Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )

Numsgil · #1

palapiku wrote:

The stronger I get (4k now), the more I am convinced that the best way to improve, at least until dan level, is by improving your reading.

Doing other stuff might be more fun, and it might get you a little stronger, but it kinda misses the point of what go is all about. And it gives you a false confidence of thinking you know what you're doing. This held me back for a long time.

Any strategic considerations you need you will very quickly learn by getting a couple of your games reviewed by stronger players.

I routinely win games against stronger tactical fighters by out maneuvering them strategically. That pretty much describes every game I play anymore on KGS. Don't underestimate the power of strategy. You can play really passively locally and still win a game if you manage to direct your opponent in useful ways (yeah, you lost a group, but you built up a huge wall in the process). To be a really strong player you need both skills, but I definitely think it's possible to get to the high SDKs, probably the low dans, with little to no reading ability whatsoever, just playing solidly, with no defects, good shape, and a strong sense of strategic vision. Without defects there isn't any aji for your opponent to really exploit, and you can probably entice them to attack groups if you do leave defects behind, so you can sort of direct your opponent without his necessarily realizing.

Most players seem to go the other way (get strong tactically and pick up strategy as you need). But certainly at DDK you can study whatever pleases you and get stronger.

cdybeijing · #2

Numsgil wrote:

palapiku wrote:

The stronger I get (4k now), the more I am convinced that the best way to improve, at least until dan level, is by improving your reading.

Doing other stuff might be more fun, and it might get you a little stronger, but it kinda misses the point of what go is all about. And it gives you a false confidence of thinking you know what you're doing. This held me back for a long time.

Any strategic considerations you need you will very quickly learn by getting a couple of your games reviewed by stronger players.

I routinely win games against stronger tactical fighters by out maneuvering them strategically. That pretty much describes every game I play anymore on KGS. Don't underestimate the power of strategy. You can play really passively locally and still win a game if you manage to direct your opponent in useful ways (yeah, you lost a group, but you built up a huge wall in the process). To be a really strong player you need both skills, but I definitely think it's possible to get to the high SDKs, probably the low dans, with little to no reading ability whatsoever, just playing solidly, with no defects, good shape, and a strong sense of strategic vision. Without defects there isn't any aji for your opponent to really exploit, and you can probably entice them to attack groups if you do leave defects behind, so you can sort of direct your opponent without his necessarily realizing.

Most players seem to go the other way (get strong tactically and pick up strategy as you need). But certainly at DDK you can study whatever pleases you and get stronger.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think your suggestion is a bit misleading. No doubt there are many players on KGS in the SDK range who have attained their rank predominantly through studying strategy based materials. There are at least an equal number of players who have the same rank having read no theory books at all.

The thing about go is that 1) life and death is absolute and, most of the time final, and 2) anyone of a reasonable skill level can turn any game into a massive struggle of life and death. I believe players who improve based on the depth and accuracy of their reading are much less likely to encounter any walls or plateaus in their development.

How are you going to win by controlling the direction when someone opens with two stones in the center of the board and then invades all of your corners with low positions? You might have fours walls facing my stones but you still have to kill them.

nagano · #3

Numsgil wrote:

I routinely win games against stronger tactical fighters by out maneuvering them strategically. That pretty much describes every game I play anymore on KGS. Don't underestimate the power of strategy. You can play really passively locally and still win a game if you manage to direct your opponent in useful ways (yeah, you lost a group, but you built up a huge wall in the process). To be a really strong player you need both skills, but I definitely think it's possible to get to the high SDKs, probably the low dans, with little to no reading ability whatsoever, just playing solidly, with no defects, good shape, and a strong sense of strategic vision. Without defects there isn't any aji for your opponent to really exploit, and you can probably entice them to attack groups if you do leave defects behind, so you can sort of direct your opponent without his necessarily realizing.

Most players seem to go the other way (get strong tactically and pick up strategy as you need). But certainly at DDK you can study whatever pleases you and get stronger.

