first steps in finding a good move. John Fairbairn's "coarse" fundamental principle, of striving to make one's stones work together, is I suspect appropriate for those to whom the more explicit principles are self-evident.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

but then the cynic in me thinks authors/editors sometimes make Go books (and other books) sound more exciting and unique than they really are - they're trying to sell it after all. Shodan seems to be their favourite carrot to dangle, for example. That's why detailed reviews by readers (preferably with reference to the rest of the Go literature) are invaluable since, in theory at least, they have less bias.

_________________
I am John. John-I-Am.

Opening, middle game and strategy are accessible by principles and other general methods very well. I plan to write books about those topics later. Currently especially middle game and strategy are hardly covered by general approaches at all. Maybe this causes your current impression on the impact of books on those topics. I promise this state to see dramatic changes!



This will be so for quite some centuries to come. Middle game strategy is very complex even if structured well by principles. Early research in structure and principles cannot produce what might at some time centuries later become a final theory. With a final theory, principles without exceptions might be found then. More likely though, it will still end as a sort of classification that cannot be any further compressed and reduced, quite like, with the current possibly final theory, there are 3 types of ko intersections and not just 1. Nevertheless, principles and classes have the potential of simplifying thought structure as well as anyhow possible.



This is over-simplifying:) At the very least, we need also (c) justify everything planned on a higher (strategic) level on the level of tactics.

***

The book title is a huge over-statement. "A few fundamental principles of go" would have been more correct but been less attractive PR:) Kageyama tells you to study fundamentals at all, this thread's book suggests a few principles of different aspects of the game and books specialized on fundamentals of a specific aspect of the game provide many more respective principles.

palapiku, each book on fundamentals is very useful as long as you do not already know them all. It is not a matter of your rank but a matter of your previous fundamentals knowledge. E.g., I had had neglected fundamentals up to 3d and then it was mainly the seemingly simple contents of my book that turned me into a 4d. If you should have had a different learning sequence like starting with an exhaustive knowledge of all the basic fundamentals, then presumably you would not need to learn them but whatever else you are missing instead. Find out by asking yourself carefully how exhaustively your current knowledge on fundamentals is!

Agreed!

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

This is highly debatable and unfair. The book title on the front and back cover is actually "Fundamental Principles of Go". There is no reference to "all" or "complete", or even "many". If you go into a shop and the shopkeeper asks what you want, and you say "eggs", it doesn't mean you want to buy every egg in the shop.

Furthermore, the preface by Yang explicitly refers only to "various principles". In addition we may reasonably infer that the vague "some" meaning is intended because Yang is a native Chinese speaker, not least because the book says it was first drafted in Chinese and the author required help with the English.

It is true that the colophon of the book gives the title as "The Fundamental Principles of Go", but I think the above overrides that.

As to the PR effect of the absence or presence of the deictic, that really is in the realms of huge overstatement. People may have their attention drawn to a book by its cover (and even bad designs can have that effect), but I don't believe many people judge a book by its cover.

So, as my little grandson would be told when he disrespects his teacher, say sorry to Mr Yang

PS I have the book but it's one of very many I bought just to support the publisher and never read. In the light of this thread, I had a quick skim through in bed last night, and my impression is that it is a very good book, worth reading by even dan players, though, like my British colleague above, I was a bit bemused by the extravagant praise for Chapter 1. Chapter 4 looked the best to me, in the sense that it has stuff you don't see often elsewhere, although Takemiya has written well about this part of the game (in Japanese only, as far as I know). People like Yang should be encouraged, because the Chinese way of thinking about go seems more accessible to us than the Japanese way, and the sort of features that appear in Weiqi Tiandi show that they can achieve stunning quality. For some reason (haste, I suspect) they don't seem quite as good at sustaining that quality through to book length.

