i am known for very little comment on a game.
but when i see other people drawing variations, i think it is ridiculous what they consider. i understand that they are not strong enough not to notice the fact that their variation doesnt make any sense. but i am afraid that real beginners might look at them and try to study off that ridiculous variation.

many times i keep it very simple because i am not sure of the variation i am considering.
many variations i considered sometimes dont make any sense after careful analysis.

if you want to get stronger you must play like a professional on every move. many useless variations will do more harm than good. i am not strong enough to give correct variations everytime but when i do i am usually correct.

all i am asking is try not to draw some variations that is meaningless. and if you are not sure if it is correct then say so. or ask for stronger player's comment.

(i have a feeling that i will be in a vulnerable position after this post..but i had to say them for the good of this forum. hope people will understand my intention and go easy on me)

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Well, yea, but... You're _only_ 3D on KGS, according to your profile, so you're definitely weak. I guess no one should make any variations, because unless they're pros, they have no value.

So how do we learn?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I had also noticed this, but as a teacher of weaker players I find it offers really interesting insights into what justifications are behind the moves being made. I suspect in 99% of cases all of those variations make complete sense to the poster of those variations. I think it is important to comment as to what's wrong with those variations when you see them, as that's part of what makes the observation of the games valuable to the observers.

I must admit I'd love to see more "teaching" Malkovich games where every comment is always visible to everyone, including both players - this will have a big effect on the result of the game, but at the same time there are turn based Go servers for just playing competitive slow games - the educational value of doing them this way I suspect will be much higher for both the players and the observers.

if i play 3D in KGS i usually dont lose.
then i must be 4d. thing i say and play usually make sense.
i think markovich game is there for the beginners like you to learn how to play correctly.
if you view useless garbages i have seen and study off it you will always remain as a beginner. i am trying to help you and beginners like you if you can not see that.

i have gotten to 1d level in 6 month. i believe because i have studied many many professional games during that 6 month i was able to improve quicker than others.
viewing low ranking player's game really doesnt help you. if you anyone wants to become dan player then they should view only the stronger player's game. that is my point.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I think weaker players know inherently to take things with a grain of salt. I have the same sentiments as you do about my own variations, and usually like to post things as my own idea, or opinion, rather than trying to seem absolute.

I think there's still value to players showing their thought processes coming to a wrong conclusion. People can say things like, "Ah... I think that way too, but it's bad because his opponent punished him like this," or "Ah, we both overlooked that." It's also important to show how what kind of oversights we dan players have too. What we consider, what we don't consider, what makes sense to us, what doesn't, what we want to do, what we don't want to do, etc.

I doubt there are players who look at a Malkovich game and think, "Oh, these players are stronger than I am, so I will study their games and moves to gain strength." I think the value of a Malkovich game is so that players can say, "Oh, these players think differently than I do, maybe I should try thinking like they do once in a while and see what happens."

There is no argument, that many of our sequences on this forum in our heads make very little sense to stronger players, but to say that they are therefore useless is something I definitely disagree with.

I think there are few different behaviors going on.

I understand that the Malkovich games were started largely with the goal of demonstrating higher-level thought to lower-level players, but as magicwand says, you have to be really careful with that, because a lot of the time your variations/thoughts are just not that good.

As a 4k I don't mind saying "Here's what I personally am thinking about my game", or taking a 10k game and finding a few places where I know for sure that they made mistakes, but I am really wary of presenting my 4k game as some sort of model for 10k players.

So I am happy with people posting their own variations if it is really what is going on in their head. That's the outward-facing part.

Now for the inward-facing part: I think magicwand is saying that people are calculating too many bad variations and would improve if they spent more time concentrating on shape and intuition and less on calculation. Based on my experience in chess I think this is probably true. In looking at Malkovich-type games of weaker players (or even myself), there is a ton of energy spent burrowing into one tiny branch of the game tree that is not even really relevant, because people don't step back and think about the right things in the first place. Not to pick on one person because most people do it, but in Loons' game with me he had some long variations where I thought his move 1 was weird and I wouldn't have responded with his move 2 anyway.

Obviously precise calculation is necessary in some places: life & death situations, capturing races, tesuji. But I think you can get a false sense of mastery from pretending you're calculating sequences out to move 10 when your move 3 is misguided.

I sympathize with Magicwand's point. It is important not to teach error, and any long variation by an amateur is likely to contain errors. OTOH, one of the values of the Malkovich game format is that the players reveal their thinking, flawed or not.

So I think that Malkovich players should freely share their thoughts. If events prove them wrong, there is a lesson there, too. But I also think that it would be good for kibitzers to be circumspect, and to avoid long variations, as a rule.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think everyone posts a disclaimer with any sequences they show. It's called their "rank".