The biggest issue with playing that way is it is much harder to improve later, because you have not strengthened your reading ability. Also, you are not really making good strategic decisions without the ability to think far enough ahead. I think that the notion that strategic and tactical considerations are separate is really not accurate, especially as you get stronger. Strategy doesn't matter if you can't read. Reading actually develops your judgement, not the other way around. The strongest shapes can be penetrated by the player with greater reading skill.

hyperpape · #4

nagano wrote:

The biggest issue with playing that way is it is much harder to improve later, because you have not strengthened your reading ability....I think that the notion that strategic and tactical considerations are separate is really not accurate, especially as you get stronger. Strategy doesn't matter if you can't read. Reading actually develops your judgement, not the other way around.

I don't agree. I don't mean to offer an opinion about which is the best way to improve, but if you can study to improve your reading when you're starting out, why can't you study to improve your reading after you've been studying strategy for awhile? Surely tsumego help no matter how strong you are.

I will say the second part makes sense--learning to read lets you judge positions better, because you can see potential followups (i.e: this position isn't good because the invasions at a,b,c...work. But then isn't it a two way street? Can't you be great at calculating variations, but bad at assessing the result?

nagano · #5

hyperpape wrote:

nagano wrote:

The biggest issue with playing that way is it is much harder to improve later, because you have not strengthened your reading ability....I think that the notion that strategic and tactical considerations are separate is really not accurate, especially as you get stronger. Strategy doesn't matter if you can't read. Reading actually develops your judgement, not the other way around.

I don't agree. I don't mean to offer an opinion about which is the best way to improve, but if you can study to improve your reading when you're starting out, why can't you study to improve your reading after you've been studying strategy for awhile? Surely tsumego help no matter how strong you are.

I will say the second part makes sense--learning to read lets you judge positions better, because you can see potential followups (i.e: this position isn't good because the invasions at a,b,c...work. But then isn't it a two way street? Can't you be great at calculating variations, but bad at assessing the result?

I think reading is ultimately the foundation of strategy. Yes, it is possible (though probably rare) to have good reading but bad judgment. Let's face it: judgement is, and always will be the hardest part of the game. Lee Changho says that he decides on a move by first choosing about ten candidate moves. He then reads out about thirty moves each, judges the position in each case, and selects the best two or three options to focus on after that. He then reads out about 100 moves for each of the final candidates, and then makes a final decision at that point. He says that the reading is not so hard as correctly judging the position. The question is, if it's hard to judge the position after reading 100 moves, how hard would it be if you only read out a few moves, or none? Surely your judgement would be much worse. So yes, judgement is important, but I don't believe it is possible to make very accurate judgements without reading first.

nagano · #6

Up until around 5k, maybe. Further than that, I think reading becomes much more vital.

Kirby · #7

Numsgil wrote:

palapiku wrote:

The stronger I get (4k now), the more I am convinced that the best way to improve, at least until dan level, is by improving your reading.

Doing other stuff might be more fun, and it might get you a little stronger, but it kinda misses the point of what go is all about. And it gives you a false confidence of thinking you know what you're doing. This held me back for a long time.

Any strategic considerations you need you will very quickly learn by getting a couple of your games reviewed by stronger players.

I routinely win games against stronger tactical fighters by out maneuvering them strategically. That pretty much describes every game I play anymore on KGS. Don't underestimate the power of strategy. You can play really passively locally and still win a game if you manage to direct your opponent in useful ways (yeah, you lost a group, but you built up a huge wall in the process). To be a really strong player you need both skills, but I definitely think it's possible to get to the high SDKs, probably the low dans, with little to no reading ability whatsoever, just playing solidly, with no defects, good shape, and a strong sense of strategic vision. Without defects there isn't any aji for your opponent to really exploit, and you can probably entice them to attack groups if you do leave defects behind, so you can sort of direct your opponent without his necessarily realizing.

Most players seem to go the other way (get strong tactically and pick up strategy as you need). But certainly at DDK you can study whatever pleases you and get stronger.

I don't really agree with this. Well, I can't deny that you may have won some games with weaker tactical ability... But I think that tactics are much, much, much more important than strategy.

Just focus on reading, and everything will fall into place. Experience will give you whatever strategy that you need.

kgsbaduk · #8

i really dont see diffrence between strategy and tactic. Its seems the same to me.

Numsgil · #9

nagano wrote:

Up until around 5k, maybe. Further than that, I think reading becomes much more vital.

