I think that this is a good point - one that I should try to follow more. I am often kind of greedy. A half point game makes me too nervous, so I want to win by at least 20 or 30 points if possible. Sometimes this means that I will play moves that I know do not work.

Sometimes I will even tenuki when I know that it means that my opponent could kill my group ("I hope he doesn't notice!").

These types of ideas that I have are not helpful to my improvement, I feel. But it is hard for me to shed them.

I hope that I can play more good moves and not be so greedy.

_________________
be immersed

My favorite games are the ones I win or lose by a half point. For me, ideally, a go game should be a perfect balance between two players.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Apparently it was a KGS Plus lecture, although as somebody else pointed out, he might have misinterpreted it. Thanks to everybody for the helpful feedback, I'll probably go with nirensei if I see this opening again. At the moment, I don't feel qualified to weigh in on the other discussion about correct attitude.

Before letting this conversation derail into a technical squabble, let us agree on the subject of the discussion (which is already waaay off-topic). Are we talking about: (a) the way a senior professional selects young children; or (b) the best attitude for an amateur to progress? With the possible exception of those select few amateurs who play evenly against professionals and those young players who have the potential to get there, these discussions seem fairly disjoint. I can understand the perfectionist approach towards go that you advocate; your approach might even be employed in Japanese professional go schools - if so, you are a far greater authority on that than anyone else here. But the reality of amateur (and also, I suspect, professional) tournament go is that every game is decided by mistakes, and that none of us has the faintest idea of what we're doing.

In actual real-life practice, it is not so easy to get stronger simply by pretending to understand "honte", or some such "good" approach to the game. In fact, I think that pretending to really understand any aspect of the game will only lead to stagnation in your development. I, for one, most certainly do not understand go! I do not understand honte, I do not understand sabaki, I do not understand fuseki, and whenever I play a tournament game, I am uncertain at virtually every juncture of the game. What's more, I believe that the same holds not only for all of us here, but also for professionals (though at another level). We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars... Acknowledging this, I do not see how any amateur can really progress by following a shallow misunderstanding of a perfectionist, "professional" attitude. I don't need to tell you how Takemiya Masaki 9p, winner of many Japanese- and world championships, advocates freedom and experimentation at every level!

Continuing your metaphor, I happen to be a jazz piano player and I am very glad that I learned to improvise before I ever really studied the traditional jazz scales and chords. It taught me how to play both with and without the jazz voicings - and that greatly enriched the way I play the standards. Sometimes you can hear so-called "jazz" musicians that have been almost scholarly taught at a conservatory to play in the given style; though technically refined, their music tends to lack any passion and joy of playing.

However weak I am, I feel that every game of go is a battle, and fighting spirit is at its heart. It saddens me every time I see somebody lose a game by 15 points without putting up a struggle. At an amateur level, the idea of playing by "first principles" is misinterpreted far too often, leading to insipid play by the book without any fighting spirit or creativity. I am not saying that honte is unimportant, far from it! But he who mindlessly defends when not necessary has failed to grasp the idea, just like the musician who forgot to use his creativity.


Actually, I think studying hamete can be an interesting way to practise reading... More to the point though, I strongly doubt whether a professional player would select a child that does not show any fighting spirit. Even if that would be the case, due to all the reasons stated before, I don't see how an amateur would benefit from following such an approach.


Sure, but the original comment expressed no such intention. It only said "I had a game against someone a while back and crushed him".

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

gaius, apart from apparently saying you want to be left alone to enjoy your fighting games in peace - which is basically how I feel about go myself, as it happens - I'm not at all sure what point you are making.

Yes, all games are decided by mistakes, even pro games. Another truism. But some people try to minimise them, by study or by modifying their approach to the game. Successful players don't fight for the hell of it, pretending that experimentation is creativity or just hoping that with enough "experience" they will discover some insight, which in my experience is a common amateur approach, mine included.

Among pros everything is much more calculated. One common style of play among Japanese pros for example is to play the percentages in the dull way that pensions companies invest in the main stock markets. Chinese pros and Korean pros, probably because they have shorter games, like to play the secondary markets or dabble in venture capital, but even they are calculating the percentages on a risk versus gain basis. They play risky new moves not to see what will happen and have an exciting game in the process, but because they've studied them already and know there's a good chance they can make a profit in quick games.

Which of these pro approaches is better is hardly the right question. They are adapted to different playing environments. Longer time limits tend to favour the Japanese approach. At present, Chinese and Koreans can have enviably spectacular results, but sober Japanese pros also often look at them and say, yes but they have short careers - we have long ones. In other words, they are translating their avoidance of mistakes from the outcome of one game to an even higher level of a whole career. Whether that's good or bad is really a personal choice, but in the case of Japan especially there is also an element of self-perpetuation - established teachers probably chose people somewhat like themselves.

But whichever cast of pro you are talking about, my contention is still that they all learn go in a different "first principles" way from amateurs. The fact that I personally am not able to identify all the first principles doesn't preclude that observation from being correct.

