This position most likely arises from the following sequences:
- B, C (attach), A (hane), D (extend)
- A, C (attach), B (hane), D (extend)
- D, A (shoulder hit?), C (push), B (hane)
- C, A (attach), D (extend), B (hane)
That seems unlikely to me.
2 Likes
The reason would be that black would prefer in most cases a more solid shape by playing 1 instead of a hane at A. Unlikely in most cases but possible still according to the context
I wonder if this is not included in the wedge category? Not a classic one ofc.
6 is not really what we call double hane (even if in fact it’s made of 2 consecutive hane and put aside if we can consider 6 as a hane or not) , see the link you provided (thanks!) which clarify what exactly we call double hane among players. And don’t ask me why we call a 2 step hane a double hane 
Yes, I understand that my attempt to find a definition is not as simple as I initially thought and can be context-dependent. But can you give me a counterexample of @Uberdude definition, which is the one I found most appealing and aligned with my intuition, based on what I have seen related to the term so far (committing the savagery of ignoring the historical evolution and just focusing on its current usage)? (With a couple of adjustments @Samraku would have the same definition too)
The conditions of the movement to be called a hane would be:
- It’s a diagonal move from one of your stones
- The resulting stone has 3 liberties
- The lost liberty of this stone happened because it touched an opponent stone
- There’s a cutting point (I’m still thinking the necessity of this condition)
(And things have to be adjusted on the first line, ok)
1 Like
It’s more as context dependant, I think you still miss that the definition should fit with the theory and analysis on the game in a way as perfect as possible. This will help us to keep some criteria and exclude others.
These definition you mention are missing important condition like
-
The original stone and the hane are in contact with same opponent stone and going around ( not put on the opposite side: this has a specific word, a clamp tesuji). It seems quite essential to mention the (pre)existence of the opponent stone.
-
The hane is a stone alone
-
The hane in fact may have less as 3 liberties (for example on the first line or the wedge categorized as hane)
-
The cutting is a mention to consider ,more on this later, but at least there shouldn’t be a stone connecting the original and the hane as there is another concept, the turn around already in place.
Besides I am very curious why you feel my own definition not enough explicit?
Maybe we could change going around by forming a diagonal shape around. But I do like to give the movement feeling. I mean if you put the opponent stone after having the 2 stones placed, that’s not hane.
In my opinion, the number of liberties is not a crucial point, although it seems a bit unusual in the use of the word to get a stone in some lack of liberties between some opponent stones. The fact that a wedge is considered as a kind of hane in Japanese may be a proof that liberties don’t matter. And that’s already not a problem when talking on a first line move. It’s important to mention that it’s a single stone, not connecting to some others.
The existence of a cutting point seems more essential in the definition, if you consider the studies around it in the litterature and the fundamental differences when chosing this move or another one. Or as another example, a double hane with all his cutting points is still a very good move and that’s a big part of it to be called tesuji (brilliant move)
So we have to be more precise because you can be a single stone but alas still implicitly connected
I still think the definition is not yet perfect: I won’t call the last move in a cross cut (the 4th) a hane but a cross cut. But giving a fully well rounded definition is hard, so maybe cross cut as to be presented together as a special case.
I feel how we learn the concept matters a lot as to how each of us would consider certain shapes or move sequences involving “hane”.
Recall how we were taught (or teach others) “hane”. Likely we would use the archetypes shown in this. Maybe even a mark at B to indicate the “last move”
But the learning doesn’t just stop there, over the course of learning from reviews or other comments, we saw examples of various types where other players refer to certain situations as “hane” and we added examples in our minds, and over time, we each made our own “conclusion” as to what “hane” is. This is why we would hesitate to call the sequence like A is the last move as hane, since we rarely see examples like it, let alone others’ comments on it (even though the final shape is exactly the same). All of the original examples are like this, they are not shapes and move sequences we are accustomed to, hence we start to “deduce” unnecessary or associated stones around them to make it familiar (including “empty liberties”, they are part of the shape). For example, if there is a stone at 2, would you call last move B a tiger’s mouth or hane? What about if there is a stone right under B (or even one space below B), would you call it a connect or block (where C was the last white move)? The inherent intention we put into context has a lot to do with how we learn it in the first place (thus create subtle culture and personal difference in which to include in the “hane”)
There is a story when I taught kids about hane, where there is a term called “扳粘” which is the concept for 1st or 2nd line yose (player A hane, player B hane back, player A connect, player B connect or tiger’s mouth or whatever), hence the term called “hane-connect”. However, most kids were very young, even before they learn how to read and write (Chinese take the whole elementary school to learn), hence they only heard what I said, but never knew how this term is written, and due to Chinese tonal shift, the sound of “扳” (hane) would shift a bit when said it with “粘”. Later, when I was checking student’s answers I was surprised to see one of the students (who is older now) use a different word (搬) for the combo words, and thinking it was a different “concept” with the “扳” (hane). Like the difference between ancient concepts 綽 and 約. They made their own conclusions based on use cases and intentions, instead of connectinh them together.
