A question on openings.

Unusedname · **#21**

Joelnelsonb wrote:

Thank you for this post. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in the previous post above; using principle analogies from one game to better understand the other. I guess I didn't realize that joseki is so much about exchange for territory vs influence. I thought when people said "equal for both sides", they meant just that. So you're saying that choosing the proper joseki is about creating the imbalance which favors you're strategy for the rest of the game? While were on the topic of joseki, I do have some basic questions: with so many joseki out there, are there such things as like the "common" ones that any real player ought to know? I always wonder when I study pro games "how do they agree upon which joseki variation to use?" What are the odds that two different players would not only know the same joseki but choose to use the same one at the same time? And what if one player starts the joseki and the other player see's that it's ultimately better for his opponent and doesn't want to play it? Is there a battle of the josekis as both players try to player their own way? Furthermore, what if your opponent doesn't even know you're playing a Joseki? I mean, do all strong players always settle every corner with joseki? Is that just standard play for corners?

Every move you play is about creating an imbalance that favors your strategy. Since no two stones can occupy the same intersection, there is an imbalance.

I would think yeah there are a lot of common joseki that most players know. Understanding is more important than knowing.

Your questions sound kind of weird. But I'll try to answer them.

Go is like a disagreement.
Yes if White thinks Black is offering a poor exchange White has ways to resist.
Sometimes White will take a loss locally to get a good position globally. Like Quantumf said there's more to exchanges than territory and influence.
Sometimes White will tenuki (play away) because he thinks a different part of the board is more important, or if White settles a different side of the board first he can get a better idea of how to respond to Black locally.
So yes if you don't want to respond to your opponent's moves you do have options.

When pros both agree on a joseki I imagine it's for one of two reasons:
More likely they disagree on who benefits more from the exchange
Less likely they have found the actual best move on the board

Also no games aren't always settling each corner individually.

I think joseki is a weird place to look if you want chess analogies.

Understanding joseki comes from understanding other concepts like having a base, shape, sacrifice, cutting, aji

Making a base is like protecting your pawn before it's under attack. Sure you could wait until it's under attack to defend it, but then your opponent is controlling the flow of the game. If your pawn is steady now, you can decide later whether you want to continue strengthening it or develop elsewhere.

Some moves are made just to give your opponent bad shape. Like a move that forces your opponent to put a knight on the side.

Sacrifice's are kind of the same you give up material for tempo (sente) or some other advantage. Or there's large scale sacrifice where you and your opponent might disagree on the value of certain positions.

I'm not sure how to describe cutting. Sometimes it's like a fork where you start two attacks at the same time. Sometimes it's disrupting communication and making stones not work together like blocking rooks from sharing the same rank.

Aji is like when your knight is stuck on the side. You want to move him, but you don't really have time.

I would agree with the other people in the thread and say that if your goal is to improve quickly this might not be the most efficient path. But I enjoy thinking about it.

Quote:

The reason for my original post though was just that I was curious if there were some mainlines I could learn and start practicing beyond the first few moves. You know, something I could use every time I play until I learn something new. It's recommended that you play a new Chess opening for a year before moving onto another one so I would probably stick to that. I'm just craving deeper strategy in my play and so I'm looking for ways to be thinking about advantages right from the get go and how to ride them through the middle and into the end game.

Yeah there are some common beginner joseki.
There is a book called 38 basic Joseki.
But if you read a book like Opening Theory Made Easy, you could find these moves for yourself.
But I like Uber's suggestion too. Ignore that you're getting some loss in the corner and just learn local fighting skills.

Bill Spight · **#22**

Uberdude wrote:

beginners* lose not because of opening mistakes but because they run out of liberties and get captured.

Worth repeating.

Also, the key to advanced problems often has to do with liberties. It's not just a matter for beginners.

Uberdude · **#23**

Bill Spight wrote:

Also, the key to advanced problems often has to do with liberties. It's not just a matter for beginners.

Yeah, I often have a blind spot for shortage of liberties in harder problems. I tend to focus too much on the eyespace shapes and might not see a self-atari in the sequence.

Joelnelsonb · **#24**

Uberdude wrote:

Instead of learning whole board openings or other chess-inspired ideas, I would suggest you focus on your local fighting skills: beginners* lose not because of opening mistakes but because they run out of liberties and get captured. There are a lot of local shapes that will keep coming up again and again and recognising these and what the important points are and how they are affected by slight changes in the configuration of the stones is far more valuable. Can you solve the problems in this post? Was it second nature solve in a glance, or did you need to read?

* I seem to recall you are still quite a beginner, apologies if this is too easy.

I was able to solve these at a glance, however, I would consider myself a beginner (14 kyu, OGS). From what I can tell, it appears that DDK = beginner, SDK = intermediate, 1 Dan+ = advanced. Thanks!

EdLee · **#25**

Quote:

1 dan+ = advanced

To some, a beginning level.

Bill Spight · **#26**

EdLee wrote:

Quote:

1 dan+ = advanced

To some, a beginning level.

