I really don't like the handicap system. I don't appreciate having one or playing against one simply because my understanding of fuseki is already quite limited and so starting off a stone(s) behind/ahead is a like a whole new animal. Personally, if I'm playing against a stronger player, I'd rather just play even, get beat and learn from my mistakes. I find it hard to learn from handicap games. Go players brag against Chess players that they have a viable handicap system but I feel like the system in Go is just the same as starting a pawn or rook down or whatever. It changes the nature of the game. Anyone else feel this way? Maybe I just need to dedicate some study time to adjusting to handicaps but I'd rather just avoid them altogether.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Well, you're not going to have a game that's exactly the same as an even game when you have a handicap, by definition. That said, starting with pieces down in chess can fundamentally change the strategy in ways that a few extra stones on the board don't. You have to expect in either case, though, that a game with a queen down, or a 9 stone handicap, is fundamentally a teaching exercise because of the strength disparity of the players. With 9 extra stones, black should absolutely win, so when black doesn't there are clear reasons why that can be pointed out and worked on.

When people speak of the comparatively good handicapping system of go, they are referring to the fact that, given 2 differently ranked players, you can assign the handicap difference and end up with a relatively challenging game for both players who didn't know each other previously, and that the handicap translates up and down the rankings. In addition, the general principles of play, being more strategically oriented as opposed to the tactical orientation of chess, don't change as much in a handicap game as they do with pieces down in chess.

I'd recommend sticking with handicap games, as it's a good way to play stronger players and learn from them without the game being over 30 or 40 moves in. The positioning of the handicap stones is also an ideal way to learn to use influence effectively, since that is all that you start with.

You really think I would learn more from playing handicapped than getting beat and trying to understand why? It's worth noting that I'm not "bashing" the system, I just prefer to start with an empty board. Another example of this: I virtually never play anything other than 19x19 now unless I'm cramped for time and want to get a quick match in. I just feel like I'm playing a totally different game and the biggest differences are in fuseki, I've found.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Handicap games are good to teach/practice attacking, something you may not have a chance to do in an even game against a much stronger opponent as they can just relax and take it easy and never make a weak group for you to attack because you play worse moves and quickly fall behind. Also you should bear in mind the stronger player may find an even game rather unchallenging and hence boring (personally I don't mind, for example, there's a 1d in my club who doesn't like handicap so I play him even, and another I play on 3 stones. Of course I nearly always beat the former (maybe 1 loss per 20 games?) whereas the other is about 50-50). Another consideration is manners and respect, if you insisted on playing even against a pro from Japan you could come across as being rather rude, some cultural sensitivity is required.

I totally disagree with you. Playing with a handicap is an essential part of the learning process. For a new player who is facing a 19x19 board it can be a daunting process. Playing with a handicap allows you to concentrate on the one aspect of the game which could be considered essential to learn: how to correctly connect separated stones and use them for thickness. You will learn very little by playing a stronger player even and losing by a lot, but you will learn something by taking a handicap and playing a close game.

What you are trying to do it to try to sprint with a top class runner before you can even walk.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I think the main advantage of handicap stones is that the losses tend to be more concrete. White has to invade somewhere deep, he lives, and can point out how black should have stopped him. Or Black misses a tesuji and white demonstrates it after. Black has a strong set-up, so his attacks are well-supported and whites are difficult to execute.

Without the handicap stones, I've tended to pull out into strong positions early on as white. I've got aji to support invasions and my groups are all strong as we enter the midgame. There are direction of play lessons, but they're a little more abstract and tricky to digest properly. Then in the middle game I invade, black can't stop me and I can't really see how black could. Black makes an under-supported invasion, I harass it and it's twenty moves of "yeah, still painful, but no choice, huh?" There's maybe 30 moves of interesting direction of play study, and then we just watch the consequences of a strong player with a strong position.

There's a place for under-handicapping, it can be an interesting lesson for both sides and a good opportunity to study the opening/early middle game, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it exclusively.