I'm not convinced by your references to Takemiya and fighting spirit. Takemiya does enjoy telling amateurs to experiment and have fun, but notice that he always stresses that he is talking to amateurs. Many other pros make the same distinction when they give similar advice. If you want to see how Takemiya learnt go himself it is all well chronicled in a book by his father, with many handicap games, and you will certainly not find much experimentation there. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether Takemiya's exuberance in his later play is a reaction to the way he learned, and I also do wonder whether his advice is unsound anyway. At least whenever I've seen an amateur trying to play like Takemiya it ends up as a dog's breakfast, and I find it hard to believe they learn anything from the process - except what a dog's breakfast tastes like.

As to fighting spirit, I suspect you are borrowing this from the phrase as used in many commentaries, where it is used as a translation of Japanese kiai. It is very misleading. Kiai does not have to mean cutting, slashing, thumping, pounding - and very often does not. It is more like determination, or Shakespeare's "gird up your loins". Playing a honte can show kiai - come and get me! Determination and tenacity are commendable even in amateurs. Sheer aggressiveness is probably not, though it may be fun.

Yes, the original comment only made an objective statement about crushing. But if you read on, you will see that I said this brought something else to my mind. That's part of the way discussions work. Similarly, discussions don't require an (a) or (b) approach. We are all perfectly capable of holding more than one thought in our heads at once. As to this being off the original topic - are you serious? The poster wanted to know what approach to take against a particular opening. This is a very common kind of question here. Some people suggest specific ways of "crushing", which it seems is also what some people actually want. I have simply pointed out there may be another "first principles" approach worth exploring - and since you are in favour of exprimentation, why not? If you come up with an all-purpose knife that does 99% of jobs, that is probably better than coming up with a hook for taking stones out of horse's hooves in the hope you meet a lame horse one day.

I think it is worth pointing out that when pro teachers urge us to play defensively they aren't talking about gote moves to make life for a group that is surrounded. Pros strive to make moves with more than one effect, multipurpose moves. The famous ear-reddening move of Shusaku is an example. A move which defends or strengthens one of our groups may make an opponent's group weaker. A gote defensive move may create large endgame plays for later. A common amateur mistake is to attack when your own stones are thin or weak, a tactic that usually backfires. Certainly the outcomes of games are decided by mistakes. The great Sakata said that we don't win because we made good moves, we lose because we made bad ones. Yes none of us really understands the game but when we lose we can try to learn why and try to avoid making the same mistake more than twenty times. If we remember the games we lose wouldn't we have a better chance of not repeating mistakes?

That's a rather interesting observation, to me it fundamentally makes sense. A player with an open mind, I would feel, should almost never use the phrase "How do I punish this mistake?". The statement assumes the opponent's move is wrong, yet admits not knowing why it is wrong. If you do not know a punishment, why are you assuming your opponent made a mistake? (the exception would of course be if some sort of authority had informed you the move was wrong, presumably an explanation would be forthcoming though). To me it almost points to a bit of an "entitled" attitude ("I know I'm right and they're wrong....but I don't know why I'm right and they're wrong...I just know it..."). The pro attitude as you put it might then be, instead of worrying about why your opponent is wrong, just try to make sure your plays are right regardless of the situation.

It seems to me that looking to punish mistakes is a specific activity subsumed by the more general activity of simply looking for the best move and that the obvious effect of deciding (for a particular move) that you're going to do the former is that you limit yourself.

_________________
19/02/2011: this grumpy person takes a voluntary holiday from L19.

Mr. Fairbairn, sorry for the late reply . I'm a bit unsure as to what point you are making yourself as well... Sure, professional players have a different attitude than beginners. Also a truism. Yet, what you seem to be saying is that, for optimal learning, even beginning players should make a professional, or even "honte" approach a priority in their games! That seems a bit strange to me. How can someone try to apply advanced concepts if you don't have a feeling for basic shape and basic fighting? I personally have the feeling that the "optimal" way to get strong (if that is what one desires), is to begin with the fundamentals of go: liberties, shape, tesuji, tsumego, reading. As for the opening, just having a basic feeling of what a big move is should be fine until at least 8 kyu, after that, understanding some basics should do. On top of that, you should review your games critically. This approach is hardly news, I suppose - I have always had the feeling that professionals-in-training are initially taught with a lot of emphasis on reading as well (maybe less so in Japan than elsewhere, I wouldn't know). Perhaps that doesn't hold for the stronger ones. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Unless they are playing like crazy killing machines, telling a 10 kyu to play "honte" tends to lead to uninspired, defensive play in my experience. Also, players around that level hardly seem to benefit from too much opening study - good concepts just tend to get misapplied... Similarly, I don't think I need to repeat the arguments against studying joseki too early!

Of course, once you hit the stronger kyu/lower dan levels, the story might change, and you may have been talking about that. But I cannot say much about that: if I would've had the key to becoming 4 dan, I wouldn't still be here at 1 dan, would I? Yet, I am working at getting stronger, so maybe one day, I will really understand honte. Already, I feel the tesuji flowing through my veins stronger every day! And if there would be a Zen Smiley, I would put it here.

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move