I was browsing in a bookshop this morning and noticed a book on improving one's timing - in life, not go. But, having noticed the rather high number of entries for timing in my Go Wisdom indexes, I thought at once that there may be a message there for go.

The first page I looked at contained a list of ten "improvs" to practise better timing. And the first one I noticed was "pass the clap".

It may be that houghmagandie gives you the time of your life, and lots of it may improve your timing, but I don't quite see how it can work on a go board. So I think we should pass on passing the clap. But I think the author was Daniel Pink if you wish to pursue his advice.

As I say, timing comes up a lot in commentaries. But the majority of cases relate to order of moves, which can usually be evaluated mechanically by tewari.

Other examples tend to be of the type "good timing" but rarely (never?) with an explanation. In fact, a goodly proportion of such examples use the English word: ii taimingu. This combination of lack of explanation and the need to use a foreign word seems to tell us that it's not a concept the Japanese have ever addressed properly. I certainly don't recall any books or articles on the topic.

There is a related topic, choshi (which I usually render as momentum) which does get some traction in commentaries, but again very rarely in books. There, I suspect the reason might be that choshi is considered a high-dan topic, which means the market for such books would be tiny. Maybe it's the same for timing, but there I'm more inclined to think the Japanese just haven't thought about addressing the topic properly. I also wonder whether their way of talking about go even obviates much of the need to think about it. Their use of verbs (as opposed to our shape nouns) creates a sense of flow, and the important word ichidanraku (pause point) also shows they have a sense of the end of a flow. This is timing of a sort. But I'm really thinking more of timing as regards when to play a move. That does seem to be lacking in Japanese (and elsewhere, though I have a vague recollection Juergen Mattern may have hinted at it in his book Der richtige Punkt).

In addition, this sort of timing seems to be one area where AI stands out as being different from current pro praxis. For that reason, at least, it should indeed be addressed properly, I think.

Assuming all that is close enough to being true, how do we go about creating a conceptual framework to think about timing? What would be the criteria?

Your review https://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewt ... 859#p64859 did not mention timing and maybe this is a cause for not recalling that there is more timing in Western books than Mattern's.

One well known advice related to invasions is that the timing for invading into an opponent's framework is when one more move would make it into territory. I would interpret that to mean that the invasion should not fail and the opponent has invested enough in the framework that it can't be sacrificed. In a more general sense a move is well timed when it would be effective and it would be difficult for the opponent to ignore it.

Is it the right time for Juergen Mattern's work "Der richtige Punkt" to meet the English reader? Many have probably given it a good thought if it was the right time. While other masterworks in German have made the leap, notably "Lektion der Joseki", what was lost in translation may never be experienced or as Wittgenstein put it: "I am at the end of my German."

See also https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18711

This example did not occur to me, and my instant reaction was to kick myself for forgetfulness. But then I remembered that I have often thought this one of the most deceitful heuristics. If it were true, nobody would ever try to make a moyo. In addition, it is contradicted in a way by the much sounder advice to treat a moyo as virtual territory and to aim to make only half of it into real territory, actually inviting the opponent on to the other half so that you can do so.

Nevertheless, that heuristic did make me realise that timing may not be quite the right word. If we take the more vivid example of boxing, a swift uppercut right on the jaw of the opponent can knock him out if perfectly timed. Timing there is a matter of technique. I had in mind rather the sort of timing that dictates whether you choose this moment to go for the head or the body, or to back off.

More specifically, in go, I am thinking of the situations where moves A and B are all rated close to each other by AI but there is a perceptible difference between them (say 2 percentage points). There seem to be many cases where a pro plays B but the AI prefers A, but if you follow the AI line, a few moves later it often gives B as the best move then. So it seems to be a matter of timing. However, it may also be a matter of style, or even just inherent unreliability of the AI's judgement.

However, that last point perhaps goes against the clear propensity of the bots, compared with human pros, to play moves like the early 3-3, the early shoulder hits, the early attachments against shimaris, the early forcing moves and the early ajikeshi moves. Putting it like that suggests a clear pattern that has something to do with what I can only term timing (or maybe different prioritising?).

Another way I was forgetful was to overlook the great popularity, compared with amateurs, of probes by human pros, again as indicated at least by Go Wisdom collations. I suppose these indirectly assume more concern by pros with timing than I had first assumed.

This argument can be used for any type of timing: Q - "what is the right time to approach a 3-4 stone" A - "More urgent than a 4-4 approach but less than playing an open corner, about on par with responding to a similar move".

If this were true, nobody would ever play a 3-4.

The existence of good timing doesn't invalidate previous efforts by the opponent. Rather it strikes the best for both that can be expected.

Doesn't seem that way to me. One big difference between adding a move to a moyo as opposed to an initial move in an empty corner is that you are investing a lot more and so your options are much reduced by the need to protect the investment. Who has the initiative as opposed to sente also comes into it.

I could have shot myself down with a more subtle argument, but I didn't want to stray from the topic of timing. That is, your final move prior to completing a moyo should be created in such a way that it is miai. The opponent can still invade it, but you have already lined up compensation elsewhere. But maybe miai is an an aspect of timing.

Measures and counter-measures are not an argument by themselves. You only get one stone per move, and we all know that moves should in general have more than one purpose or possible continuation. It's always complicated.

I think when a comment says »good timing«, it is an abbreviation for some deeper reading (that is probably omitted). You, as a reader, can either take the hint and work it out, or you can leave it as is, but then there is little you learn from this (except maybe some nudge in intuition).

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Every heuristic is an abbreviation for deep reading.

"good timing" to me means "this move has been available for some time now but previously it would either destroy possibilities which are potentially better (aji-keshi) or the opponent can play a big move elsewhere (tenuki), i.e. your move is not sente."

So, if you can apply these other heuristics ajikeshi and tenuki/sente, you probably understand "good timing".

A related proverb is "urgent before big" but here I find it more useful to phrase it as "stabilizing an existing group is often bigger than developing/claiming empty areas, while the latter may look bigger".

There's also "force before connecting" where an otherwise slow or ineffectual forcing move may be the correct move in this instance due to proper timing. I'd say that endgame moves are also to a large extent a matter of timing. Very small sente moves or moves that force a dame connection are not played until the end even if it's guaranteed that the opponent would answer. I would call playing such a move too soon bad timing. Another example of timing are probes. There may be good timing to play a probe and then tenuki until the time is right again to take advantage of it.

Timing is a special case of correct move order. Quite some endgame theory by me, Bill Spight, Elwyn Berlekamp et. al. solves the correct move order directly or by repeated application move after move.