Resigning etc

I was watching the game on IGS at the time, so you asking was interesting because it made me go and find/read the news reports which turned out to give an interesting slant (and much less exciting -- the debate on IGS while Isheida was thinking was great). Anyway google returned the following.

http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/topics2002/oldtopics2002-e/20020226-e.htm

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/igo_e/167.htm

Oh, and I have resigned in the past because my opponent continues playing after they have lost, but I once heard my opponenent later laughing about how they'd won a game by getting me so bored I resigned. I've since stopped playing on that server (yahoo) as a result of unsportsmanlike behaviour, but after that incident I decided I would punish anybody who continues as much as I should in order to discourage it. A similar discussion occurred at the local club last year, and about half the people thought you should just resign and walk away, while the other half thought you should wipe them off the board every time to teach them a lesson. I'm still not sure which option is better.

Oh, and I strongly disagree about only taking 5 seconds to pass. If you are going to continue playing instead of resigning in disgust, then you are playing to win. My experience is that apart from the HOT_SYNC_KAREN's of this world, these players will play to swindle -- they'll make really bad moves in the hopes you miss some subtle implication of their move. In 5 seconds you're not going to have time to triple check all subtle implications.

Incidentially, I think I touched on why these people are weak in the previous paragraph. Their moves are designed to elicit a mistake by their opponent. They will tend to play the subtle complicated move, rather than the simple honest move, even if the subtle one is worth less points when answered correctly.

For instance, have a look at my game currently in progress against Maja http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=173542

Assuming Maja doesn't defend the top right, what should I play there? The two options I'll discuss are F9 and H9, I'll skip G9 to save space. If I play F9, black responds G9, and I get one point in sente. However, if I play H9, then the fighting is complex. Perhaps H9, G9, I8, I9, ko threat, ko response, H9, G8, F9, ko threat, ko response, I9, ... But what if white has a brilliant tesuji enabling him to play F9 in response to H9? Now H9 is clearly worth less than F9 for black, but only if white answers correctly. If you're the sort of person who plays hoping for your opponent's mistake, you'll play H9. If you're the sort of person who assumes your opponent can see everything you can see, you'll play F9.

Now, the person who plays the honest move is constantly forced to find a good move in every situation; that person will slowly improve in all aspects of the game. However, the person who is hoping for a mistake doesn't need to care much about fuseki, yose, the direction of play, etc. They are just waiting for a slip which will put them far ahead. That player now has very little incentive for developing their strategy, for thinking deeply or learning very slightly better moves in a situation because none of those things will lead to them winning.

It is about time to start a new thread, and you did. Thanks. :)

Enjoyed reading your example. You are definitely correct about non-resigning players devoting their energy to figuring out swindling moves, but not orthodox moves. And hence their improvement in their skills will be slower than those who prefer to resign and start a new game.

I fear, however, that your message may give readers a wrong impression that you mind responding to swindling moves. I do not think that you mind. But you must spell out this mentality clearly. :)

I myself do not mind my opponents' playing swindling moves. Swindling moves help me to become more rigorous, thorough, and confident. And I also understand that often players may desperately play swindling moves in order to win.

Furthermore, a 9-stone handicap game is played, the upper player is bound to play swindling moves toward the weaker player. :)

Allow me to clarify that, in the previous thread, we were talking about much more clear and elementary cases. I am not annoyed at swindling moves, although I may prefer not to play them myself.

I don't get it. Corrin, in the "may high rankings cry-baby" thread you wrote about one professional game: "after the game was finished and both players were filling dame, the winning player forgot to answer a sente dame (cutting a bamboo joint). The loosing player asked for permission to _not_ capture. This was refused."

Maybe I'm dense or my English really sucks but in the game you gave links to, the situation was exactly the opposite in my opinion. During filling in final dame points, one player - Ryu Shikun did not respond to sente dame move but played elsewhere obviously paying no attention to the order of moves in this stage of the game - he considered game to be over before playing final dame points. O Rissei, though, *did* capture six stones, winning this way game which he would have lost by 3.5 points. O's behaviour was absolutely correct according to the rules but, hmm... nothing to be proud of in my opinion.

