To give an extreme example...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | 2 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 6 8 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 9 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . . . 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$m11
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White is not that good at the opening... But he's one heck of a fighter in the middle game! So watch out black!

_________________
be immersed

The OP asked for what is most effective. We all agree that all aspects should be studied, otherwise it would not be an aspect. So I'm not arguing against fuseki/joseki study, I'm answering the OP's question and I am positive that at 1-3d level, L&D and endgame, in that order, are more important to study.

See also my edited previous post with game examples. They are my latest games against humans, so it's pretty arbitrary though perhaps not representative. Please have a look if Black's fuseki mistakes look important with respect to his later errors.

Sure. I'm not 100% sure whether endgame or opening are more important - probably endgame, I guess - but I generally agree with your sentiment.

I just feel that when we hear that "L&D" is more important, it's easy for other aspects of the game to be ignored, and probably, the opening is worth more than it gets credit for, sometimes.

_________________
be immersed

Knotwilg, I have not said that every 1d - 3d can avoid enough severe mistakes to run home a great fraction of his won games. I have said that on the way from 1d to 3d one should also learn this and that a solid 3d should have learnt this to a pretty good extent. It is a process; a 3d still does it worse than a 5d. However, the 3d should be good enough at restricting his mistakes to be able, in a great fraction of his games, to use a won opening for winning the game by maintaining his small lead.

When you say that you still make much careless middle game and poor endgame, you are still having kyu problems. Overcome them. For you, this is more urgent than exhaustive opening study. When you will have abandoned your carelessness and poor endgame, you can then start studying the opening in detail.

I ran a scientific test, here are the scientific results:

Robert, your reasoning has become circular.
OP: how important is fuseki to become 3D
You: very
Me: not very, here are examples of me as a 1-2d that show fuseki is not very important
You: if fuseki is not very important in your games then you are really a kyu

So, by definition, 1-3D is the level at which fuseki matters. Fine by me but then Kgs (and my national body and the EGF) does not obey your definition.

Not circular, but I have not declared explicitly in each message that kyu mistakes must be overcome before detailed opening study becomes relevant. (That a 1d makes kyu mistakes does not mean he would be a kyu. It means that he still makes kyu mistakes in some of his weakest areas of go theory.)

Araban, nice joke, but almost accurate. (SDK should not ignore the opening entirely. DDK opening knowledge consists mainly of general go theory knowledge applicable also during the opening.)

Indeed. If your fuseki is not good enough to get an advantage in the opening, how can you learn how to preserve that advantage?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

My bold-face above. This statement tells me that people think that learning the opening is a matter of learning variations of different patterns. I think this is not the essence of studying the opening. Learning the opening is all about fundamentals like how stones work, direction of potential development, balance, choice of joseki, recognizing urgent moves, size of moves, etc., etc. If you really understand these ideas then you will not be thrown off when your opponent plays a variation that isn't familiar. You might even find that situation fun.

@gowan:

I kind of agree, but how do you gain understanding of these fundamentals? Isn't learning by example one possible way? By learning variations, you have examples to work with, and that can lead to understanding, can't it?

_________________
be immersed

Shusaku screwed up his favourite opening when Genan Inseki surprised him with a variation he hadn't seen before in the ear-reddening game

(I know what you mean and agree studying the opening should be about a lot more than specific variations, and you should understand the meanings behind the moves so you have a good shot at dealing with deviations from standard play, but if you do get a bad result from a deviation it doesn't follow that you are a rote-learning fool who studies the opening in the wrong way, but that Go is hard and you should review and learn from it. Lessons learnt from bitter defeats tend to be remembered better than lessons learnt from lectures).

I know I am spitting in the wind on this forum, dominated by numbers people, when I keep trying to guide people away from doing go by numbers or fundamental principles, or worst of all fundamental principles based on numbers. But somehow I don't believe Napoleon emerged as a strategic wizard because he had a faster abacus than anyone else, or that Go Seigen won games because he had two extra fingers to count on.

I think they achieved what they did by doing what humans do best - using their fuzzy humans brains as fuzzy human brains, and not trying to turn their grey matter into an Intel motherboard.

Notice that I am coupling numbers with fundamental principles. They don't have to be linked - indeed, I think they shouldn't be - but I think there is a deleterious modern trend that encourages this coupling.

If you look at go commentaries over the ages, they have changed markedly. In the 1920s (that is, when amateurs first became a major audience), Japanese go writers struggled to find the right level to pitch to, and in the process they devised much of the modern technical vocabulary. But they had a clear sense that their audience was largely dedicated and fairly knowledgeable amateurs. That led to a strange mixture of commentaries that were basically at a high level and articles that were (superficially) at a rather low level. The latter (on topics such as boundary plays, fill-in moves, playing White in handicap games) were really introducing the new technical vocabulary as much as anything else, and so in a sense that was high level too.