It is a different game. One way around that is to take reverse komi. Another is to use free placement of handicap stones to open up areas of the board. I have used both.

When I was a new 3 dan I took a reverse komi of 50 points from a 9 dan pro instead of 5 stones. He won by about 100 points. Later on I gave a player reverse komi of 100 points instead of 7 stones. That time I won by about 100 points. I suppose that handicap stones give closer games. One time I took 7 stones from a 2 dan, but, because I did not know even game joseki, got him to let me place 4 stones in a diamond shape around the center point, so that one corner was free. I did not know the joseki in that corner, made a mistake, and killed the corner. With a handicap of up to six stones you could put all your handicap stones on one side of the board and leave most of the rest of the board free.



Actually, it is easier to learn from handicap games. For one thing, learning tasks where you can succeed about half the time are generally appropriate for learning. For another, as my reverse komi games indicate, with large swings it may be hard to point to crucial errors. When the 9 dan invaded my framework with the reverse komi, I had no chance at all to kill or contain the invasion. But if I had had a stronger framework in a 5 stone game, I would have had chances, and only a few key plays may have made a significant difference. Finally, even though there may be no real fuseki in a 5 stone game, you can still play the whole board. In fact, there are books about handicap go and handicap go openings. One treasure trove is the Okigo Jizai by Hattori Inshuku. It goes back to the 19th century, but still has many lessons that are useful today. You can see it at http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/861119 . It helps to read numbers in kanji.

Here is the last game from the last volume, a 9 stone opening, with minimal comments by Hattori.



Enjoy!

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

This actually appears to be a serious issue. Among the more serious Go playing communities, there seems to be a lot of unspoken rules such accepting a handicap or passing instead of making a desperate invasion.

So tell me this, If I'm playing white against someone with a four stone handicap, what should my opening goal be (it becomes a little more clear in the middle game)? Obviously there's different ways to open up but generally, do you pick two corners and approach them? three corners maybe? Maybe try to restrict the four stones to only getting corner territory without getting any influence? I haven't seen a lot of study material for handicap games.

Thanks for the game, Bill! I guess I've never played an official "teaching" game with anyone so I've never really been criticized on how to use the handicap productively.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

The larger the handicap, the more it applies, but there are two general schools of thought about playing white in large handicap games:

The first is that you play normal moves, and as black makes mistakes, you capitalize on them naturally to slowly pull even. The second is that you overplay somewhat, with the assumption that black will be unable to punish you properly and you will pull ahead. Each of these has its merits, but the second is more applicable to higher handicap games (5 and up) than the first. For a 2 stone game, for example, just play normally and it should turn out good enough. You won't (and shouldn't) win all the time, but you will often enough.

Part of the lesson for white in handicap games is how to handle the inevitable weak groups without giving away too much to black, and how to spot and capitalize on mistakes effectively. White will make mistakes too, but that doesn't mean that black will be able to take full advantage of all of them. In the best environment, it wouldn't be, but some of the game can be psychological too. White's stronger, so that invasion must be reasonable in black's mind and black "needs" to worry about their group, even though black should be able to kill white or otherwise take advantage.

Keep your stones connected and your opponents stones separated. (sorta the same goal in a non-handicap game)

Here is what I mean by using free placement of handicap stones to open up the board.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Five stone handicap on the right side
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Most of the board is open for even game style play. You might enjoy this kind of handicap game.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

This is what does it, for me. Of the five (?) even games I've played where there was a large rank difference, zero were fun. I expect a resignation when one side can win without really making an effort, because continuing would be boring at least for that side; if one player is much stronger, that moment just occurs too early for the game to really be enjoyable.

This is only true for fairly large differences though. A rank difference of three often results in a fun even game, and a rank difference of two pretty much always does. (Corollary: reduced handicap is fine, just not too reduced.)

