Improving Shape (Japanese Especially)

[Simba]

Hey guys ,

I've been playing a little on IGS lately, and have to say that the people on there (the Japanese people especially) all seem to have such beautiful shape. I have played people who are a good half dozen stones weaker than me in theory but have better shape and such, and they only lose since they can't fight like I can. So I am curious - what are the best ways to work on shape for a ~1d person who is very fighty but wants to learn a more rounded game? Am especially curious if anyone is in Japan and has any knowledge of this kind of thing, as their shape just seems to be uniformly fantastic, even at the mid-SDK level .

Any advice (resources and similar) would be much recommended - thanks a lot!

~~Simba

[Javaness2]

Where does a knowledge of good shape come from? - that's what you seem to be asking.

Study of joseki, study of life and death, study of shape (:))
Starting with that book Charles Matthews wrote all those years ago, but nobody would publish, would be a good idea.

He ought to get himself off to one of those eKimble retailers.

[Bill Spight]

My first thought: Study Takagawa's games. (As a dan player, you do not need commentary, although it helps.)

Second thought: Study Fujisawa Hideyuki's games. He may be an even better choice for you, as he has a more fighting style than Takagawa.

Third thought: Study Go Seigen's games. A mysterious player, but he has an exquisite sense of shape.

Fourth thought: Study Shusaku's games, especially his later games.

Takagawa vs. Sakata games are good, because of the difference in styles.

Good luck!

[RobertJasiek]

Since shape is good or bad depending on positional context and functional reasons fitting strategic planning, study both usually good and usually bad shapes and study context, reasons and planning. BTW, I think that shape is independent of countries!

Good shape:
- pro games
- Shape Up!
- Dictionary of Basic Shapes
- haengma, tsumego and tesuji books
- joseki dictionaries
- EDIT: dictionaries of (good) move types (e.g., Joseki 1 Fundamentals, chapter 9)

Bad shapes:
- pro games
- hard to find books

Positional context:
- pro games
- books about strategic choices (read in this order): Joseki 3 Dictionary, Joseki 2 Strategy, Choice of Jungsuk, Whole Board Thinking in Joseki, hard to find strategic choice books about the middle game
- books about positional analysis (read in this order): Joseki 2 Strategy, Joseki 3 Dictionary, Go World 41, Positional Judgement (Cho)

Reasons:
- (read in this order): Joseki 2 Strategy, Joseki 1 Fundamentals, Joseki 3 Dictionary, Fundamental Principles, optionally many other books each with only rather few principles for reasons

Planning:
- (read in this order): Joseki 2 Strategy (short chapter about planning, but good start because it describes planning in general), Joseki 1 Fundamentals (very short chapter about Local Move Selection, but if you do not know what this is, then every further shape study misses the fundamental), various books about opening, fighting, attack & defense, balanced strategic play etc.
- pro games (if you can understand the strategic planning) or commented pro games (if the book authors understand the strategic planning and do not just comment in a per-move style)

[Javaness2]

Robert, it is just bad form to reply with "Please buy and read my books".
Come on

[RobertJasiek]

it is just bad form to reply with "Please buy and read my books".

It is always very good to inform readers (here of forum messages) as well as anyhow possible. Informing everybody about more important books is better than hiding the most important books and informing only about tertiary choices.

[Uberdude]

Robert, it is just bad form to reply with "Please buy and read my books".

If that's bad form, what is it if you omit the "please"?

[RobertJasiek]

If that's bad form, what is it if you omit the "please"?

Why have an extensive meta-discussion about something ("buy") that Javaness2 added? If you really need to discuss such things, then please stick to actually written texts such as "Read my books." in the message

viewtopic.php?p=102366#p102366

You might ask why there is no "please" in that statement. Answer: In that context, "Read my books." is meant as an abbreviation of "I recommend you to read my books because...". Instead of giving lengthy and detailed reasons for the 7 cited considerations, I thought that abbreviating it as a matter of fact statement would be more pleasant for the message's reader.