The current situation has gone to the opposite extreme. There are more beginners than experienced players and publishers, writers, pros and sponsors all chase the dollars they can bring in. The result has been that the average level of go tuition has dropped towards the lowest common denominator, and that is reflected in an emphasis on easy-peasy stuff like fundamental principles ("corner sides, centre", "boxes not trays", to mention a couple of fuseki mantras).

Depending on your Weltanschauung you may regard that as unfortunate dumbing down or benignly reaching out to the masses, but it's clearly not what the majority of people on this forum want. The people here are mostly dedicated and fairly knowledgeable amateurs. They want and need something more stimulating, and something above all to feed a brain that has already started developing as an efficient go compost maker. They crave fuzziness.

This style of commentary exists, though admittedly it is barely seen in English. It developed around 1950 when (thanks to newspapers) go was becoming widespread but those who played could still be seen as substantially above beginner level. By accident, a perfect balance emerged.

Now if you look at those commentaries, what you see is a great emphasis on fuzziness. For example, in one fuseki a player's choice of move is discussed in the following terms: "he was tempted by A because he felt he could live easily enough on the right side, but in the end he decided that challenging Black to a major fight in the centre would not offer anything concrete." Or: "Black was able to respond with solid, orthodox moves and still keep pressure on White."

We all see such comments even today, but in my experience they are relatively rare. But the density of such comments in the 1950s was very high. Looking at one for the purposes of this post, the very first one I find has, apart from the two comments above, seven such fuzzy comments on fewer than 20 fuseki moves, with non-technical words such as quiet, solid, spoiler, neat and tidy, enervated, probe, taunt...

In my view, we humans are best adapted to talk about and understand the fuseki in such terms, which because of their fuzziness have the general applicability that we crave. They get rid of the trees and let us see the forest. Learning to talk and think fuzzily but accurately in this way also applies to evaluations in the middle game and endgame. I have been amazed at how often these 1950s commentaries describe an endgame move as good, even if not the biggest, because it is thick, or eliminates aji.

Of course, numbers underly much of go, but that's where they belong - underneath. Napoleon was aware that an army marches on its stomach, but he personally didn't count the loaves of bread.

Actually, the French connection there reminds me of Saint-Exupéry (pause while I look it up):

Si je vous ai raconté ces détails sûr l'astéroïde B612 et si je vous ai confié son numéro, c'est à cause des grandes personnes. Les grandes personnes aiment les chiffres. Quand vous leur parlez d'un nouvel ami, elles ne vous questionnent jamais sur l'essentiel. Elles ne vous disent jamais: "Quel est le son de sa voix? Quels sont les jeux qu'il préfère? Est-ce qu'il collectionne les papillons?" Elles vous demandent: "Quel âge a-t-il? Combien a-t-il de frères? Combien pèse-t-il? Combien gagne son père?" Alors seulement ells croient le connaître. Si vous dites aux grandes personnes: "J'ai vu une belle maison en briques roses, avec des géraniums aux fenêtres et des colombes sur le toit...", elles ne parviennent pas à s'imaginer cette maison. Il faut leur dire: "J'ai vu une maison de cent mille francs." Alors ells s'écrient: "Comme c'est joli!"

....

Mais, bien sûr, nous qui comprenons la vie, nous nous moquons bien des numéros!

So, you can choose to see a hat if you wish, or like le Petit Prince you can see a snake that has swallowed an elephant.

Amazingly enough, I have seen games that started in a similar fashion, and the White still went off to win.
Some of the games were between absolute beginners - one knew to play on star points first, but nothing else, while the other did not even know that, the rest of the game was a chaotic mess.

I can see myself playing like that against kyu players sometimes, or some equally idiotic first few moves, I view it as a handicap and taking the game away from bookish knowledge, just to amuse myself. I win a satisfactory share of such games.

But if your example, extreme as it is, is aimed at demonstrating a serious game between KGS 1d-3d players, then I am at a loss of words here. What are you trying to accomplish with that other than make people shake their heads in wonderment?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Just illustrating that the opening is important (note, it's not intended to be an actual 1d vs. 3d game - that's why it's an extreme example). And it's often neglected once people hear about the middle game being more important.

Maybe I'm not communicating well enough, but I've already explained this sentiment just a couple of messages up:



In an attempt to be perfectly clear:
* I agree that aspects of the game other than opening are important.
* I agree some people might be able to get to KGS 3d without studying opening.
* I think opening still deserves mention, because its importance is often neglected, even at 1d-3d level.
* I agree that not everyone on this forum has time to study everything, so they might not have time to study opening.
* I think a big reason for this is because we spend our time doing other things - like arguing here.

_________________
be immersed

(cancel this)

Good point.

One helpful way to teach DDKs is to ask them to recognise the "big" and "small" plays out of a pair of plays, say on a 13x13 board. At dan level those things should be intuitive, but there are points about the opening in context where a typical amateur 1 dan has stuff to learn. That is why "the fuseki matters": genuinely strong players are not in much doubt about big and small at any stage of the game.

People here like talking past each other too much, by the way.