Since I want teaching games to be fun, the above holds for them too--reduce the handicap maybe, but please do give me at least some stones! (Or take, whichever. So far I haven't really taught anyone.)

I didnt liked to play handicap games.. although, after some time I started to appreciated it.
I though would be nice to leave here my 2 cents about what made me 'change' my mind.


At the Go meeting that I attend, I'm usually the weakest. Because of that, almost all my games there are handicap games.

Since I didnt liked handicap games, at first I would ask for an even game. After some time I realized that:
1 - They would beat me easily and I wasnt learning that much;
2 - Since the game was so unbalanced, It was hard for the strong player to give me feedback and see exactly were my problems are... too many problems.
3 - It would be a boring game to the stronger opponent;

I decided to put my biases aside and try handicap games.
After some time playing a lot of handicap games I noticed the following:

Pros:
- My opponent will start attacking since the beginning.. so after some time I noticed that it helped me to improve my fighting skills;
- I spend way more time thinking about my moves.. all moves;
- I try to make use of all my stones.. by that I mean, Im starting to think more about the global board than the result of local fights;
- I started to see the games as a challenge. Every meeting I try to beat the stronger opponent so, in next meeting, I could ask for 1 less stone; (also a nice way to see that Im improving)
- The feedback from the stronger players were more direct to the point;

Cons:
- Since Im used to play against stronger players, when I play an even game I avoid fights (fear!?);
- My fuseki is really bad *;

So, my two cents are, give it a try. Even the experience of giving someone a handicap is something new to me that I started to appreciate.

ps: Yes, my fuseki is bad but, since Im stronger at fighting than at fuseki, I can use it in my advantage if I feel the need.

This may end up being another rant, but;

It appears that we are talking about two separate things here--

1: Fun/competitive games against two people
2: Teaching Games (ShidouGo)

While they overlap, they are different.

The aim of "1", is for both sides to have an interesting, challenging games. In this case, Handicaps just makes perfect sense.

As for case "2", which has nothing to do with handicap, the aim for the stronger player/Sensei is to 1: create situations (often tailored to the weaker player/Student) Whereby the student's response is inquired, or situations whereby thr student will learn the most, 2: test the Kai, spirit attitude an aptitude of the student.

Technically, handicap stones are not necessary for purpose "2", but to then say they are pointless would be a very narrow statement to make. This is because, one, there is a good aspect to handicap stones, and two...

...Purposes "1" and "2" are often combined...

...Which makes complete sense. Why force yourself to do one or the other when you can do both?


That being said, I personally believe that if a beginner wants to play withoit a hamdicap, they should be allowed to do so. Clearly, purpose "1" does not apply.

Likewise, if a stronger player recommends giving a handicap to a beginner, it good form for the beginner to take one even though he may prefer not to, and even if the stronger player is wrong imposing the handicap-- at least, for the first few games. After a while, it would be hard to refuse you an even game if you had been patiently playing with a handi all that time.

HOWEVER, there are other reasons why a handicap would want to be given apart from purpose "1". For example;

#1,
If you where to play all your teaching games, as a student, without handicap, only your fuseki would be trained well, leaving little room for endgame training.
And if your intention was to drag out a hopeless game to the end, then you mightas well have put a handicap in the first place. It is a bit like, upon being given a handicap, forcefully snatching your opponent's bowl of white stones, to switch it with the black.

#2
Many of the beginners who insist and insist on playing an even game, are the kind of people who, as children, would beg and beg and make a lot of fluff about wanting a violin/guitar/piano/etc, and, upon receiving the instrument expecting to become the next mozart in 5 minutes, pack it up in three after finding that an oumce of difficulty is invloved of you want to be an expert.

The more extremely adamant a person is to play without any kind of assistant stones, the more the other players suspect that the person would be discouraged in not having played the divine move itself on their first try.

HOWEVER, there ARE people who prefer not to be given a handicap all the time, who do not belong to this bracket.

