I can't remember where, but somewhere I remember reading that when you play go, you should always have a plan. I have since realized that I NEVER have a plan. I'm a beginner (but I've played my 100 games), and basically when I play I feel like I'm just trying to survivor locally for the most part and kind of figure out how to respond to my opponent. Is this just natural at the beginning--in other words, I shouldn't worry about the whole plan thing until I get a bit more comfortable with the game? Or is it good practice for me to really be planning for what territory I hope to get during the whole game?

The trouble with planning what territory you want to claim is that this created a tendency to try to hold onto it because it is yours. And that can lead to problems. Go requires more flexibility than that. What you need is a plan to get a certain amount of territory somewhere. If you have a moyo which you think if worth 40 points then be prepared to give it up, but be sure to get those 40 points elsewhere. This will often be possible because the opponent will have overstretched in order to invade "your" moyo.

_________________
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).

Oh, I don't know, I'll bet you make plans.



Surviving locally is a plan.



Here is where you can do better. Don't just think about how to respond. Go further and think about a concrete goal or goals that you would like to accomplish. Don't worry at first about thinking about how, about "I play here, he plays there, I play here, etc." Look for moves that have two or more purposes, even if they do not actually accomplish both in one move. Usually single purpose moves are too slow. Think on a large scale. Instead of making a cut and capturing a few stones, make a play that threatens the whole group, even if it is not certain to kill it, if it may also threaten or accomplish something else. And early in the game it will almost always do so. If you just go around responding to your opponent's moves you will let him dictate the pace and shape of the game. Seize the initiative. Dictate to your opponent.



A lot of beginners make the mistake of playing passively. That does not excuse it.



Planning to make specific territory is usually not a good plan. In good play territory almost always arises in skirmishes. Instead, especially early in the game, think about staking out potential territory, strengthening and weakening groups, connecting and dividing them. Think on as large a scale as you can. Think about efficiency.

Take a look at pro games to get an idea of what kind of plans they make. A lot will be incomprehensible at first, but you can form general impressions that will help you to make plans in your own games.

Good luck!

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Having no plans at all is very natural for beginners, even I dont have plans when I first started playing.

_________________
I'm a Chess intermediate and Go beginner player

When I play, I have a plan to be connected. If I play like as white, I always play in parallel; if I play with black and I can make in cross, I spend a time to think (if my was in hoshi, I never will play at ease in cross). This is simple but you begin to think a plan to make some fuseki or joseki.

I am still a kyu player so maybe this is one of the things holding me back, but I often don't really have a "plan" either. If by plan you mean large scale strategic goals of some concrete and precise definition. Of course you cannot make a single move without having a "plan" of some sort, but I think the idea of the saying is deeper. I have heard it said that you should have a plan for how you want the game to go even when you make the first move. I find this kind of ridiculous since W would be able to cause you to formulate a completely new plan in a million ways after just a few moves.

My "plan" is to respond to my opponent's play and exploit his mistakes while trying to prevent my own mistakes. This might sound like I am being reactive, which is probably a bad thing, as your opponent will have control of the game most of the time. I think it is more being very flexible. When you approach a corner, don't let t be your "plan" to have your opponent respond in a certain way. Before you approach, make sure that you can make any response work, even if it would result in a completely different game.

I guess that is my problem with the word "plan". In my mind at least, it implies wanting the game to go a certain way, instead of being adaptive to the circumstances.

You can play the game without having a plan - or at least not a very deep plan. However, it can be more rewarding to try to have one (i.e. think of what will happen, and prepare for it).

A few years back, my wife and I planned for a trip to Europe. We came up with places to go, read tips from other travellers, and came up with a plan for the trip. I was a little paranoid about pickpockets, so I was careful with where I kept my wallet. We had a great time. I didn't get pickpocketed. We enjoyed a number of sights, and I'd like to go back again someday.

An alternative strategy would be to go on the trip without any planning. Maybe I'd come home one day, and we'd just decide, "We're going to Europe". Maybe we'd have a good time. But without knowing about our destination, or doing any preparation, a number of issues might be more likely to arise:

* We'd probably spend a fortune on the plane tickets.
* Maybe I'd get pickpocketed.
* We might not know where to go.
* We might get lost, or injured.

The list goes on.

---

Let's say I got pickpocketed on the first day, and we had to come back early. We'd have missed out on a great couple of weeks, all because I didn't consider the risk. All we could say would be, "Oh well. Maybe next time I'll try not to get pickpocketed." Maybe next time we go without planning, I wouldn't get pickpocketed, but maybe something else would come up to spoil the fun.

It might be more exciting to go to Europe without a plan. We might have a great time. But there's also risk of a lot going wrong, and we might have had a horrible time. Taking time to plan beforehand increased our chances of having an enjoyable trip. It didn't guarantee success, but both planning and having the trip were very enjoyable.

I'd imagine similar results with go. You can dive into the game and make moves without much planning... But is it really as fun as playing after you've tried planning? You might not always win with a good plan, but you can learn where your plan went wrong, and try better next time.

