It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:59 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Playing thick
Post #1 Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:36 am 
Beginner

Posts: 6
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 1
Universal go server handle: GoHavoc13
What does it mean to play thick? I have seen this term while browsing around at go content.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #2 Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:13 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
It means: create / maintain connection, establish / maintain life, protect territory, create / maintain potential for making future territory by establishing / improving potential / influence (which is a term) for connection and life in the near or remote environment.

Informal synonym: thick = strong.

Simplificating summary of my definition: thick = connection + life + territory potential.

Beware: thick is good but avoid overconcentration (too many nearby stones) and inefficiency (shape developed too slowly when faster movement is possible).

Side topic: a playing style can also be thick.

Start learning: the types of thick shapes with great outside potential.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #3 Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 418
Liked others: 9
Was liked: 83
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
Thickness : strong wall facing an empty zone in the center of the board.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #4 Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:44 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 6
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 1
Universal go server handle: GoHavoc13
Ok, gives me a picture... thanks for the explanations and sidebars.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #5 Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:16 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
The two replies above show we still have a long way to get the Japanese concept of thickness over properly in the west. A bit depressing after so many years. It’s also disappointing that so few people tried to help the OP. I suppose that may be in part a consequence of the increasing redditisation of go talk and the waning of interest in the game for some people in the wake of AlphaGo.

Even if you accept Robert’s characterisation (and I don’t) it’s only the equivalent of describing a picture in terms of “it’s a collection of colour blobs+ lines, makes use of perspective, has a theme, etc” when the inquirer really wants to know how to paint.

Let me quote a recent book by a professional and then do an explication de texte to illustrate some of the missing or misinterpreted points above.

I’ve briefly reviewed this bok here already: “How many stars is this thickness worth?” by Yokota Shigeaki. Here’s part of the preface.

Quote:
Atsumi means “thick aji” [1]. This is the topic of this book.

There is a notion that a strong group is what is meant by atsumi, but a weak group can also have atsumi, and this can change according to circumstances [2]. In addition, if even strong atsumi is not used skilfully, the end result will be unsatisfactory.

Strong atsumi exhiibts its effectiveness the earlier it is created in the opening. Moves that make thickness stronger can even be bigger than extensions on the side. [3]

Amateurs are often perplexed about how to use string thickness skilfully, but if the thickness is yours it means you can attack the opponent’s groups severely and build an advantageous position smoothly by punishing him if he has omitted even a single move. [4]


Let us unpick this and contrast it with what has been offered so far.

[1] Yokota makes the important distinction between atsumi and atsusa. The two are mixed up in RJ’s definition. (Atsumi is written 厚味 where the character 味 is read in combinations as -mi, and meaning -ness, but the word could be expanded into two words 厚い and 味, with 味 read aji when it stands alone.)

[2] Yokota makes the case for treating atsumi thickness as worth 1, 2, 3 or 4 stars. 1 and 2 are weak atsumi (meaning it is too early to use it as thickness) and 3 and 4 are strong (and can be used as thickness as is). In this scheme, even a single stone has thickness. The important point is that if you are choosing to play in a thick way, you have to decide which of your groups are going to have thickness and they have to start with a single stone. You may change your selection “according to circumstances” but at some point you still have to start the ball rolling.

[3] What then follows from [2] (and is a major part of the book) is reinforcing your thickness, which takes time (and planning). The earlier you do it, the better. So time is a very important element in two different ways. Time – which is the basis of the “how” - is missing from the “what” definition above.

[4] The key word here – and again missing from the definition above – is “attack” (which is also a dynamic, i.e. time-based, aspect). What is missing from the Yokota book, deliberately obviously, is the word “territory.”

The method behind the book, says Yokota, has two elements: (1) learning to evaluate the strength of the atsumi, i.e. giving t 1 to 4 stars; (2) reinforcing the atsumi and using it. He adds that the goal is to make correct use of the atsumi according to its degree of strength.

Not in the preface, and not in either of the posts above, but in the body of the book is a very frequent reference to a “base “ (not territory). Yokota’s four star system is based on the following guidelines:

1 star: A group that has neither height nor a base
2 stars: A group that has some height but no base
3 stars: A group that is well endowed with height OR a group that has both height and a base
4 stars: A group that is well endowed with both height and a base.