3 Likes
This resonates with me. I’ve come to see the whole business of rigorously defining terms as a distinctly Western approach.
Exhibit 1:
—Cho Chikun, Go – A Complete Introduction to the Game, page 85
Exhibit 2:
Gestures broadly at Japanese rules
6 Likes
A point John Fairbairn often makes on lifein19x19, often in exasperation with Robert Jasiek (who takes that Western/German strict definition approach to extremes).
No one ever told me that definition of hane I gave, or showed me that pattern match of it. I picked up what hane meant through usage, and extracted that definition myself.
5 Likes
I agree, I forgot to mention the existence of the opponent stone, but this can be easily fixed with some additional words in the first condition:
- It’s a diagonal move from one of your stones, wrapping around an opponent’s stone that was already in contact with the first stone (or something like that. I guess by now you’ve realized English is not my native language)
I could include an appendix to deal with the first line (exceptions are not elegant solutions, but anyway,…). I think there are equivalent ways to say that a stone is alone in terms of liberties, but I don’t dislike your definition. The idea of single stone is starting to make sense, but I still need some time to think it through 
So, I guess the wedge being technically called a hane is the one thing that destroys my definition. However, when you add:
a second contact “not connected to anything”
then you exclude the wedge as a hane, right?
Now, applying to my weird examples: 4 and 7 are not hanes because the stone is connected to something (a stone of the same color, making it a turn) and 5 is not a hane because it’s connected to something (an opponent stone on the right).
Also, your idea of movement is new to me, as I had only thought of it as related to the shape. Well, the last movement is the hane, but the sequence of moves before it, didn’t matter to me.
Even if a true definition that covers all cases (with necessary and sufficient conditions) is unattainable, the goal is just to get as close to it as possible (and I’m still not totally convinced that this is the case, just that any definition would appeal to some social groups and not others, according to the way they were taught). And of course, particular cases have more common names while still belonging to the broader category of “hane” (a cross cut, a wedge,…)
Are these good examples? I feel that atari and ko would be very simple to define with mathematical rigor, without generating controversy.
Atari yes, Ko, well, Superko (both Positional and Situational) are easy to define, but beyond that… Simple Ko is easy to define, but it’s also insufficient to handle all edge cases, and once you start handling edge cases, you either get a convoluted mess of special cases, or realize that Superko is way more elegant and just go with that
1 Like
Understood, I’m still a ko novice
Why?
Connected is something between stones of same color if this is the trouble (maybe?)
When stones of different colors touch each other, we use “contact” but not “connect”, well usually I think.
I’ll add that showing what is hane would take a few seconds on a wood board with real stones, interacting with the beginner by voice and gesture.
Outside the field of mathematics and some sciences, I think it won’t be easy to find “official” definitions of terms, even if they are jargon terms.
Instead of 100% accurate definitions, you usually only have some common understanding of frequent users of those terms, using examples and heuristics. Only when the term needs to be completely unambiguous, like when it is used in the rules of the game, there may exist a proper definition.
The rules of the game of go don’t refer to the term “hane”. It is only a heuristic concept used when players communicate about a game. For that usage, it’s not really necessary to define the term unequivocally.
I’ll give an analogy:
Consider two people talking about birds, and while listening you wonder what they mean exactly by “bird” and ask them for a definition. They might say it’s an animal that lays eggs and flies.
That is good enough in most cases and it’s probably most useful explanation for you at that moment, but you can’t really take it as a definition. For example:
Only one of those is a proper bird, but it doesn’t fly.
Wikipedia says that birds are feathered theropod dinosaurs. From a scientific point of view that may be quite an accurate definition. More specifically, the common usage of the term “bird” coincides with the monophyletic crown group of Neornithes (~“modern birds” in Ancient Greek) = Aves (“birds” in Latin):
a group of warm-blooded vertebrates […], characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton.
But I don’t think this definition is very useful for people without some background in biological cladistics.
3 Likes
Checks out
That’s fine, I’m a big fan of the second Wittgenstein and the concepts of family resemblance and prototype theory. But I still wonder, in this case (the name of a move in a board game), if there can be indeed a definition. However this definition would generate cases not accepted by some people and also cases outside that “main” definition would be accepted by other people. It’s a starting point, when there’s no trouble 90% of the cases. And @Groin and @Uberdude gave me something to think in terms of what I was seeking.
4 Likes
I stand corrected 
Then actually not just the wedge examples were hane, according to this definition, but also 5, since it’s not connected with stones of the same color (at least in shape).
I would show you the same cases of my first post and many more and you would have to explain why you call same of them hane and others not (not the funniest guy in the party 
). In this process a rule would emerge (even if you don’t explain, even if you just say “because I feel this is not and I feel this is”). A definition would emerge, probably not a definition with mathematical rigor, but even as heuristic, something that reminds a “rule” would naturally emerge.