You’re right, Eyes are both a Group and a Non-Group phenomenon.
I’m curious to know what you mean by saying it’s also a “non-group phenomenon” 
i meant eyes may exist in both situations :
Group Phenomenon = Eyes inside a group
Non-Group Phenomenon = Eyes inside a Single chain
Oh, but a chain is always part of a group, and a group of stones is always made of chains (including sometimes single-stone chains)
So, you know, if a chain of stones creates multiple true eyes by itself, it still counts as a living group 
3 Likes
So a group can consist of a single chain, and a chain can consist of a single stone.
A single stone
- can be considered a group
- should not be considered a group
0 voters
Ummmm. Well, I’m guessing the only reason you would be asking this is if there are many people who believe it shouldn’t, to your knowledge XD
Since it’s a matter of semantics, I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter because I’m still quite new to the Go community. I can say that if you asked me this question in unsuspicious circumstances I would have just answered “sure, a single stone is a group, why not?” 
Can zero stone be considered as a group?
For instance if my opponent has a shape where I have obvious forcing moves, that I haven’t played yet, can I say the unplayed stones I’ll get in the future are already a group?
2 Likes
Semantics and linguistics are of high interest to the OGS forums community. 
2 Likes
Wouldn’t those stones belong to the same group as the shape? 
I think in the example described by @ArsenLapin1 the “shape” and the “unplayed stones” are of different colors. So… Now you’ve got me questioning everything, but I think stones of different colors can’t belong to the same group 
I have to say I’ve never heard of potential stones referred to as a group, but again, it might just be my inexperience. Also, the Go scholar community does seem to have a tendency to use concepts without specifying that they’re only “virtual” and that they’re technically only expected to happen in the future, such as “connected”, “alive”, “dead”, and probably others.
Still my brain complains in this case, mostly because I think the concept of “group” is just a handy shorthand to say “the set of same-colored stones in this general vicinity, that are either connected or expected to become connected in the future” or something like that. What I mean is that the context in which the word “group” is used doesn’t require it to be strictly defined, and I don’t personally see any need to extend the concept to philosophical/mathematical extremes 
4 Likes
Yeah, I always explain it to beginners as a set of stones that you expect to live or die together, even if occasionally that expectation may turn out to be wrong.
2 Likes
Oh, yes, sorry, you are right.
1 Like
The confusion comes maybe from focusing too much on eyes.
The goal is to occupy more space (stones and empty space inside) as the other. Occupy means your opponent will not be able to build something inside or not be able to capture stones.
Eyes is a concept to understand how your stones won’t be captured. Eyes are not the goal.
When i look your game, in a blick of eye, i can see that white is bigger as black. Don’t you? With experience, you will optimize the placement of your stones to optimize the control of space.
4 Likes
I often say that go is not about stones, but about space.
Ofcourse this is a bit of an exaggeration. Stones are important too. But beginners tend to adhere too much importance to stones, including the ones where saving them is too costly in terms of space.
2 Likes
ur statement suits on me even better cuz i play chinese go. In respect of GO, I personally think nothing is better than the original. I know the current chinese version aint 100% identical to the original & has been modified throughout the history but it still is the closest to the original - the greatest game of all time.
“Gentlemen should not waste their time on trivial games - they should study go.”
– Confucius, The Analects, ca. 500 B.C.E.
Weird. I specifically recall that Confucius was opposed to go and wrote that playing go was an activity for the “unfilial”, the lazy and the idle, and that men should work hard rather than play.
I don’t know how to find better sources, but there’s a footnote talking about this here.
It might either be a made up quote or a mistranslation, since it’s a common problem with Confucius’ writings.
子曰: “飽食終日,無所用心,難矣哉!不有博弈者乎?為之猶賢乎已!”
“It is difficult for a man who always has a full stomach to put his mind to some use. Are there not players of liubo and weiqi? Even playing these games is better than being idle.”
– Analects (Book 17, Chapter 22) by Confucius
(translated byJean-Louis Cazaux)
“The Master said, Hard is it to deal with him, who will stuff himself with food the whole day, without applying his mind to anything good! Are there not gamesters and chess[1] players? To be one of these would still be better than doing nothing at all.”
– Analects (Book 17, Chapter 22) by Confucius
(translated by James Legge,
This really does not make it sound like Confucius had a high opinion of go.
This appears to be saying “If you’re so wealthy and lazy that you have nothing to do all day except eat, then you might as well play go, which is a bit better than doing nothing.”
1 Like
Ancient Chinese Education System consisted of :-
• Painting
• Music
• Calligraphy
• GO
- Inorder to make into an Elite list you got to be special.
- Education is the #1 most important factor of a nation’s development - Each & Every ingredient of it is analysed well.
Im an absolute beginner & my knowledge of GO is negligible So i might be wrong but debating with good players like u is a great way of improvement.
I spent some time in China and i met a lot of confusion about tradition. It’s bit hard to distinguish between facts and legends (like the origin of game created by the first emperor to push his son to more cleverness).
One i like anyway is about some strong players in the middle age who were hanging all around China completly devoted to the game and deeply poor.
1 Like