There is actually a little more to each definition that you are expected to pick up intuitively by working through the copious examples. For example, the three topside black stones below are classed as 1 star because White can peep at a and b and so Black is deemed not to have significant height even though, when he connects, he ends up with 5 stones (the urgent move here for Black, incidentally, is c, to make a base (nb again: base, not territory).



In contrast, in the next diagram Black still has just three stones at the top but these are classed as 2 stars, because there is no peephole. Black still needs reinforcement, of course, at either a or b.



As an example where there is no base but the group can still earn 3 stars (i.e. is strong), see the white group in the upper right in the next diagram.



Nevertheless, the ideal move for White next is a which constitutes a base of sorts – you have to do a bit of neural networking to adapt your definition of “base” as you experience more an more examples. But, still, Yokota is never talking about territory. In fact he wants Black to invade at b, so that White can attack at c. I remember being derided here some time back for insisting that “thickness is not thickness unless it can be used as thickness”. The examples by Yokota are the sorts of things I see in multiple Japanese books, and that’s why I still insist on that notion.

Let us look at another of his examples that will illustrate a common misperception.



The black thickness here is counted as 3 stars (well endowed with height). I think it’s fair to say that many amateurs would think along the lines the “stand on two extend three” rule and so be thinking that a wall of five stones means you extend six spaces, to a. I can even imagine quite a few thinking, “Ooo, that’s a bit far – maybe b is better must protect my territory.” Worse, they may be thinking that they now have some territory – they haven’t, they’ve just got a base. Which is fine in a way, but just turning a strong group into a stronger group without any interaction with the opponent smacks of inefficiency.

Yokota’s move for Black is A below:



If White invades at B, Black C is essentially forcing D, which means what we have ended up with is two Black walls of 5 + 2 = 7 stones, from which an 8-space extension can be regarded as ideal, as here. White B has thus come into the sider’s web (dynamic tewari can be applied here, of course).

This does NOT mean White is dead. In fact, Takemiya (just to show this is not Yokota on his own) says in such positions Black’s aim is not to kill White but to let him live with just two eyes. The result would be White gets territory (yay!!) but just two points, whereas Black gets the equivalent of a dozen or more free handicap stones on the outside (not to mention sente).
The “stand on 2, extend 3” rule is very often misunderstood because it is taken to mean that’s how far you can extend to make a safe territory. No, it means that’s how far you can extend and still ensure a connection, and that is the purpose of a base.

I think I’ve probably given enough info so that those interested can make use of Yokota’s book even if they don’t know Japanese (knowing characters like “right answer” though will help enormously). But for the OP a few other remarks may be in order.

“Playing thickly” is not an ideal way to express the idea. It makes it sound lke a single concept. Rather there are several ways to indulge in a thick way of playing. Yasui Senchi is very different from Takemiya (who rejects “thick” in favour of “natural” anyway), who are different from Hane Naoki and Takao Shinji, wh are different from each other but have played each so often and have both written books on thickness (i think at least one is available in English), so that their games between each other are an excellent resource. They are all different from Cho Chikun who sometimes claims to have a thick style, but he is referring to atsusa and not atsumi. But whatever the individual differences, when it is atsumi that is being used, the main characteristic of a thick style of play is building a platform from which to attack early, and so to maintain the initiative (i.e. if you lose the initiative you have probably made weak atsumi). Because you maintain the initiative you end up late in the game making territory "by accident."

Finally, it is safest to banish the word “influence” (except in the phrase “sphere of influence” in a moyo context), and if you do follow one of the several (Japanese) methods for counting thickness (atsumi), do remember they are not counting territory, except in the notional sense that a big-point move in the opening is worth 15 points.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 6 people: BlindGroup, dfan, gowan, jptavan, sorin, Waylon
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #6 Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:07 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1590
Liked others: 886
Was liked: 527
Rank: AGA 3k Fox 3d
GD Posts: 61
KGS: dfan
John Fairbairn wrote:
The two replies above show we still have a long way to get the Japanese concept of thickness over properly in the west. A bit depressing after so many years. It’s also disappointing that so few people tried to help the OP. I suppose that may be in part a consequence of the increasing redditisation of go talk and the waning of interest in the game for some people in the wake of AlphaGo.

