On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.
For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or
belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player
researchers) worth considering.
For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what
competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional
players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I
have heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea
what it might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my
theory. Or they say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what
this means.
A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on
specific topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.
So what competing theories do you mean?
The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that
theory.
As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
framework.
Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I
have asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could
not because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