I would more or less agree with this. But it's also the other way around. Players at my level that stomp me tactically have no clue about basic strategic things like "don't get enclosed" and "don't make 4 weak groups at once". The few times I play high SDK or dan players in handicap games, they have superb understanding of all the basic strategic things I understand. So it seems to me that you can't really get past high SDK without strategic thought and tactical reading ability.

Not that I have no reading ability or my opponents have no strategic sense. Just that our weaknesses are pronounced (we don't play a balanced game). But if you're presently DDK then you can study whichever you want and you should be able to improve, which was my main point.

Just so I'm not mangling terms: by strategy I mostly mean attack and defense: handling weak groups, attacking, forming and recognizing sector lines, knowing when to run and when to die, that sort of thing. By tactics I mostly mean reading, life and death, tesuji, etc.

Kirby · **#10**

Numsgil wrote:

...
by strategy I mostly mean attack and defense: handling weak groups, attacking, forming and recognizing sector lines, knowing when to run and when to die, that sort of thing. ...

Aside from the sector line part, which I don't use myself, I think that all of the items that you mention are covered by good tactical ability.

For example, "knowing when to run and when to die" can be achieved by understanding the outcome of the local situation. When you see the outcome by reading, you can know whether it's a good decision to go down that route.

Numsgil · **#11**

Kirby wrote:

Numsgil wrote:

...
by strategy I mostly mean attack and defense: handling weak groups, attacking, forming and recognizing sector lines, knowing when to run and when to die, that sort of thing. ...

Aside from the sector line part, which I don't use myself, I think that all of the items that you mention are covered by good tactical ability.

For example, "knowing when to run and when to die" can be achieved by understanding the outcome of the local situation. When you see the outcome by reading, you can know whether it's a good decision to go down that route.

Then what would you consider strategy to actually be?

Kirby · **#12**

Numsgil wrote:

Kirby wrote:

Numsgil wrote:

...
by strategy I mostly mean attack and defense: handling weak groups, attacking, forming and recognizing sector lines, knowing when to run and when to die, that sort of thing. ...

Aside from the sector line part, which I don't use myself, I think that all of the items that you mention are covered by good tactical ability.

For example, "knowing when to run and when to die" can be achieved by understanding the outcome of the local situation. When you see the outcome by reading, you can know whether it's a good decision to go down that route.

Then what would you consider strategy to actually be?

I think that what people commonly refer to as strategy is theory that they read in books, which they'll use as heuristics to deal with situations. Go proverbs might be an example of this.

I think that you can get a lot of these heuristics and go proverbs under your belt, and it may help some of your decisions - but I don't think it's a good substitute for reading.

I think that if you focus only on reading, you will not need the heuristics and go proverbs you read in books - you will learn these things yourself from experience.

I think it's important to make this decision, because it is easy to cut back on reading and think, "well, I'll just apply this heuristic". Somebody with sufficient reading will then find out where the heuristic goes wrong and beat you.

quantumf · **#13**

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory" (Sun Tzu)

I firmly believe that I spent too much time reading strategy books while reaching my current level, and didn't do nearly enough life and death. It's been a significant barrier to further improvement. In retrospect, I wish I'd not bothered with the strategy books at all, and just focused on improving my reading.

Numsgil · **#14**

quantumf wrote:

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory" (Sun Tzu)

"Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

ethanb · **#15**

Kirby wrote:

I think that what people commonly refer to as strategy is theory that they read in books, which they'll use as heuristics to deal with situations. Go proverbs might be an example of this.

I think that you can get a lot of these heuristics and go proverbs under your belt, and it may help some of your decisions - but I don't think it's a good substitute for reading.

I think that if you focus only on reading, you will not need the heuristics and go proverbs you read in books - you will learn these things yourself from experience.

I think it's important to make this decision, because it is easy to cut back on reading and think, "well, I'll just apply this heuristic". Somebody with sufficient reading will then find out where the heuristic goes wrong and beat you.

No, I think Numsigil's distinction is better. "When to run and when to die" (furikawari, I presume he means) is definitely strategy. Tactics are the ability to make the outcome of a given situation work in a direction you choose, Strategy is deciding what direction you want the game to move in, and therefore which tactics will serve that purpose best. Lee Changho's quote where he says the hard thing about Go is not reading 100 moves ahead for three different candidate moves, the hard part is deciding which of those three is the best, is pretty much the very definition of tactics vs. strategy.