Regards,

xyzoo

My knowledge of the situation came from the discussion on IGS at the time. The difference between this and what the newspaper reports say is what I meant when I said at was what I meant when I said the newspapers "turned out to give an interesting slant."

You can win a h9 game without swindling. See for example my game against Wishfinder: http://www.dragongoserver.net/game.php?gid=62283

Or for a couple unfinished games, where black is currently ahead:

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=173010

http://www.dragongoserver.net/game.php?gid=62491

Maybe you will disagree and say some of my moves are swindles?

If you have a look at Japanese pro vs amateur teaching games on h9, they don't attempt to swindle either. If the amateur is strong enough to win against 'gentle' pressure, the pro lets them win. Compare for instance Kageyama's loss on h5 to an amateur followed by his immediate crushing on the same person on h9 (as discussed in the fundamentals). I remember when I lost to a pro on h9, I don't feel they swindled me.

That's not to say you can avoid swindling if the goal is winning. My anecdotes above refer only to teaching games. For instance the local club has two very strong players, about the same rank. One of them I play on h4, and another I play on h2. The disrepency is caused by their different styles in playing handicap games. Clearly the more agressive one who overplays/swindles is more successful at winning.

Here, all the tournaments are divided into a dan division (even games) and a kyu division (handicap games) so I don't get to play handicap games in tournaments. However, if I was playing a handicap game to win, then I guess I would be more willing to swindle.

A couple months ago I narrowly won a 9 stone game against a beginner (15 kyu). They commented after the game that they didn't think anybody could possible lose with the full (15 stone) handicap. So I challenged them to a 15 stone game and won by about 60 points thanks to a constant stream of swindles. Personally I felt the first game was nice, and the second game was disgusting, but that's me... Someone commented after the game that maybe the second game was better in that they need to learn how to handle swindles more than they need to learn the direction of play. I don't know, but I felt awful playing moves I knew were wrong.

--

Tim asked if I dislike swindles being played against me. The answer is no, not really. They are necessary to keep me sharp and (provided you are sharp) they are ajikeshi for the person who plays them.

"Honesty is the personal trait most favored by others."

From: SLT

Hi, dear Zen master Kaptroids, I would enjoy reading a bit of your OWN words or some interpretation of those nice quotes. Not everybody is as smart as you are, you know. :)

I think he means that if I play honestly, I'm easier to beat and/or swindle. Right?

Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear, I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, RESIGNING ETC, COñO..Don't use this to become a politician. I will hunt you down.

Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear, I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, RESIGNING ETC, COñO..Don't use this to become a politician. I will hunt you down.

Kocktroy, check!! Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear, I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, Don't use this to become a politician. I will hunt you down.

alck

Kocktroy, check!! Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear, I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, Don't use this to become a politician. I will hunt you down.

alck

Kocktroy, check!! Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear, I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, Don't use this to become a politician. I will hunt you down.

alck

Alcharajo:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef the wrod as a wlohe.

Kptds

“The world is full of kings and queens who, blind your eyes then steal your dreams. It's Heaven and Hell”.

Im just tired of being flamed by "Yahoos" and "AOholes" There are two things you have to understand in chess. First you lose because of your error or blunder. Second you win it’s not because you are good but by your opponents mistakes. As far as my game, I need to use my rooks more:} Your number one enemy is your mistakes and calculating decisions in making those final thoughts. And then those games, where the opponent has a clear disadvantage, but instead of resigning, he would "sit out" his lost game until the bitter end;-( Please, if there is no realistic chance, why not take our time for a new game instead? ...: Remember, your best teacher is your own faults & thoughts. I distain players who do not resign, when in an obviously losing position. Don't ever make your opponents mate you instead resign!!!!! If you are losing by a lot,do the honorable thing: resign. No game is won by resignee. Feel free to resign at ay time. I won't be offended.

Kaptds

In chess, a game is only dependent on capturing the king; In go, a game is won by being a single point ahead at the end. Being ahead on material in chess at the end is meaningless; being ahead by more than one point in go at the end is also meaningless. You could talk about how you wiped someone off the board because they're a complete beginner in both games, but it could be they're your equal and gambled everything and lost -- I've wiped a 2d off the board at go before. In chess, it is clear that an unconditional mate is better than a sequence that probably results in mate unless your opponent finds a brilliant tesuji in which case you're in trouble. The same is true in Go. Hopefully nothing I've said so far is not controversial.