_________________
KGS 4 kyu - Game Archive - Keyboard Otaku

As for my games, I would appreciate if kibitzers critiqued my analysis and moves harshly, because it's part of the reason I am playing a Malkovich game. I can play anonymously without critique anytime in secrecy

_________________
be immersed

You know, beginners aren't stupid. They know a 3d is far weaker than a 9d, so whatever a 3d writes as a variation the beginner should always take with a grain of salt. Or a 1k. Or whatever rank. If players like magicwand are too scared to write anything because they're worried about posting something that's not correct, then they shouldn't bother playing the Malkovich. They should just go to a turn-based server and play there. The added benefit of a Malkovich game is that it can help beginners, but the point of it is to simply express your thoughts with some analysis. If you're not doing that, it becomes nothing more than an OGS/DGS game played on a forum.

Also, tone down on the ego magicwand - if you re-read kirkmc's post, you'll realize that there was some sarcasm thrown in there and it wasn't a personal attack.

are your sure on that? i read them again and again and still sensed personal sarcasm.

i have viewed many many many games by strong 7dans from my 20 years of go club life.
they dont explain why they play they only play for money.
by viewing such games i have learned alot and it benefited me tons.
i believe i am strong enough to play a game that people can learn from viewing my game.
sometimes viewing and thinking by yourself is the best way to improve your game.
it is whole lot better than inundating with useless variations.
i guess you are korean so koreans call baduk soodam which means you communicate with hand.
you dont have to say too much to tell others what is on your mind.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Yes, it was intended to be somewhat sarcastic. But I forgot that you're not a native English speaker, so please don't take it personally.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

This.

The point of showing variations is to show what the player is thinking about, whether or not it is "correct" (which Magicwand seems to define as "perfect"). This way lower level players can see the sorts of things that go through the mind of a stronger player and gradually glean general guidelines to improve their play. Pro-level variations might even be less helpful to a DDK, for instance, since the motivations behind them would be beyond his reach.

By the way, Magicwand, are capital letters, like, against your religion or something?

I think a lot of people show incorrect variations (and label them as such) because they remember what it's like to be weaker. I might see a variation that is obviously wrong to me, but I think would not have been obviously wrong when I was 6 kyu or 8 kyu. So I might make a diagram for the benefit of players who are weaker than me. Just because a move is "obviously wrong" to you, doesn't mean it's obviously wrong to someone even a few stones weaker than you.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . .
$$ | . O X X .
$$ | . B O . .
$$ | . O . . .
$$ | . . . . .[/go]

Any 20 kyu could tell you the marked black stone cannot be saved. But it is not obvious to a beginner. I've taught a lot of beginners, and they all go through a phase where they try to rescue that stone. Even after having been shown why it can't be saved, it usually takes several 9x9 games before they really get it. Even basic concepts like ladders, life and death, and territory are harder than that. Even a mid-teen kyu can show sequences that are mind-blowing to somebody who just learned the game.

_________________
KGS 4 kyu - Game Archive - Keyboard Otaku

it is my signiture. i hope people dont mind..

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Ah, okay then, Mr. cummings.

Actually, I'm a 7D writer, and I find it disturbing when weaker writers show others poor spelling and punctuation. If you want to write well, you must write every sentence like a professional. Many useless sentences will do more harm than good.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

you are not only 7d writer but also 7d in wits.
i had good laugh. thank you.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I also agree with Magicwand, and finds topazg suggestion (unhidden comments) worth a try.

Another thing that bothers me a little, is the fact that some variations given are 10 or 20 moves long, I assume almost no player in the 5k - 10k range can read accurately so far (except some straightforward sequences, and for that I'm not sure). I find wms and Magicwand more honest on this point (They read 3-4 moves and says : "I feel it good", even if sometimes they make mistakes).

The Big Brothers Malkovich games are an interesting concept, though hard to follow and to put in place.

Tell me if the idea seems inconceivable, I was wondering if we could develop something between an SGF viewer and a wiki, where the players would have only access to the main branch, others could add their comments, we could label comments as good / bad, etc. It seems that Josekipedia is not so far from that.

We could also nominate a (team of) referees to a Malkovich Game, a stronger player than the 2 opponents, whose task would be to give his impressions on every move of both players. Often, games go so fast without really interventions of strong players that weak players as me can't evaluate variations given by players (that's why I follow mainly games between strong players).

I am one of the weak players Magicwand is referring to. I recognize part of the variations I give ridiculous - in these cases I have tried to say so in the comments. In these cases, I just give the variation as an idea that something starting like that would perhaps happen.

If you find my variations ridiculous, as they often must be, then please make a (hidden) comment pointing out why - so that I could learn something about the game. At some point, there were some comments from stronger players, like sol.ch, in our game (which I am eagerly waiting to be able to read when the game is over), but now no-one bothers to comment on the game. Probably there are just too many Malkovich games simultaneously.

It seems we cannot satisfy all. Joaz demands many more comments than I can write, Magicwand wants me to shut up. Go figure...