More concretely: Tactical knowledge shows you that a two-space extension which is pincered on both sides may be attacked from above, either side, or with a tesuji from underneath. Strategy is figuring out which of those ways to attack is the one you actually would prefer to do.

Whether that's what "most people mean" could be another story (your thought might actually be what quantumf means,) but as far as the words themselves go, that's what they mean. There are very few books that actually talk about strategy in a concrete fashion (in English, at least) AFAIK - parts of Attack and Defense, I guess The Direction of Play... other than that, really good game commentaries are the only sources I see.

LocoRon · **#16**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ - - - - - - $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . a O . . | $$ . . X b . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . . O . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . . X . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . , . . . |[/go]

Tactically, both a and b are possible. The difference is strategic.

Hare · **#17**

I was told that memorizing joseki was for those at or about dan level. Joseki works when applied at the right time and in the right direction. I find ddk don't yet understand what is happening on the whole board. Understanding the big picture is vital to applying joseki (timing and direction of play). Many suggestions given I whole heartily agree with.

dfan · **#18**

quantumf wrote:

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory" (Sun Tzu)

I firmly believe that I spent too much time reading strategy books while reaching my current level, and didn't do nearly enough life and death. It's been a significant barrier to further improvement.

I'm still a few ranks behind you, but I feel the same way. Lately I have finally been making tsumego the focus of 90% of my study and I can really feel my muscles getting stronger.

Kirby · **#19**

ethanb wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I think that what people commonly refer to as strategy is theory that they read in books, which they'll use as heuristics to deal with situations. Go proverbs might be an example of this.

I think that you can get a lot of these heuristics and go proverbs under your belt, and it may help some of your decisions - but I don't think it's a good substitute for reading.

I think that if you focus only on reading, you will not need the heuristics and go proverbs you read in books - you will learn these things yourself from experience.

I think it's important to make this decision, because it is easy to cut back on reading and think, "well, I'll just apply this heuristic". Somebody with sufficient reading will then find out where the heuristic goes wrong and beat you.

No, I think Numsigil's distinction is better. "When to run and when to die" (furikawari, I presume he means) is definitely strategy. Tactics are the ability to make the outcome of a given situation work in a direction you choose, Strategy is deciding what direction you want the game to move in, and therefore which tactics will serve that purpose best. Lee Changho's quote where he says the hard thing about Go is not reading 100 moves ahead for three different candidate moves, the hard part is deciding which of those three is the best, is pretty much the very definition of tactics vs. strategy.

More concretely: Tactical knowledge shows you that a two-space extension which is pincered on both sides may be attacked from above, either side, or with a tesuji from underneath. Strategy is figuring out which of those ways to attack is the one you actually would prefer to do.

Whether that's what "most people mean" could be another story (your thought might actually be what quantumf means,) but as far as the words themselves go, that's what they mean. There are very few books that actually talk about strategy in a concrete fashion (in English, at least) AFAIK - parts of Attack and Defense, I guess The Direction of Play... other than that, really good game commentaries are the only sources I see.

I'm not sure that I really agree - I still think that such decisions can be determined by appropriate reading. But maybe it doesn't matter.

What I am trying to point out is that I feel there is a tendency for people to shrug off the need to improve their reading, relying on what they call "strategy".

Reading a book on go theory may be interesting, but I think it is much more effective to your go ability as a whole to simply improve reading. Considering your example, improved reading can let you know which way to attack a group. It's not something you need to read in a go theory book.

If you want to call this type of reading X, and another type Y, then that's fine with me. But I get the feeling that people neglect improving their reading, when I think that's really all that's important in the game.

Kirby · **#20**

LocoRon wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ - - - - - - $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . a O . . | $$ . . X b . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . . O . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . . X . . | $$ . . . . . . | $$ . . , . . . |[/go]

Tactically, both a and b are possible. The difference is strategic.

I would say that, "locally" a and b are possible. The difference is the global position. In both cases, I think that a fundamental reliance on reading will get you further than what you read in a book on go theory.

Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )

Who is online