No. Adding (c) is overegging the pudding. Most of us are perfectly capable of using what you might call fuzzy lists. We automatically include (c) and other items in our thinking without rigidly specifying them. The items we do specifiy are specified for emphasis. Furthermore, when we add items to our fuzzy lists, those items themselves may be fuzzy, and so we understand well that while (c) may be an ideal, we are not bound by it. For example, when we make a honte, we may be saying something like: "It is impossible to work out the tactics here so I'll take a probabilistic approach and play a move that may not be the best but at least will keep me in the game well enough so that I can see better how things will pan out."

Re chapter 4: it's the part that I find the hardest to grasp, and this is probably true for most people at my level, because of the many variations and permutations. It certainly is worth studying closely.

Takemiya's Enclosure Josekis (published by Ishi Press, but now available in PDF from Kiseido Digital), covers some of that type of stuff, but only in the corners. Again, this is something I should probably study more closely, as better understanding of how to successfully invade these areas would be a powerful tool to have in my arsenal.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Worth noting is that Takemiya's Enclosure Josekis is very involved. I don't think the books compete--you read Mr Yang's first, then you look at Enclosure Josekis on the day when you feel like running a marathon.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I would be convinced by your reason but apparently there are at least two editions of the book. Here is a reference for the edition with the title having the definite article:

http://www.slateandshell.com/images/items/SSYY006.gif

Even I:)



Exactly, and (c) is that important, IMO.

Interesting, my copy doesn't have the "The."

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

...and therefore we should resolve the ambiguity by assuming full authorial intent behind the one that is most convenient!

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Alot of carpal tunnel has been in the works on this forum over the value of proverbs, principles, heuristic studies, ect. in helping to improve ones go playing ability. It has been my experience that these are of little help when in the throws of a tough match. I'm usually far too focused on making the wrong move to think about Davies' Attack and Defense. I do believe that study in these areas are incredibly valuable, as they may give us some context to help understand our mistakes, which are ultimately the best teachers in go. Theory study I think can only pay off if one studies his own games thoroughly.

Theory knowledge is best absorbed (weeks) before the crucial games start. Then hopefully one can apply the knowledge as second nature during those games.

I believe what you're referring to is something called the "5 levels of mastery" or the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. At the basic/1st level, someone would understand the rules. At the middle levels, someone would understand the concepts and the strategies. At the most advanced level, a player "transcends a reliance on rules, guidelines, and maxims." That's why Go Seigen didn't follow his own advice. He had a much deeper understanding of the game and he knew when it was time to ignore the proverbs and the other pithy sayings.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition

Always proverbs might have to be either applied or not.

Now that's a proverb to remember...

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I think it's a good book, but its value depends on a little bit on whether you've been exposed to Mr. Yang's ideas before. I'd already read his books "Whole Board Thinking in Joseki" and many of his workshop notes, and I'd seen him give lectures in person and online as well, all before this book was published. I think it summarizes his teaching very well, but I didn't see much that was new compared to what he'd already taught before, but that's fine and I think it's great that the book is out there. If you read this book first, what he says in lectures and other books will make more sense.

The approach is a little didactic, and I think it can come off as being overly presciptive to some, especially to those who think that the first four moves can be played anywhere above the second line. I don't think he is trying to propose a comprehensive view of how to play go. It's more that he is introducing one way of thinking that is self-consistent and not hard to learn. I think it's great for players who feel lost in the opening and want some heuristics to use to choose better moves. He knows that most amateurs in the West don't have the time or inclination to learn zillions of josekis and opening patterns. Just consider the question: how to choose a pincer? This is not an easy question to answer. Probably a lot of players choose for the wrong reasons. Maybe they choose ones they've studied more, even if they are not best for the board position. Maybe they choose randomly. Or maybe they choose with optimistic reading: "if my opponent plays one of the 3 josekis I'm thinking about right now, I'm still okay..." Maybe they play what they've seen in a recent pro game, without really having thought about it. But at least his system gives you some things to consider that you might overlook otherwise.

If you learn and use such a system, at least you'll be able to explain your moves. That doesn't mean you'll make good moves, but at least you'll have reasons and be able to remember your games better.

Humorous aside. I am reminded of Lockett's Law, by Bud Lockett of Los Alamos, NM.

Always extend an even number of spaces. That way your opponent will not know where to invade.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.