Now, consider the difference between an adequate move which settles an area, and an extremely complex sequence which (being very skilled) you read out as not quite working if your opponent finds a particularly clever move (a tesuji). In chess, which is better? The complex move may well be if you think a later sequence might not give you such a likely chance of a mate. However, in Go, it is likely that the ordinary move is adequate -- you only have to win by one point, not knock-out your opponent.

Which brings me to my thesis. Say we modify the rules of go so a win by less than 20 points is a draw (10 or maybe 5 for pros, 40 for beginners). Since the goal is to win, a draw is not a great achievement. I think this would totally transform go into a much more agressive/knockout style game. Under this modified game, maybe people would be less inclined to resign? What do you think?

Say we modify the rules of go so a win by less than 20

points is a draw (10 or maybe 5 for pros, 40 for

beginners).

Hi, Corrin, creative ideas never fail to interest me. Yours is indeed very interesting.

If implemented, however, it may decrease the importance of the end game. Pros such as Li Chang Hao who often relies on his 0.5 point to win may end up resigning after the middle game.

On the other hand, your idea may increase the fighting in the middle games because peaceful playing by simple territory enclosing usually leads to small gaps in points between two opponents.

Overall, for any given game, the less man-made rules the better. The less arbitrariness in numbers there is, the less controversy there will be. In this regard, IMO, we should replace the Go komi system with the swap rule currently played by Hex players. :) What is the correct komi on 19x19, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, or 8? We do not know. That is what I mean: too much arbitrariness. :)

Good day.

Actually, I think my modification would make the game awful. The whole thing would be become a huge midgame fight -- why bother with good fuseki or yose if it isn't going to make a difference.

My point was that go players tend to have a very flexible attitude: "Oh? You want the corner? Well, ok, as long as I get more of the side". I don't really see this attitude in Chess or other games -- I suspect this attitude can only work in territory-style games. If you change go to make it a capture-style game, I think you would destroy that attitude. For instance, in my variation I would expect the complex sequence which doesn't quite work to be much more tempting than the solid honte move.

Along similar lines, I presume you know the variation of go where you capture a single stone to win the game, especially since the AGA is promoting it as a good way of teaching beginners. I suppose this variation would have the same properties -- a sequence which doesn't quite work could be extremely tempting when the alternative simply settles the board. For instance, setting up your stones so they can be 'captured' using the crane's nest tesuji -- only for your opponent to realise at the last second they can't play it as they would lose instantly.

When is the best time to resign a chess game? There is nothing in the GO-rule book about it. All it says is that the game is over when the king is checkmated or one party resigns (I won't count draws.) In the world of chess etiquette, however, it is a different story. How many times have you watched a game where one of the players is so far down in material that the spectators are shaking their heads in disgust? "Why doesn't this turkey resign?" is the usual question. And it always goes unanswered.

There sits the turkey, sanguine in his impropriety. Doesn't he know he should resign? Doesn't he know that all the other players watching are laughing at him? Or maybe he doesn't care? I don't know. All I know is that there are players who will simply not resign. It doesn't matter how far down in material. I have seen games in which one player is up a queen and rook against a naked king, and still the turkey gobbles on. I remember one tournament I was watching one of these turkeys play on a when his opponent had a rook and rook pawn against the king. The rook pawn was on the h-file, and the rook happened to be on a white square when someone asked me "the question": "Why won't this turkey resign?" I said, "Oh, the rook is on the wrong color for the rook pawn, don't you know?" Dumb questions require dumb answers.

The only thing the turkey can possibly hope for is stalemate, and therein lies the danger. The player on the winning side is fed up. All he wants is to end this thing, and there sits the turkey studying the position. Study what? Mate in four, even if you're a fish and don't see it, yet still the guy plays on. Let me tell you, guy, that if you don't watch it, you will allow a stalemate. If the turkey gets one stalemate out of 5,000 lost games, that is the one that will convince him NEVER to resign a chess game again. Don't you be the one to give him the ammo. Play carefully. Mate him in three instead of four. And for God's sake, don't stalemate the turkey!!

