My point is exactly this: I feel that if you can read better than your opponent, your overall stone flow/shape/whatever you want to call it, will ALWAYS be better. So the statement that "I couldn't read it fully" wouldn't exist. I feel good reading is one where you look at ALL the moves possible and pick the best one. Good reading does not throw out moves, it will read them through and eliminate them in this manner. Thus, the strategic aspect will come naturally in progression. Reading first -> strategy will flow out.

I also have one more thing to add regarding my original statement(strategy is for 9d.. is it an exaggeration? I'm not too sure it is..). Learning strategy early on, is a detriment. Strategy can be called a shortcut at a weaker level. I'm sure there are no 100% of those if-> then ideas in Go. Early on, there are definitely ways to play the game that makes you easily associate the wrong things together: Examples are most "bad" shapes you can think of. You are almost drilled into your head that these shapes are bad. When most people see these in game, they automatically associate the bad shape, with bad play, and instead of reading, they choose a "better" shape. But, honestly, it is not a guarantee that the "better" move is the "best" move. This is why I'd like to think of reading taking precedent over strategy.

Overall, I'm not too sure I am explaining things correctly. I might even be looking at an ideal situation, but this is my thinking.

_________________
I know nothing.

Kirby, something you might want to consider: get a review buddy. Someone within a few stones of your rank who has a different style than yours, and different strengths and weaknesses. Review all of each other's games, or at least one a week. A fresh pair of eyes may help, especially if you ask them to focus on strategic-level errors and alternatives.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

-Sun Tzu

I think I understand you, but I agree with Sun Tzu above.

I might be biased in that I play more instinctively, by using my intuition and pattern recognition for shape instead of reading everything out. In fact, I only read more than 3 moves when the situation looks complicated. I've had some success with that, despite playing people who I know read better than me.

But one of them, focused on fights and reading, has advanced much more rapidly than me, and can now give me 6 stones regularly, so it might be better to focus on reading first, like you say.

I just find that not that fun, and prefer focusing on my intuition. That's what I like about Go.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

I must agree with Helel : Go is interesting to me because of the strategic part of the game. Tsumego bore me to death and I find it very hard to do them outside of a game (I know it is bad)

Maybe we need to define strategy vs. tactic : for me it is very related to the scale you look at the game.
I force myself to look at the entire board as often as possible.

In my games (I am only 7k kgs) I seldom have to rely on reading very deep. I get more winning (at my level again, it probably change later) if I keep my groups strong, wich make my opponent do weaks groups if he/she wants to attack and go the "lets see who can read the deepest", wich is good for me.

I find I improve most while playing one game with enough time to play my best go and review the game myself : the errors I see in the game and play a few variations. (I wish I could have a review from someone else for every game I play !!! )
I don't like the idea of playing many blitz games instead.

Cheers !

I read a lot of strategy books on my way (currently about 1k), but I've realized that by and large their main benefit was to sustain my interest in go.

Sure, I can sound authoritative in game reviews, wittering about closeness to thickness, and making fists before striking, and using walls for attack, and not pushing from behind, etc, and while those observations are usually correct in themselves, the number of times a superior strategic position has turned into a loss has made me realize that strategy without tactics is ridiculous.

I only read tsumego books now.

That is not my experience, as far as amateurs go. It is not uncommon for strong amateur dan players to make bad shape, but to make up for it by superior reading skill.



Even in chess, which is more tactical than go, this is not the case. (See Think Like a Grandmaster, by Kotov, for example.) Part of good reading is eliminating bad candidates.



There is a simple algorithm for playing go. Read out the game tree. Indeed, strategy will follow. But you gotta wait a while.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I am not really saying that strategy is useless. That's just wrong, but I am going by the original thread topic. The original discussion was about "studying strategy". I feel in most of the cases(me included), we will benefit more from spending more time on learning to read(and to read further), rather than studying strategy. I find "strategy is for 9ds" a good hyperbole for this thread, and I enjoy the discussion such a statement causes .

_________________
I know nothing.