by Tarannikov (传说中的大胡子啦) 不错的文章 跟大家分享 During last time we hear frequently about ancient traditions. But the history is a complicated field and could be interpreted by different ways. Now I give some my doubts in the statement that far away moves contradict to traditions. Remember GO, traditional ancient Eastern game (its history has thousands of years whereas foul were invented only near 100 years ago). GO is not just a game but also it is an important element of Eastern philosophy. (By some versions Gomoku was used by GO players as the game for the rest.) Remember the opening stage in GO. Usually after the 5th move all 5 stones are mutually far away. GO is much more popular than Renju, so the usual situation that the beginner in Renju will know GO already and far-away moves will be very natural for him from GO. Next, Japanese players like to compose and solve artificial VCFs compositions. Such compositions have a wide distribution positions what are impossible in the usual game. But the players has not psychological problem from this fact. Next, classical Renju theory contains many sharp variants with sufficiently far moves and wide distribution of stones. (I can give some examples here but very probably you know such examples very well too.) I know that old Japanese players has a great enjoy analyzing such wild sharp positions (even if some moves are incorrect) and have not any problems from here. Moreover, they prefer such type of positions. Only more young players started to play in more strategically style. So, I have many facts confirming that the far away moves are natural for Eastern and Japanese Renju and culture. We know that Japanese players tried far openings. At the same time some opening restrictions appeared only in the middle of the 20th century. But this is a very modern history and such traditions cannot be considered as “ancient” (at least in comparing with thousands of years in GO). I will be glad to continue the discussion on this topic here. -- The interesting quote from Sakata and Ikawa. You know their book “Five-in-a-row (Renju)” published in 1981. It was probably the first book about Renju in English. RIF is going to reprint this. You know also Sakata rule (rule 1 in the list of propositions). This rule was given just in this book. I’ll not repeat it but the next comment of authors after the proposition has a big interest: “…the number of choices for White 4 admirably increases to some 50 or even 100 … for each pattern”. Note that traditional Japanese players Sakata and Ikawa in 1981 had found quite natural 50 or 100 choices for White 4, moreover even with the word “admirably”. Note that the restricted 7x7 zone means 7x7-3=46 moves for White 4 that even smaller than Sakata’s and Iwata’s numbers. At the same time now we here that some moves inside of 7x7 zone are too far and that such move contradicts to traditions. The quote tells that this does not contradict at least to Japanese spirit. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.167.152.49