In my case, my lack of response was a consequence of knowing that my answer would be considered wrong by experts. :) Thank you for your detailed exegesis!


This post by dfan was liked by: daal
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #7 Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:53 am 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
John, my quick definition in this thread is only a summary because this is the beginners forum. I have given much more advanced definitions (without hiding contents by the undefined words atsumi and atsusa but nevertheless also producing their concepts), their implications (such as aji), strategic advice of use and characterisiation of dynamic aspects elsewhere.

Whilst territory can be ignored for some purposes of narrow application, territory potential is an essential property. Ignoring the influence concept would also mean to ignore hundreds of valuable principles etc. referring to and using influence.

The 4 stars classification is weak especially because height of a group of stones is a weak concept. I have long overcome this by definitions of degrees of connection. Peeping aji in a wall is just a special case of superfluous ambiguity.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #8 Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:23 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 388
Liked others: 416
Was liked: 198
GoHavoc13 wrote:
What does it mean to play thick? I have seen this term while browsing around at go content.


To "play thick" can mean something as simple as "do not make weak groups", basically do not allow the opponent to attack you.
For each group you have and you don't want to lose, make sure that there is a clear way to safety, if attacked.

One simple way to experience "playing thick" directly: play on even against the free Leela bot, on a high setting. Leela will consistently play thick (as long as it is not too far behind).
Of course, you can achieve the same by playing against a human opponent who has a thick style, but humans are much less consistent in that regard.

_________________
Sorin - 361points.com

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #9 Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:42 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
GoHavoc13 wrote:
What does it mean to play thick? I have seen this term while browsing around at go content.


As you can see by the responses, thick play has its subtleties. :) But since you are just coming across the term, the basic idea is one of strength. You can master the subtleties later. :)

You might like this topic. :) viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11896

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #10 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:46 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
To OP:

Here is an actual example I've just seen where Black, the younger of the Shibano brothers, says he tried to "play thick and then make repeated punches like [his big brother] Toramaru."

The playing-thick portion, he said, was moves 11 to 39. He was satisfied with the result up to 89, where he captured a White group (though politely added he may have been aided by carelessness from his opponent), but he himself started making mistakes after the final move shown here, and ended up losing.

I definitely don't agree with RJ's comments (but it is well known we are different plants) and for once I don't agree with Bill's comment that "the basic idea is one of strength." I know where he is coming from, and know he knows what thickness really is, but I disagree with his summary. First, such pithy sayings are only of significant value to people who are already expert in the art (compare: relativity is about time, golf is all in the mind, it's a long lane that as no loaf on the bread - you need to know an awful lot just to know what the pith producer is talking about, otherwise you are just pithing around). Second, I think the word "strong" is misleading. If I was forced to nominate a single word, I'd suggest "solid" could be a safer choice, and if I was allowed a couple more words, I'd suggest you might like to think of thick groups as having a secure centre of gravity. Note also that the pro, Yokota, said "There is a notion that a strong group is what is meant by atsumi, but a weak group can also have atsumi" so I don't think I'm entirely talking through my hat. But people can judge this "strength" issue for themselves in the game below. After move 39, you can see lots of atsumi for Black but how would you convince a beginner Black's shapes are strong?



Going off at a tangent, I found it interesting that the Shibano brothers still seem to live at home but since they became pros they no longer play each other. They do still study together, though. I've heard before from pros that playing amateurs (or weaker players) can reduce their strength by up to two stones, and I imagine this is part of the reason that, in the live-in system, some teachers rarely play their pupils. But maybe study is better than play above a certain level?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: stro
Post #11 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:07 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
John Fairbairn wrote:
I definitely don't agree with RJ's comments (but it is well known we are different plants) and for once I don't agree with Bill's comment that "the basic idea is one of strength." I know where he is coming from, and know he knows what thickness really is, but I disagree with his summary. First, such pithy sayings are only of significant value to people who are already expert in the art (compare: relativity is about time, golf is all in the mind, it's a long lane that as no loaf on the bread - you need to know an awful lot just to know what the pith producer is talking about, otherwise you are just pithing around). Second, I think the word "strong" is misleading. If I was forced to nominate a single word, I'd suggest "solid" could be a safer choice, and if I was allowed a couple more words, I'd suggest you might like to think of thick groups as having a secure centre of gravity.


