Recently it struck me that the difference between 1k and 1d was simply that 1k didn't read out the moves very deeply. Actually I may be off in the demarcation line between 1k and 1d, maybe this is 1d-2d or 2k-1k. The point is that after playing so many games it seems to me that 1 kyu and below makes one classic error that throws off their whole game. The reason why I came to this conclusion is that I have met many strong players who were probably stronger than me at fighting, or strategy, or something, yet I was able to beat them in the end because I understood this one simple mistake they were making.

I call it the 1 kyu land grab.

1 kyu and below will often take a huge gote point instead of playing honte or sente somewhere else. And by huge I really do mean huge. And this is why I say it is the difference between 1k and 1d. Because as it would seem to me, a 1 kyu can't read out the weaknesses in this sort of strategy. The land grab is a very powerful strategy that can even enable some 5k to hit 1k very quickly. But it is weak in the long run because it doesn't work against stronger players. I feel understanding this and "forgetting" the land grab strategy is a major turning point in my goal to improve in go.

As I see it, such moves work because 1k and below are not strong enough to punish this sort of move. As well, people use it because it gives them such a false sense of strength -- and they don't understand the weakness, so it does seem like a strong sort of move. They can't tell the difference between land grab and normal move. But I feel there is a huge difference. The "weakness" is that it lets your opponent decide how strong you are. See, the best a land grab can do is push someone around who doesn't read out precisely how to counter it. And there is a way. But if you're not strong enough, then you can't. I know this explanation sucks so let me give you some examples. First, in Ota Yuzo-Shusaku, played August 13th 1843, Ota Yuzo played nikken tobi on the lower right side. This is what I would call a land grab move and as a result Shusaku was able to take the initiative. I am sure the nikken tobi was a strong move but it was clearly not sente in Shusaku's eyes.

Now, two examples from my most recent even games (I don't need to pick and choose games, it seems this is a very common mistake, I see it all the time so I just picked my last 2 even games):



I admit that I let black create a huge moyo on the bottom/right, but..... clearly his strength could not back up his land grab. I do not like this sort of fighting at the end, the game is included here because of the obvious land grab my opponent is clearly guilty of. You see, moves like K3 and K10 don't really control the game. They just grab land. So I am able to lay a trap or a plan or read out the best invasion. He let me decide how strong he was.

Second example, here:



In this game with Deathwind I feel moves like D14 and C14 are what cost him the game. Yes he grabs a huge amount of land, but at what cost? I am able to choose how to best counter his land-grab, and therefore, he has allowed me the chance to be stronger than him. That is why I feel I won, intangibly.

I feel that I have crossed a plateau by understanding this.

Well, I looked at your games with interest. Up here in the cheap seats (5K), it looks to me that you won the first game by outlandish overplays, and the second by cutting everything that could be cut, and profiting from the confusion. I'm not sure that I see your point about "land grabs" because these games were both almost entirely fighting games.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

sente and gote is a relative concept!

If you play "sente" and your opponent doesnt answer because he wants to play a bigger "gote" move, your move wasnt sente, was it?
What you call land-grab is just a description for "wrong" positional judgement and not counting who is leading.
This is not "common" error like 1kyus play always the wrong move at a certain joseki or something, but a general thing that makes the difference between a strong dan player and a 1-kyu. The strong dan-player is able to make a better estimination of who is leading right now and what measures need to be instigated. Both players can read a couple of moves ahead but the dan-player has a better understanding of what is good for him and what bad.

The difference between a 20kyu and a 10kyu is obvious, but the further you go and the stronger you'll become the differences between the ranks are more subtle. Maybe you just noticed this now and therefore assined this to the 1dan - 1kyu gap, but this isnt true.

Like most words, "sente" and "gote" have more than one meaning. It is possible to play a sente with gote, and vice versa.

(Edited to be more appropriate.)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

By "land grab" are you talking about forming moyos?

Large scale moyos aren't for forming territory. So you're right that they can be invaded or reduced. Their point is that any such invasions can be attacked from a position of superior strength and in (solid) profit in sente. Only maybe 1/3 of the moyo should be expected to become solid territory.

Seems like the first game, for instance, you were stronger tactically than black and pushed that advantage. And it so happens that tactically you're strong enough to push black around inside his own influence. So bravo, but it's not that moyos are inherently inferior to solid territory. I think it's more that the stronger tactician will be able to claw back points from an inferior strategic position.

I believe the colloquial term for your style of play is "pirate". ie: my opponent can't win if he doesn't have any territory. If you're stronger tactically than your opponent it seems a very good strategy. You also get the psychological advantage, which is nice. You might give The Great Wall opening a try. It works very well if your goal is to run around invading areas, because you have a wall you can run to if you get into trouble. I tried it in a few games but the style of play it requires is counter to my strengths (so it's a good training exercise for me but not a way to win games).

In your first game, black 93 at Q11 and your cutting stones are dead (I think). Classic tesuji, but always hard to spot in-game. Not sure it would have turned the tide but there you go.