In this thread, "(read in this order)" is a similar abbreviation of my recommendation of literature in a context of my recommendation of what to study for improving shape.

A "please" has no good place in such factual contexts. So absence of that word simply means that it is a matter of fact message writing style rather than an overly personal communication.

Not using "please" in this context is not an increment of what Javaness2 associates with "buy", but is part of a matter of fact writing style.

Enough OT. What about recommendations by everybody of you for how to study shapes and what to read and why? What about discussion of my recommendations instead of meta-discussion of my recommendations?

[richardamullens]

Good shape:
- pro games
- Shape Up!
- Dictionary of Basic Shapes
- haengma, tsumego and tesuji books
- joseki dictionaries
- EDIT: dictionaries of (good) move types (e.g., Joseki 1 Fundamentals, chapter 9)

What conclusion, if any, should we draw from the absence in the list above of "Making Good Shape" by Rob Van Zeijst and Richard Bozulich ?

[RobertJasiek]

What conclusion, if any, should we draw from the absence in the list above of "Making Good Shape" by Rob Van Zeijst and Richard Bozulich ?

That I do not recommend it. It is too much teaching by example; if somebody wants that, he should look at pro games immediately because there he can get a broader variety of shapes. (Of course, I recommend to understand shape theory before looking at too many examples without really understanding their significance.)

[richardamullens]

What conclusion, if any, should we draw from the absence in the list above of "Making Good Shape" by Rob Van Zeijst and Richard Bozulich ?

That I do not recommend it. It is too much teaching by example; if somebody wants that, he should look at pro games immediately because there he can get a broader variety of shapes. (Of course, I recommend to understand shape theory before looking at too many examples without really understanding their significance.)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[Sumatakyo]

If you want to get good shape, you will have to relearn some things.
Shape is slowly embed in you, and most amateur players don't have that good shape.
(Even in Japan, depending on where you play, lots of people have bad shape.)

From a person playing good shape's perspective (I'm better at shape than fighting):
- Study shape problems
- Learn the "correct" moves
- Don't cut everywhere and anywhere

There are lots of problem based books about shape out there.
I'll try to remember to list the Japanese ones I have when I get back home from work.

--- Edit ---

Here are two problem based tesuji books that are imho great:
- Hitome no Tesuji Mondaishu 600 by Cho Chi Kun
(Summary: 600 Tesuji problems pretty much all about shape. No Japanese reading needed because the answer is on the back and almost no explantions.)
- Hitome de Wakaru Honzuji Zokusuji Taishouhyou by GekkanGogaku
(Summary: 270 tesuji problems. No Japanese reading needed really. The first answer is always the bad/common play. The next answer is the good one.)

Note: This just represents my humble opinion as a mid/high level kyu player that improved mostly by reading Japanese go books and that likes "good shape" go.

[Phoenix]

When I started playing Go, I studied a bunch of Shusaku's games. I replayed them often enough that even at my level I memorized entire games. I couldn't understand any of it, of course, so I had to remember the shape and flow of the stones to recreate them on a board.

As it turned out, I crushed all of my friends simply because I consistently made good shape.

Shape was very important back then, so most strong Go players from the past are worth studying for shape. I would also recommend studying pros who use thick styles. I love Takao Shinji for that, myself.

[singular]

I too am interested in 'shape' because my local positions are more often than not pretty weak. Is Shape Up! really a good bet?

How does one study pro games? Where can I find Takagawa's games and how do I learn from them?

[palapiku]

How does one study pro games? Where can I find Takagawa's games and how do I learn from them?

http://eidogo.com/games?q=takagawa

Play through them, try to understand them (realizing your limitations, i.e. your reading is not good enough to see the entire depth of a pro move), maybe try to memorize one or a few - basically just spend time looking at them and paying attention. The more you do this, the more your brain will see the common patterns of shape, as well as what's urgent and what's not. Trying to guess the next move is a fun game in itself.