I recommend planning.

_________________
be immersed

I love your post, even if I don't agree with your analogy. I suppose in go, a plan is usually good.

But, we have traveled around Europe and Asia with only the first night's lodging planned. It's great fun and you should try it someday. Planning can result in over-ambitious itineraries and exhaustion for unseasoned travelers. Spontaneity and going with the flow allows you to do exactly as much as you want, every day. Like go, it definitely requires flexibility.

We sure as hell didn't plan on climbing Mount Rinjani on our trip to Indonesia, but we'll remember it forever.

Hey, maybe this does apply to go after all.

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

I know exactly what you mean (to the OP). I've come to Go from playing Chess where I always have a full, concrete game-plan. I've been struggling to understand if this is something I should be striving for in Go or if the game simply works differently. One thing to note: one of the things that makes Go the game that it is (with respect to other games) is the whole idea of the local vs global context. I read a book early on in my playing where the author said that sometime during a beginner's progression, they have to make a very significant leap from using tunnel-vision to fight local battles to thinking about the whole board on every move. It's very tough for us beginners, but something I've been doing is before every move (even if it seems completely obvious where to go), I take a breath, ponder the board for a moment, and then respond. I'm working to continually be thinking about the "grand scheme". When I was a total beginner, I always got frustrated when my opponent would take a huge lead without me realizing it. I would be caught up in local fights, capturing stones and what not, and before I would know it, I'd look up and see that my position is completely helpless. I would wonder when I fell so far behind but when I'd go back, I'd see that it was gradually, throughout the game, where I'd underestimate the moves of my opponent with out looking at their influence to the whole board. Now, I approach my games with only a general strategy. Maybe I plan to take territory in one corner while striving for influence in another, than build a large, thin moyo with the intention of being invaded and making my territory in the fight. You're plan will always have to be flexible to your opponents' plans. Whether you're playing Go, Chess, Checkers, Shogi, poker, etc, the more flexible player always wins. On a side note, beginners always have trouble letting go of stones. It's hard to see when there's a much bigger play to be made instead of saving a small group that's on the run anyways. It's quite enslaving to be obligated to try and protect every stone you lay.

_________________
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...

As a matter of terminology shaping your thinking, don't ever respond to moves; play what you think is the biggest (urgent>big of course) move on the board every time it's your turn. Sometimes this is near or right next to where your opponent played, but often it's not. Ko aside, given any board position, the biggest or best move on the board doesn't depend on which stone was the last one played.

To look at it another way, compared to professionals you suck at go. You will make mistakes that will let them tear you apart, both in terms of reading and judgement. By this metric, my judgement and reading also suck: I make horrendous mistakes in every game. Your opponent, even if of a different rank, is likely much closer in strength to you than to a professional. The obvious conclusion is that their judgement sucks too. Don't trust them when they say that you have to respond to their move or horrible things will happen. Don't even trust that they know which quadrant of the board they should be playing in. Play what you think is right regardless. You may make mistakes, and you may lose, but you can't improve your judgement if you don't use it.

My mistake. I only meant respond as in making my move (sorry for the bad jargon).

_________________
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...

You shouldn't really have a plan from the beginning of the game...

Well, if you play specific opening strategy, there might be hint of one, but this will be more guidelines : "I will play for a big moyo" rather than "I will take territory in this corner, then expend on this side, then invade", or some thing.

Once the first stone is on the board, though, you can start examining the situation and decide where you will go with the game. Usually, the first few moves will simply be "I will take a corner", but there's still things that you can deduce about your opponent's strategy. If I see a 3-4 facing his 4-4 stone, then I'm pretty sure he will go for a Chinese or Kobayashi. A 3-4 facing my 4-4 will likely either be a mini/micro chinese or orthodox, etc...

As stones are put on the board, you get more information to get some idea or how the game might go. This area will be easy to turn into a moyo, this one will be hard for him to secure so I can count on an invasion later on. This group can fend for itself for some time, etc...

when you decide to approach a corner, generally you have a few variations in mind. That's the outline of a plan. You hope for a certain result, that you find goes well with how the board look. Of course, some time your opponent doesn't cooperate and pincer or do something else. So after a few games of this happening you start thinking. "So what if he pincer? Am I still fine with this?".

As the opening end, you start eyeing your opponent's framework. "I can invade here, here or here. I can shoulder hit this stone and make a nice reduction. I can cap at this point to expand into the centre. This group can be bullied for profit." You do the same for your "I need a defensive play here at some point, this area is too open so I can not hope for much here". You will chose the option that seems the more appealing, and the game will proceed. Then fighting begin, groups are cut, and you start thinking on how to attack, how to defend. If possible to do both at the same time. You might lean on a group, then attack another, etc...

Obviously, you will rarely do so with that amount of detail (well, it depends on the speed of the game). You decide on what course of action feel the best, and after a few forced sequences, you adjust to the situation. The more experience you have, the easier it will come, because you will have a better idea of what the results of different options might be...