But how should young players think about when to resign? They always say to me that "You can't win a game by resigning." True, but they can lose something far more valuable. By not resigning an obviously lost game, they cause themselves embarrassment. If they make a habit of it, no one will want to play them. And if no one wants to play them, they won't want to chat with them about the game afterwards. The postmortem is a part of the game no turkey ever gets to see. His opponent wouldn't dream of sitting there discussing how, if only he had played this one move, the turkey could have had a stalemate. You lose a lot more than the game when you don't resign at the proper time.

I was telling a group of younger players exactly this at a recent tournament. I had even gone so far to give an example from our own club, a fellow I shall call Ray. Ray never resigns. Rated about 1800 or so, he is a fairly good player, but none of the good players will help him get better. And why not? He won't resign against them, that's why! I said that I hated playing him, that after the game is over, the pieces are put away and I think about the next round. I won't even play speed with the guy. So, who do you think I get paired with the next round? You guessed it. And what happens? Well, no, I didn't lose, but I should have. It was a draw, and I was the one playing on to save an almost lost position! Ugh.

Maybe the question for me shouldn't be "when to resign," but "when to keep your mouth shut!"

YYLZ

One of one of my relatively early 19x19 games, I concentrated so hard on a life-or-death sequence that took over a quarter of the board - one that required running four simultaneous kos and required, basically, a look-ahead of about 20 moves - that afterwards, when I did it and took down a group of 40 stones of my opponents' nnd he resigned, I stood up the table and took a long, deep, slow breath, tried to straighten up - realized I couldn't - and then raised my shaking hands to my face and kind of slumped over for a while. So just the pure small-scale calculative part of go can take up your whole being. Then - THEN - one learns about the large-scale strategic side. About making decisions sacrificing a corner to get power in another part of the board. About long-scale, 100-move THOUGHTS - vague plans, not precisely calculated sequences - of fights conducted so as to run across the board and suddenly set up a wall where you need one to take the center - add in that sublime, lovely requirement that you be aware of all the parts of the board and their potential for points and their potential for being directed towards other parts of the board - this is why go makes me as happy as John Coltrane, Beethoven, early Elvis, and The Fall.

OG=GO

Take chess, for example, or a wargame: of course when you play you try to attack the other, using check strategies. In Go there is something much more subtle going on. In Go you win by making territories, but the stones which are forming these territories can kill and be killed without any check first (and often it is not clear which is the attacking group and which is the defending one). And even winning a local fight could be bad for you, because your opponent could have obtained a bigger strategic advantage. Thi, this game more than any other makes me feel what you were mentioning in the introduction of your list: it is totally absorbing, I am afraid when I start playing that I won't play well, I tell myself that I will play only one game and then I don't manage to stop, and I play again and again, many games in a row, feeling at the end that I can't use my head properly any more... There is one little thing I want to add to what you wrote above. Go, is the most aggressive board game there is. So ANY single move can have many meanings, defending and at the same time attacking, attacking at the same time more than one opponent's weakness, etc., etc.. And often you can't defend against all these "menaces", made by a single stone ... and you have to choose what to give up... and you have to make a move which has more "meanings" too, otherwise you can't win ... and there is a chance that a more hidden aim was conceived in that stone, something that you don't see and your opponent sees... pure adrenalin no other (CHESS) game can give me a chance to pass twice.