_________________
1k KGS

If 93 @ Q11, 94 @ Q10 and white will capture r10; the cutting stones are unimportant in this branch. (EDIT: Just for reference on the relative difficulty in spotting tesujis: at 1k+ levels, I think it would be *embarrassing* to miss that tesuji, if it is even possible)

As I understand it, Usagi is specifically talking about a large move (not necessarily moyo forming) that leaves behind some slight weakness. A big move when honte was required. I found it an interesting concept. I will try applying it in my games.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

I think that you are simplifying the difference between 1dan and 1kyu. I consider this a lot as I have a 1kyu student that is very close to 1-dan and was questioning when to give the promotion. I would say 1-dan has a more complete and balanced game than a 1-kyu, while a 1-kyu would know most of the concepts a 1-dan applies, however they have a hard time applying them all to their game consistently. Of course I mean an artistic view of 1-dan (based on understanding of go), not a ranked chart view (based on results), though it is rarely very different.

Game 1 - black makes many mistakes outside of k3 and k10, for example making a small group in white's influence with C10 and C7 in gote. Those two moves are not working with the rest of black's stones. I would suggest a move that helps black's shape, while flattening white, for example K15 or O14, or else a move that adds more pressure, for example C13 or an attack O16-P17, though it is difficult to do so without harming your position. I didn't look much after that, but black has terrible shape at multiple times, while white has a good shape regularly and takes advantage of black's poor shape and mistakes.

So in game 1, black had issues with Shape, Sente and global coherence (to name only those).

Game 2 - white makes a lot of mistakes, notably L3 (move 96), where he could probably M3 or even M4 (didn't read out every variation, but clearly he has a better chance) and not die. However, wouldn't it have been more coherent for white to play 30 at C4? Black will capture the white stones (he does in the game also), but he already has given up sente 3 times, how many more times will he need to? It remains an interesting game at that point if white doesn't answer. If white didn't want to give up those 5 stones, he shouldn't have tenuki'd twice, now it is more expensive to save them. C4 is also questionable, as G8 would likely solve much of white's problems (move 72).

The real question of game 2 is if saving those 5 stones was bigger than C14-D14, then he should save them, otherwise he should take C14-D14, not try to do both. I would be hard pressed to say which is bigger, I think I prefer C14-D14, though it is stylistic preference as I prefer potential for territory and attack over cold hard points.

I wouldn't have a hard time believing you are 1-dan, based on those two games.

Eh, I'm not seeing it. I'm hardly 1d, but I can't help but cringe at moves that only have the single purpose of making some territory--feels so slow. But like it was said above, building a huge moyo and threatening to make massive territory can be a very useful strategy, so is not the same is land grabbing.

_________________
TucsonGo.org - Play Go in Tucson
We meet twice a week, visit us!

Move that is "land grabbing" doesn't take into account strengths of groups, it just extends into space for points. I think this is what usagi means. Much more effective way to gain points is to attack opponent's groups. Opposite side of this coin is to defend in such way that it leaves behind no weaknesses (good shape).

yes that is what I mean.

Anyways there are some very interesting comments in this thread! Thanks to all.

Taking territory is now a "land grab"? I guess many of the books I have on the opening are wrong, then, when they tell me to make a two-space extension, or enclose a corner...

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

What I understood from "land grabbing" is "claiming unreasonably large territory while neglecting weaknesses of both colors". But I did not have time to look at the games posted.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

And what do you do, if there are no weak groups on the board? According to a "3-question-model", that even high dans preach, you take the biggest point on the board.
When i looked at your first game, i don't think the tengen by black was a mistake. Instead i think black misjudged his influence and tried to kill white where it wasn't clear that white should die.

_________________
Magics way up the hill (personal study journal)

- Surely you can see the difference between these points?
Why is it that when situation becomes any more complicated, suddenly there seems to be no difference between moves that protect and moves that just randomly grab territory?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Wasn't Land Grab a kind of German nobility?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Landgraf ^_^

Oh, thanks.

Grab = grave, right?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The theory sounds nice, but the examples seem randomly chosen, so I think there's no consistent idea here. Take the first game: k3 is the first example, and it has nothing to do with usagi's explanation. He says the land grab is huge, but isn't sente or ignores a honte move.

Look at the game: white's next move isn't sente either. And I don't think there's a honte move in either case (as far as I know, honte has to do with avoiding weakness, playing steadily. Both moves are steady.)

In the opening, one doesn't always play sente. Is taking an empty corner sente? Making an enclosure?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

In the first game I would be more critical of a move like O15 which really is a land grab and an unsuccessful one as well.

In the second game it feels a bit like you are the one grabbing land. Instantly playing S6 e.g. (I mean D14 doesn't grab anything but intends to be a sente reduction.) In comparison to the moves you're critical on Q5 really looks bad to me.

(About the same level, although less sure that land grabbing is always bad. I often lose against what feels like land grabbing to me.)

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. After looking at the games and reading your explanations, it seems like you are over simplifying the reason they lost. Not many games at our level are lost by one or two moves.

As for the examples, in the first game it doesn't seem like your opponent played bad moves in the opening. He just didn't attack you very well, he didn't know how to use the stones he played... But the moves themselves were not bad.

In the second game D14 is questionable, he should probably defend on the bottom right. I think that C14 was a good move, admitting that playing in the bottom right anymore is a waste of time. In fact your your continuation on the bottom right actually made his position better imo