Well, I was not trying to be pithy. ;) As I said, thick is a subtle term. When I became shodan I was amazed at how little I understood the game. (I am no longer amazed at that. ;)) I thought that, as a dan player you sort of know what thick, thin, heavy, and light mean, and I still think that is so for most amateur dan players. IMO, trying to explain even a shodan's grasp of "thick" is like throwing someone into the river to teach them how to swim.

As far as the metaphor goes, I agree that "solid" is better than "strong". However, a lot of beginners play solid and over concentrated or solid and heavy, neither of which is thick. That's why I think that "strong" gets at the the concept better. Readers of my commentaries may note that I often say "solid and strong", but rarely say "thick", even though I could. :)

As you know, I think that one of the best ways for players to learn about thickness is to study high handicap games where the pro plays Black. They illustrate both how to make thickness and how to utilize it. :) The link that I provide above shows some of those (partial) games.

Edit: BTW, what is shoran? Some program keeps changing my shodan to shoran.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #12 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:30 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4380
Location: North Carolina
Liked others: 499
Was liked: 733
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
John Fairbairn wrote:
It’s also disappointing that so few people tried to help the OP. I suppose that may be in part a consequence of the increasing redditisation of go talk and the waning of interest in the game for some people in the wake of AlphaGo.
I browsed the forum, but it was Christmas, or Christmas Eve, or the day after Christmas. In any case, I know I can't do justice to the subject.
Bill Spight wrote:
However, a lot of beginners play solid and over concentrated or solid and heavy, neither of which is thick.
This surprised me. I get that heavy is not thick, but I had always thought that you can be both overconcentrated and thick--it's just that you've put in more stones than are justified by the outcome.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #13 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:50 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
hyperpape wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
However, a lot of beginners play solid and over concentrated or solid and heavy, neither of which is thick.
This surprised me. I get that heavy is not thick, but I had always thought that you can be both overconcentrated and thick--it's just that you've put in more stones than are justified by the outcome.


As in, "Thick as mud"? Well, maybe, but I always thought, "Thick, good." ;)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #14 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:27 pm 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8859
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 349
Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
Hi Bill,

Happy holidays. :)

SHORAN


This post by EdLee was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #15 Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:59 am 
Judan

Posts: 6725
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 436
Was liked: 3719
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
John Fairbairn wrote:
Here is an actual example I've just seen where Black, the younger of the Shibano brothers, says he tried to "play thick and then make repeated punches like [his big brother] Toramaru."

John, if the Nihon Ki-in profile pages (http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp.e.qs.hp.tran ... 00473.html) are to be believed, Ryunosuke is actually the older brother (born 1997 vs 1999 for Toramaru). The prodigious younger sibling does seem to happen a fair bit: Lee Sedol and Judit Polgar come to mind.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #16 Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:28 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
Your right, Simon. I have it the right way in the Onomasticon, but there I just note they are brothers. Writing here I obviously fell into the lazy, old habit of "assuming" - possibly lulled into that by a report in my mind recently that he was the youngest ever amateur Honinbo.

I wonder how much of a rivalry they have. The parents set them up for it, after all, naming one after a tiger and one after a dragon.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Playing thick
Post #17 Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:56 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 392
Liked others: 23
Was liked: 43
Rank: NR
a doubled iron pillar is as thick as two short planks

in plain English, thick is the opposite of thin.

in Go, thin means "easily cut".

so in Go, thick means not easily cut.

simplest example i can think of is a bamboo joint.

heavy is the opposite of light. light doesn't mean thin; it means flexible, aerated, with lots of space for eyes or dodging about. heavy means clumsy, inflexible, can't move about much, as in:

"Go weighs heavily on the soul; Up, up! my friend - And quit your books; why all this toil and trouble?!" (apologies to William Wordsworth for plagiarising him).

now we can make a table:

good bad
thick thin
light heavy

_________________
i shrink, therefore i swarm

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group