YOU

The first rule of the "King's golden rules" (some old Go advice) says: Greedy cannot get victory And the commentary to this first rule is: "Winning is the only objective of almost any game. Corrin Lakeland, it is a strange coincidence, but, before you were replying to my comment, I was thinking about the use of Go in monasteries, and the fact that Go can be used to discipline yourself. You are very likely more advanced than I Actually I win at Go when I am calm. So, I think, the real fight is against me, against my own fear or against my desire to win. For many people, to win is simply the way Go game meant to be played. However, there is a school of thought arguing that a player should look for perfection of beauty instead of winning. Winning should be understood as a consequence of beauty, but not the other way." Too often I forget about this. But I think this beauty should emerge in a natural way. It must be a natural calm, a natural beauty and not an artificial product of resigning. Maybe Go can be used as a spiritual path for you. You may know the book "Zen in the Art of Archery.” In this case you will understand what I mean. So I let this "adrenalin" come out, and let it burn out without trying to stop it. Probably there are stages in learning Go, as in learning any art including in chess. At the beginning the painter "fights" with the tools, the brush and the colors. Then, little by little, he starts using them easily and concentrating on the paint. At the end he forgets the colors and the brush and only the beauty remains. It may be so. But I am in the first stage. Fighting with tesuji, joseki, fuseki and all other "tools" needed to play Go. I hope that I will improve not only using these tools, but also leaving beauty and not greedy direct my stones. Just a prediction. Probably I used the wrong word. Xyzoo, I should have used "thrilling" instead of aggressive. They are ajikeshi for the person who plays them. What I meant is that there are a lot of tensions in my games. This Alchemize, changes a bit the correctness of your replay, and my comments above that GO-Players sometimes tends to have a very flexible attitude. If you are losing by a lot, do the honorable thing: resign. No game is won by resigning. Feel free to resign at any time. I won't be offended. I think Opiel Guabiron means that if I play honestly, I'm easier to beat and/or swindles. Right? In chess, it is clear that an unconditional mate is better than a sequence that probably results in mate unless your opponent finds a brilliant tesuji in which case you're in trouble. The same is true in Go. I just wanted too precise, not to be misunderstood, that I don't think that Go makes you aggressive and Chess not, it is the other way around. I meant only that in Go games there is more tension because there is much more than a single fight going on. So I agree completely with you: Chess made me aggressive after a game (and even during the game toward my opponent). This never happens to me with Go. When my opponent makes a good move, I never get angry (unless, sometimes, with myself). I don't know why there is this difference, but it is true. Hopefully anything I've said so far is not controversial.

In any case, thank your Yocahu for pointing this out to me. I will try to have a Zen-like attitude playing Go or Chess with a lot of eticque, HAPPY NEW YEAR.

"-(̅`v'̅)-" Atabeira

While experience is a good teacher about what works and what doesn't, and while this needs to be learned, and even though the ability to read positions will come with time, is it not also useful to learn when it's appropriate to resign? How are we to learn this if nobody tells us?

So you could think of it as valuable teaching for a higher-rated player to say to you, "I don't think you can make any progress, and it's clear to me that you're losing. I think you should resign."

On the other hand, the lower rated player should then be entitled to say "I disagree. I think I can make progress. I don't understand why you think I can't. Would you mind if I tried it out so I can learn why I can't make progress?"

After all, both players are people. The courtesy towards student seeking to learn is not the only issue here. The teacher deserves courtesy as well.

OG

"How are we to learn this if nobody tells us?"

If men only could learn things somebody told them, we'd still be living like apes.

This topic was about to fall into the deepness of the forum (going down and down in pages).

What could Freud tell us about the multipersonality of Yocahu-Attabeira-Opiel-etc.. ?

This is the most schizophrenic topic of all LG forum... let us read it again and enjoy once more!!!

"The Nagas of Indian mythology were a race of serpent demons. Their name means 'those who do not walk, who creep.' If two races of incompatible genetics are combined into a hybrid, this hybrid either ends up with a core personality which exists hidden in the implicate order and does not manifest, or, if it is a relatively equal split, this hybrid gains the ability to shapeshift between the two races from which it was hybridized. This incompatibility of DNA is the reason why 50/50 hybrid shapeshift rather than looking like a blend between the two races. If two humanoid species are hybridized, the result is a blend between the two, with both DNA sequences activated simultaneously. Most often they manifested themselves as beasts with bodies that were half-man, half-serpent, although sometimes they assumed the shape of a dragon, or simply appeared in the guise of a cobra. When switching from one alter to another, their eye colour and facial features will often change instantanteously. This is a minor form of shapeshifting. One manifestation´s DNA closes, whilst the other´s opens. It is really quite simple when you get into Holographic Universe Theory and Quantum Non-Locality (the fact that all events occur simultaneously, not in time nor space, bur rather they are occurring hyperspace, and are pure information (thoughts in the Mind of God)). It IS real, and very scientifically possible, to resign any sarcastic diagnosis with out proper professional Psychiatric licenses or any credit. People think that such a thing as shapeshifting is ´too weird to be real´, but what can! I say. they are absolutely wrong! In making any further legal or medical mental diagnosis, will make the evaluator just an impostor or maybe he is the one with a split personality himself. If you want to see shapeshifting, the easiest way is to go to a mental institution where there are people with Multiple Personality Disorder.