Sophomore: What do you do?

Astronomy professor: I am a student of astronomy.

Sophomore: Oh, that's an easy course.

Joelnelsonb · **#27**

EdLee wrote:

Quote:

1 dan+ = advanced

To some, a beginning level.

Of course. Advanced study is the beginning. You crawl and then you walk. Once you begin to walk, the journey has just begun, not ended.

Bantari · **#28**

quantumf wrote:

The sooner you put aside attempts to apply learnings or analogies from chess to go, the better off you will be. They are utterly different games.

I would say the only things you can apply from chess are broad concepts that apply to most strategy games, like: read ahead, have a plan, don't panic, consider the whole board, and so forth.

This.

It amazes me how often people try forcing concepts from chess on Go. As quantumf said - there are completely different games. Would you try to understand chess in terms of bridge? Just go with a flow and enjoy the game, and eventually the enlightment will come. Or not...

But since you insist... to give you an idea of what Go is and how you might think of a joseki as opposed to a chess opening... Imagine four chess boards arranged in a loose square, each has its own game - but the pieces can influence and attack adjecent boards as well. So, while on board #1 you might aim to protect your king, the bishop move you made to avoid check can actually attack the opponent king of another board. Its sort-of hard to imageine, but this is how I used to think about it.

You still know the proper chess openings, and attempt to apply the on each board individually, but now you have the added dimension of the boards interacting, so what you learned and know about chess opening is only 'local play' and has yo be considered in a more global concepts. Some lines which are good on single board might be bad on the multi-board, depending on configuration.

Same with joseki. Each joseki is like a chess opening, locally - there are variations, and there are popular lines and less popular lines, there are outdated lines, there are novelties... but it is not as clear-cut as in chess because of the 'global' concept I mentioned above. A joseki can be a winning idea or a losing idea, depending what joseki your opponent chose in some other corner.

Joelnelsonb · **#29**

Well, the reason for my post was simply that whenever I teach someone to play Chess, I always teach them the Philidor opening right off the bat. They don't have to understand anything about it to begin with; it simply gives the novice a skeleton to work with. Instead of sitting there, looking at a board full of pieces, thinking "lot options, why not move... This one!" Instead, it gives them a basic plan to play by. This being said, every game of Go that I play opens up completely different beyond the first three moves. I was just wondering if Go was such a game that you could learn structured openings and follow-ups so that you're not a goose in a hail storm, trying hopelessly to navigate through what I consider to be the most abstract part of the game.

Uberdude · **#30**

Yes, there are 'structured openings' that have been studied and played a lot. Have you looked at any opening books*? There are thousands of pages of variations and analysis on them. For example here is a main line of what we call the micro Chinese which has been popular the last few years:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 8 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . | $$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm11 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 2 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X 7 . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

But if your opponent doesn't want you to play your favourite opening then he can do something different, for example this pincer prevents the micro Chinese above and then a different opening will happen:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

However, for a 14k or so like yourself I would not recommend trying to memorise a vast number of opening patterns, but get a grounding in the basic opening principles that means you have a decent idea what to do in any situation. For this I highly recommend http://senseis.xmp.net/?OpeningTheoryMadeEasy.

* For starters:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ADictionaryOfMo ... oreanStyle
http://senseis.xmp.net/?DictionaryOfBasicFuseki
http://senseis.xmp.net/?21stCenturyNewOpenings
http://senseis.xmp.net/?21stCenturyNewOpeningsVolume2
(Vol 3 only in Korean I think)

peti29 · **#31**

Go is an intuitive game. I so love that you don't need to learn "preprogrammed" sequences in order to enjoy it. Of course there are josekis, but one needs to understand them in order to successfully apply them. Go is a game in which you can and need to be creative. It's (thankfully) not "memorize to win".
You will just need to cluelessly wander around that huge go board and lose many games before you learn to fight, before you learn how to make a base, before you learn to keep an eye out for ladders, before you learn to see invasion points, before you understand miai, before you learn how to use thickness, etc, etc.
Memorizing a few josekis won't save you all that trouble! (*evil laughter*)

In other words (and in my humble 5k opinion) knowing a few openings and a few josekis simply doesn't matter around 15k. (Mainly because your opponent will most probably don't know them thus they will diverge at which point lacking the fundamentals, you won't know how to react anyway.)

(I just used the word "fundamentals", yay.)

Boidhre · **#32**

The equivalent to teaching the Philador opening is to teach "Corner, Sides Centre" and then give some basic overview of the differences between the 4,4 point (including the invasion), the 3,4 point and the 3,3 point. That's enough to play a game of go with for quite a long time when you start out.

Bill Spight · **#33**

Uberdude wrote:

Yes, there are 'structured openings' that have been studied and played a lot. Have you looked at any opening books*? There are thousands of pages of variations and analysis on them. For example here is a main line of what we call the micro Chinese which has been popular the last few years:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 8 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . | $$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm11 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 2 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X 7 . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

But if your opponent doesn't want you to play your favourite opening then he can do something different, for example this pincer prevents the micro Chinese above and then a different opening will happen:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Not to mention:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 4 . , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Or even:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . 4 , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

And so on.

