Maybe that might be fair to apply to a Redmond commentary, but unreasonable in a broader sense.

I think your play is aggressive, Mr. 5-4, but that is hardly bad!

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Yes. At least I took it that way.
Perhaps I was able later during the game to properly correct earlier (overly) agressive moves. That's why I considered it lucky wins: not winning on own strength, but being lucky the opponent made worse moves.

Edit/added: apart from the implied criticism though, there might also have been some sort of hidden compliment - like, as if they said "you made me think hard" (which I consider to be a compliment).

Um, this discussion is a bit like go itself.
I do not understand all aspects/arguments, at least at the moment, but they may help me improve understanding the game.
Also, generally, I welcome replies/answers/comments especially if I am the one who started a question or discussion, so thank you all for your posts.

Perhaps I can confuse people here some more.

I recently learned about the term 'kiai', something like fighting spirit.
In my view, I often play casually/friendly perhaps even passively. So, I thought perhaps I generally lack some kiai or fighting spirit, I don't know. Besides, I also do not like fighting games (bad at it, haha).
My lesson from this discussion is that there is a fine line between fighting spirit and (over-) aggressiveness.
It will take me much time and many games to understand and apply this distinction better.

I am afraid that the "standard" translation "fighting spirit" for 気合い = kiai neglects many facets of the original. Or might be understood as "fighting spirit" in the majority of (Western) cases, but not as "fighting spirit".

In a Japanese-English dictionary, I found

気 = ki =>
(1) spirit; mind; heart
(2) nature; disposition
(3) motivation; intention
(4) mood; feelings
(5) atmosphere; essence

合う = au =>
(1) to come together; to merge; to unite; to meet
(2) to fit; to match; to suit; to agree with; to be correct
(3) to be profitable; to be equitable
(4) to do ... to each other; to do ... together

Please note especially the meaning (4) for "au" (this is the verb, "ai" is the respective noun), which can be also found e.g. in "semeai" = fighting each other / "miai" = seeing together

So, the following might be a bit closer to the truth:

気合い = kiai =>
decisiveness, determination, encouragement (, fighting spirit)


I would like to assume that "kiai" does apply much more to playing a nobi, when your stone is in atari, than to play at 4-5 in response to your opponent's move at 4-4.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Going back to examples of aggressive play from kyu games, I had a look at kyu games posted for review here and picked one from viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11997. The cut of move 31 I would describe as aggressive, cuts often are. Black probably saw that this cut separates white's upper string and they now only have 3 liberties and he wants to capture them. The problem with this cut is white can cut at j15 (as he does soon, but not before making some bad exchanges) and capture either the 2 or 3 stones first. Black could defend his cut by playing at k14 instead (a defensive rather than aggressive move), but that's not great either as then white can play o17 to defend his cut, make some eyespace and approach black's corner stone. Once white settles on the top side black's two stones at g/h15 are pretty worthless and not worth defending. So maybe it's better to cut and sacrifice them and try to build the upper-right corner; I honestly don't know the best way to continue in this awful position, it's like asking me whether I would rather be dragged over a giant cheese grater in a bath of vinegar or have my eyes gouged out with a red-hot poker.



And now for an example of good aggressive play from a pro. Move 93 (and indeed the peeps before it) I would describe as aggressive, it aims to attack or kill white's group by preventing it making 2 eyes on the edge. Black's other choice would be to seal it in in sente at m4, but that seal is not particularly valuable. As white's group in the lower left corner is not alive yet black plans to drive white out (note the locally awful broken shape, EdLee might have to shield his eyes), create a splitting attack in which he plays a move which is sente to kill one or other of the groups, and his plan works when he plays h7 for move 121, white defends the bigger lower middle group, and he kills the lower left (and the other group still has to struggle to run away).

FWIW I find the use of 'aggressive' here misplaced. Black's sealing move is aggressive by exactly the same definition you give.

The important point is exactly the one you highlight - Black goes for a long-term splitting attack. But surely the most interesting aspect of that is that he is going for the longer term, or the wider scale and so an adjective that pinpoints that is more appropriate? As first approximations, 'bold', 'daring', 'risky', 'optimistic' would all come to my mind well ahead of 'aggressive'.

On top of that, Black is ultimately just responding to White 66 - and that is a candidate for a (too) aggressive move. Black has little choice but to play forcefully and give White laldy once White has turned the game into a scrimmage. You don't normally call the defender aggressive.

I'm not saying your usage is exactly wrong, but the word is being overused and has lost its sheen. It reminds me of schooldays when teachers put big red splodges on essays every time the word 'nice' was similarly overused.

Au contraire, broken shapes in pro games can be fun.

In this blitz game, Mr. Iyama allowed some ugly-looking local shape; in that case, he was already in a bad situation and had to try something (thus the broken shape). Unfortunately for him, even those measures couldn't help him turn the tide. The funny shape didn't work that time.Since you mentioned eye gouging -- for educational purposes, perhaps another time, and in another thread, you could show some broken shapes that you felt hurt your eyes. As well as good broken shapes. Many members could enjoy (and learn from) the contrasting examples.