I hope I'm a closer fit to this!

After I had reached the level where I coud defeat Touya Meijin... Err, on the GBA, don't worry... I thought my next challenge would be to defeat GnuGo within Jago client. I usually played without handicap: I prefer it that way. I also liked taking a three or two stone handicap. Why? It had nothing to do with strength difference; it was because it just looked nice. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 did not look so aesthetically pleasing, and that was the only reason I never used them.

I personally belive that the healthiest thing to do, no matter what the goals of the idividual are, is to spit it 30:30:30, between full handicap, half-handi, and even games. I thinks it's also a double-purpose move that solved this problem as well. And the other 10%? Be free to experiment with Go, please be free, there are no Go police...

The same applies to board sizes.

Well what about teaching games with pros (assuming you are strangers? Uberdude put it slightly loosely in saying that it might be considered rude, it isn't always the case that they would see it as "rude" in the sense you might first think. It also depends on the pro. Maybe it would be better to something along the lines of "you'd be seen as having a certain questionable trait", but I won't know myself what is correct. A 13 year old 1p wouldn't be the same as a veteran former top pro.

I rembember as a table tennis beginner, asking my gar superior oppenent to keep serving as fast as he could (making it boring for him). He kindly endured this may be akin to Igo, as many have the perception that you could pick up a bat and whack a ball and say your playing table tennis (your quite clearly not, that is roleplay )

I know this may sound, as usual, like I'm pretending to an expert or earworthy about a subject in which I'm definitely not. But I hope at least a little confusion would be cleared (if just a little. And there's probably 5% more ranting and clarification which I've forgotten by now, using a 3" without spellchacker ).

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

This is pretty cool. I feel like a beginner would get a lot more use out of something like this (who plays all four 4x4's anyways?). Do you know if they allow free placement on any of the major servers? I believe OGS does not. I guess you could just agree to have white pass his first few turns.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Well, you should not have to be told that playing 100 or more moves in an even game against a much weaker opponent can be boring.

OTOH, anybody who objects to a player who is behind making a desperate invasion is himself being rude.



Four stones is on the edge between playing a pure teaching game and letting Black generate his own unforced errors, and playing to win. Unfortunately, pros do not give handicaps to pros anymore, so we do not have those high level handicap games. Here are some four stone games by three of the top players in history, presumably playing to win. I have added some comments on the openings.







Note that all three game started out with fairly normal play. This continued the longest in the Shusaku game. Note also that none of the White players played defensively. IMO, that is the most important lesson for White in a handicap game. You may not start off playing thinly, but you have to accept thinness and hope that Black cannot capitalize on it. (A good bet, IMX. ) Note also how both Jowa and Shusaku built frameworks. That is a pattern that I have seen in pro play when giving handicaps, from Dosaku to Yoda Norimoto, but I do not see so often when amateurs give handicaps. It can be surprisingly effective in turning thinness into territory.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Goodness! that post was worth it's weight in gold... Thanks again!

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

A tip, if you're going to make a desperate invasion don't wait until all the boundaries have been formed and bits of aji fixed and your opponent passes, invade well before playing all those moves that help your opponent fix their problems. It'll be more likely to work then and more interesting.

Well, yes, if you have passed and your opponent invades, you may well feel insulted. OTOH, chances to take advantage of damezumari (shortage of liberties) might not arise until the dame are filled. I remember when, as a 5 kyu, I began studying pro games and discovered, to my dismay, that I could not always confirm the final score by filling the dame. More recently Eric van der Werf has done some research that indicates that around 2% of 5 kyu games are misscored. That means that even 5 kyus sometimes overlook protective plays. How much more often do DDKs do that?!

That is one reason why I tell DDKs to always fill the dame and never resign.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I don't think of such as desperate invasions though as you'll only play the sequence if you think it works whereas desperate invasions implies a certain speculative nature to your move. I should have added "this doesn't mean never invade" though alright.