"A joke a day, keeps the wacko resigning away"

Do not be troubled if this is difficult to grasp. It is relatively easy to understand the idea of holism in something that is external to us, like an apple in a hologram. What makes it difficult is that in this case we an not looking at the hologram. We are part of the hologram. One of Bohm's most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of projection, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the Implicate (which means "enfolded") order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order. Proverbs 26:4-5 states, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Sometimes, an arrogant fool needs to be ridiculed and belittled in order to see how ridiculous and obnoxious he is. Of course, when my opponent would do this, I would jump all over them for being a poor representation of Jesus and I was overjoyed when his own flock would do the same! Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm's fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out of the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of "parts," as it is to view the different geysers in a fountain as separate from the water out of which they flow. An electron is not an "elementary particle." It is Just a name given to a certain aspect of the holomovement. Dividing reality up into parts and then naming those parts is always arbitrary a product of convention, because subatomic particles, and everything else in the universe, are no more separate from one another than different patterns in an ornate carpet. Similarly, he believes that dividing the universe up into living and nonliving things also has no meaning. Animate and inanimate matter are inseparably interwoven, and life, too, is enfolded throughout the totality of the universe. Even a rock is in some way alive, says Bohm, for life and intelligence are present not only in all of matter, but Resigning etc in "energy," "space," "time," "the fabric of the entire universe," and everything else we abstract out of the holomovement and mistakenly view as separate things. Like we can also learn from electromagnetics, there are different qualities that go with different frequencies. High frequencies are very directional but doesn't penetrate much. Low frequencies spread out more and penetrate much more. To translate this back to perceptions: you can be very precise in the visual system, but it is kind of fragile; you can reach farther with kinesthetics but it is less precise. It is also interesting to speculate on what happens when we continue the scale in either direction. In a picture we can keep the elements of the picture separate, but they are still in the same picture. We can have several pictures, but still in the same field of vision. What if we increase separation towards infinity, so that there is no longer any relation between the elements whatsoever? The most likely result of moving something towards infinity on the separation scale is that it will disappear. More correctly, it will disappear from the realm of actual realities back into the realm of possibilities on Resigning etc..etc.

OG

OG

Ref: "Maybe the question for me shouldn't be "when to resign," but "when to keep your mouth shut!"

The modern game of Chess is derived from the scheme which follows; whence its name chess, from chequers. And originally the chess pieces were anciently small figures presenting the operation of the Divine Forces in Nature. Perhaps more importantly, or this identification of the abstract with the realm of non-sensible non-mental things entails that unobservable physical objects such as quarks and electrons should be classified as abstract entities. But this is at odds with standard usage, and almost certainly with my intention. If you look at a ballpen as a picture, it appears to be one contiguous object. However, if we increase the magnification and see what it is really made of the picture changes. It is made out of trillions of little atoms and with that magnification it doesn't even have definite borders, and the atoms are changing all the time. And in the atomic and subatomic world things don't even have a finite location, it is all a matter of probabilities. So, the more we separate things out, the less we would worry about the artificial groupings that we call "objects" and "thoughts" and so forth. How about if we go the other way on the scale, towards less separation, more togetherness. Also there would we lose track of the associations that we are used to in life. Everything would become the same and no distinction of location or time would be possible. Both directions move us out of the ordinary reality by sabotaging the lies that keep a reality together. Most realities would be based on the agreement that things are different but similar. This association, somewhere between total differentiation and total identification, is what makes it possible to play a game of life. The truth is probably that things are both totally separate and totally the same at the same time in Go..Black or white; or Resign you chess game!! That is a paradox one would have to figure out to solve the mystery of universes. ("Sameness" of memory items is determined with respect to the above-mentioned abstraction system of the observer.) RE: Resigning etc

un buen tema jodido por la "necesidad" de atencion.

bump