Bill Spight · **#34**

Joelnelsonb wrote:

Well, the reason for my post was simply that whenever I teach someone to play Chess, I always teach them the Philidor opening right off the bat. They don't have to understand anything about it to begin with; it simply gives the novice a skeleton to work with. Instead of sitting there, looking at a board full of pieces, thinking "lot options, why not move... This one!" Instead, it gives them a basic plan to play by. This being said, every game of Go that I play opens up completely different beyond the first three moves. I was just wondering if Go was such a game that you could learn structured openings and follow-ups so that you're not a goose in a hail storm, trying hopelessly to navigate through what I consider to be the most abstract part of the game.

Along the lines of a skeleton to work with, a popular and effective opening is the nirensei (play on the 4-4 points in adjacent corners). And it is something that you can almost always manage to play, either as Black on White. But I am afraid that that only gets you through 3 or 4 moves (2 chess moves). Welcome to go!

Mike Novack · **#35**

Go and chess are fundamentally different.

A game of chess is (eventually) won by creating a local imbalance of power around the opponent's king sufficient for checkmate regardless of the balances of power in the entire rest of the board. Ultimately, only the local situation around the kings matters. You can be decimated in the rest of the board, but if your few remaining pieces can force checkmate, you win, and all the opponent's pieces scattered elsewhere just so many pieces of wood.

Go is won or lost on the global basis. You can be at a disadvantage on a local basis almost everywhere but have a won game because all your local positions add up to a global victory.

Chess is about creating imbalance out of balance and go about maintaining balance.

Joelnelsonb · **#36**

Also, when I teach a beginner, I often give them rules of thumb that I don't actually follow myself. Things like "only advance your two central pawns and try to leave the rest alone until necessary". I do this because it teaches them a safer, less sophisticated way to play and I consider the student to be ready to disregard these rules as soon as they realize for themselves that they're not hard and fast principles (in fact, they're not even really "good" play). I feel like I'm seeing this in Go. In the books I've read and lectures I've watched, I've seen a few different concepts reinforced quite a bit, however, real players don't appear to follow them at all. For instance, one book I read talks about the proper order of opening moves (corner approaches and enclosures first, followed by long extensions and then short extensions last). I then saw a pro game played by the actual author of the book (I wanna say it was Fundamental Principles of Go but I've been through a lot of books) where he completely disregarded everything he had taught. I 'll see a DDK game given as a bad example where contact fighting begins right away and this is highly discouraged, however, I've seen plenty of Dan games where players will fill in an entire section of the board before even making an approach or enclosure on the other side of the board. So in case I've been misled, is it correct to say that before the middle game starts (first invasion), the outer fringe of the board ought to be completely filled in with extensions on the 3rd and 4th lines such that there are no open spaces large enough to build a base?

Shaddy · **#37**

No, it's not really true. The middle game starts when the two players disagree about something enough to fight over it.

Boidhre · **#38**

Joelnelsonb wrote:

I 'll see a DDK game given as a bad example where contact fighting begins right away and this is highly discouraged, however, I've seen plenty of Dan games where players will fill in an entire section of the board before even making an approach or enclosure on the other side of the board.

It's about the value of moves. In the dan game approaching the corner was worth less than continuing the fight. In the DDK game it wasn't worth more than playing in an empty corner.

Bill Spight · **#39**

Joelnelsonb wrote:

Also, when I teach a beginner, I often give them rules of thumb that I don't actually follow myself. Things like "only advance your two central pawns and try to leave the rest alone until necessary".

A practice I avoid.

Quote:

For instance, one book I read talks about the proper order of opening moves (corner approaches and enclosures first, followed by long extensions and then short extensions last). I then saw a pro game played by the actual author of the book (I wanna say it was Fundamental Principles of Go but I've been through a lot of books) where he completely disregarded everything he had taught.

That may be an illusion. Znosko-Borovsky addresses a similar question in How Not to Play Chess, about White moving his King's Bishop four times in one variation of the Ruy Lopez. The general principle of moving each piece once in the opening is violated, but for reasons.

Quote:

is it correct to say that before the middle game starts (first invasion), the outer fringe of the board ought to be completely filled in with extensions on the 3rd and 4th lines such that there are no open spaces large enough to build a base?

No, that is not correct.

I am of the school that includes Ben Hogan in golf and Reti in chess that says that it is good to develop power early in your career.

Here are a couple of illustrative ancient games.

I have shown you a few old games, courtesy of GoGoD (Go Games on Disk). I highly recommend that you buy it for yourself. A treasure trove!

Joelnelsonb · **#40**

Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about, Bill (Thanks!). I wonder why this concept seems to be so reinforced in beginner books if its seemingly incorrect. My suspicion is that it's highly misunderstood given that I continually see my peers playing the same way I do. That being said, sounds like I need to re-empty my cup and go back to the fuseki drawing board.

A question on openings.

Who is online