I would describe aggressive as playing in such as way that leaves holes in your infrastructure. The idea is that you hit your opponents weaknesses so hard and fast that he never has time to come back and hit yours. Compare this to conservative where you take more of a "slow and steady wins the race" mentality. This doesn't mean that an aggressive player never plays defensive moves, nor does it imply that a conservative player never takes risks; they're just generalities. I would also say that neither could be described as better than the other, it's still about how well you play them.

_________________
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...

I try, as a coach, never to tell anyone they are "too aggressive". I think of go as a highly aggressive game.

I don't know how many times I have given nine stones, but it must be into four figures. White in a nine-stone game has to be aggressive, but I would see that more as reducing the opponent's lead by one point every time I play, which is about the pace you have to set.

There is an obvious possible confusion with playing in such a way as to get into positions you don't understand, in the hope that the opponent understands them even less. I.e. being a chancer. I think at the 1 dan or 2 dan level it becomes clear that people with that element in their style are inconsistent. It's another story, but what they do about it is (roughly) diverge from the ideas underlying pro play, bypassing "fundamentals".

I think Seo Bongsu is known for his fighting style, rather than aggressive style.

To me someone who plays 'aggressively' would be a 'one trick pony' - and there is an element of criticism about it.

'Fighting' has a connotation of a much more flexible approach - including when to duck and dive, and stooping to conquer.

Here's a recent game of mine (1d level) where I discuss several moves up until 100 in terms of

- aggressive and good
- aggressive and bad (or "unreasonable")
- defensive and good
- defensive and bad (or "passive")

If opponents lose against you and tell you you're too aggressive, then they must have been too defensive, otherwise they would have punished your overplays. Perhaps you were just playing aggressive in a reasonable way and they were upset with the loss.

All comments welcome.

This game, like most, is decided by serious mistakes. So maybe it is too harsh to call a mistake, But it feels like a mistake to me: I think I became stronger when I saw the logic of invading at 3-3 here, and letting Black have the framework. If White doesn't like that, playing D12 rather than E14 makes sense to me: try first to settle the group. The D5 stone does affect choices, though.

I don't like , though. Black can't have a framework strategy if White dominates the centre. This kind of mistake is being pattern-minded: it isn't really on an axis too passive to too active.

seems OK. As Black I would be aiming at E13, to redeem my early stones. So, I don't like . I would be tempted by G4, and agree to fight in the top right if needed.

seems over-concentrated, and leads Black into plenty of trouble. Up to I would say Black has shown a lack of skill in knowing how to defend quietly. Poor shape, really.

is on one of the key points of Black's formation, and as Black I would answer at Q14, I think. Settle one group. Black plays a "standard pattern", but the idea of standard patterns in the middlegame is basically fallacious. The L15 stone might have combined with Black at E13, but the direction is wrong.

Comments end here. Black has too "automatic" a view of the game.

Thanks Charles, but I don't understand how can be a mistake if next is also a mistake. What other option does Black have than following the pattern? In my opinion he can only strengthen the corner by sacrificing the stone. This would completely abandon the framework strategy.

I agree that D5 affects matters and it doesn't work to my advantage, as the corner remains open. I thought the whole pattern was rather good for Black, especially when reduces the influence.

I found this game very illustrative of the defensive/agressive discussion. Thank you for posting.
E.g. you say is defensive, but i'd say it is (very) agressive. It is so agressive that it is even the start of white killing the large black group, isn't it?
E.g. (alternative move 1) you say l10 is defensive. But I would think that it is a 'larger' move than k2. Yet, you choose to play k2.

Time to learn more on the subtleties of defensiveness/agressiveness. Your addendum of (un)reasonable is very insightful for me.

Yes, I realised that there is a kind of anomaly here. I was thinking of an old pro game, and an article I once wrote. Perhaps I'll find them.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black to play.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 . X 7 2 . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . , . . . 4 . W . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Did you read as far as this ladder? Initially the marked stone does break it. If I can still read anything at all.



OK, you are applying go logic.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black to play.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

and here aim for a large-scale game. It isn't obvious that the D5 stone is well placed here. Playable for both?

Thanks Charles

I don't dig

can block at the other side for almost for free and it's White's scale that increases, not Black's. is then merely a consequence from Black having sente to start with.

Conversely, White doesn't have a move at because it would provoke connecting along the 4th line. Instead White might aim at an invasion. But does a poor job preventing it. So for me the value of is not big in the opening.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c White to play.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . X . . . B . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is not my kind of go. But I see that Black has a four-stars framework, while White cannot unify across the lower side: near a and near b seem to be miai. So from a certain "organic" point of view, Black has played consistently. Disclaimer: I'm not Takemiya.

Just a quick comment Knotwilg, in your variation for white taking the 3-3 for move 8 you had black blocking the left side. That's inconsistent with the san-ren-sei. Black should block to the right to develop the top side. For 11 I would also think about approaching the lower right to break the ladder allowing you to come back to the press and push and cut.

Of course ...



Really? I don't know that variation. Indeed, that may be a useful way to look at the position.