A beginner's journal of little interest

[mitsun]

Whew, I did not mean to start such a big side-track. But while we are on the subject ...

I was taught to count the traditional Japanese way, where the value assigned to a move is the difference between "B plays gote" and "W plays gote". Since this is a difference of two moves, some people like to divide by two to get the value per move. Instead of this, I prefer to multiply by two in cases where the difference is one move rather than two, which happens when one side can keep sente. Another way of saying the same thing is that a reverse-sente move has twice the value of a gote move.

In the example here, the B hane is likely sente, while the W descent is gote (reverse-sente), so the difference in end positions is one move. The difference in territory is 4 points, so for counting I consider this an 8-point yose play.

(In the actual game, the W move was hane rather than descent, so if you are a stickler for precision, you can subtract some fraction of a point for the throw-in which Bill pointed out.)

[Boidhre]

Whew, I did not mean to start such a big side-track. But while we are on the subject ...

A welcome side track and a large hole in my knowledge. Thank you.

[Boidhre]

Health: Not dealing too well with the lack of a mood stabiliser. My sleep pattern has gotten very disrupted and no amount of sedatives seems to fix it. Couldn't sleep at all last night.

Thinking on the game: I've come to trust my instincts a lot more. Whether this is going to be bad or good for me I don't know, but I'm trusting my gut on making a lot of calls and trying to feed the unconscious with as many moves and positions as possible, through pro games, watching games, going through previous reviews in this thread and playing games. Whether this works, eh I don't know. I'm slowly coming to maintain a whole board perspective beyond the fuseki, this is helping a lot I think. I still have a lot of problems, mainly not recognising influence I'm giving to the other player or allowing them to take, and of course the ever-present beginner mistakes. The strongest player at the club gave me a compliment though, that I'd made a breakthrough in my games against her. Where before during fights I left behind weakness after weakness, now I patch them up before they can be exploited or just don't leave them in the first place. I think this is true of my games with her at least, since she used to cut up my positions with ease and now doesn't.

For some reason, I've over the past month, found the games of much stronger players far more intelligible than before. I can get a sense of why they make moves a lot more often than previously. I think this is just a matter of sufficient exposure to the game for my subconscious to have picked up on the patterns and shapes a la the chess research someone mentioned in another thread. I feel that I intuitively understand more than I used to and that this is improving. Now whether I can turn this into results on the board is a separate matter altogether but I'm finding my enjoyment of the game deepened by this, especially when playing a strong player. I think I appreciate better what makes them strong, even if I do not have it myself.


I haven't been playing much with my sleep and my wife preparing for an academic conference this weekend. C'est la vie. I have been doing problems though and have started to play through pro games. I don't think either of these are a substitute for grinding out games for me personally but I enjoy them and they at least can't hurt (much).

One thing that has been intimidating me, but I think I'll surmount it, is that I'm beginning to get to a place where I'm facing players with vastly more game experience than myself who for whatever reason have gotten stuck at a particular rank for many games. This bothers me as I know a key weakness of mine is simply not having been exposed to enough situations on the board. This was noted by a clubmate when he pointed out that he'd been playing for nearly 10 years on and off and I'd been playing 6 months and even in those 6 months only actively for a couple due to depression/mania/etc. Somehow though he thinks I've a better understanding of theory than he does. Which doesn't make sense to me, the "theory" I have is mostly from just looking at the stones on the board and seeing something. It's more of an intuitive thing than a learned thing again. I don't understand why this is the case, or even how this can be the case versus someone with an order of magnitude more games under their belt.


One question I have for others, did you ever find yourself looking at a shape and just liking it but not really understand it? It's been going on for ages for me (pretty much since my first couple of games) that I look at a go board and see shapes that look good to me and look bad to me but I've no explanation for it. Especially light shapes. I was recently studying the attachment invasion to a 4,4 stone and came across such wonderful shapes being made by pros. So efficient, so delicate, each move having meaning and its place. I can't pretend to understand them, but they seem fundamentally right to me if that makes sense.


Anyway, sorry for the rambling post, I'm feeling pretty enthused about go at the moment but know better than to try to play when sleep deprived with sedatives in my system. The one thing I'm kicking myself over is not taking this game up 15 years ago when I first heard about it! Though I was far more ill back then so it's probably for the best that I've taken it up seriously when my health has been at its best for well over two decades.

[tomukaze]

Nice post Boidhre. I think you will become a very dangerous (here I mean good) player very soon. If you can see those shapes so early on or rather have some intuition for shape so early in your go playing career I believe you have talent for the game.
I personally have rubbish shape, hence reading a book about it, and trying desperately to make the "good" empty triangle in my games

Keep up the good work and hope you'll be back playing soon!

[Splatted]

I second what tomukaze said. It's really impressive that you already have such a good grasp of shape. I still make horrible shapes and have real trouble telling which is which, so I think I'm going to copy you and spend more time going over pro games.

[Boidhre]

I wouldn't say I've a good grasp of shape because while I can sometimes see good shape I can't necessarily understand the shape I see and know it it's the right one for this local situation. I've often made the wrong shape move for a given context etc. I also still completely miss certain shapes, especially when fighting. Just look at any of the reviews in this thread by Ed pointing out my shape errors.

[tomukaze]

Yes pro games are quite fun to replay. I especially like Go Seigen, well that is the only book on pro games I have. How about you what pros are you reading?

[tomukaze]

P.S. @Boidhre: Modesty modesty modesty!

[Boidhre]

Yes pro games are quite fun to replay. I especially like Go Seigen, well that is the only book on pro games I have. How about you what pros are you reading?

I was looking at Invincible, I've Lee Sedol's commented games arriving on Monday so I'll get to replay some amazing fights.

[Boidhre]

P.S. @Boidhre: Modesty modesty modesty!

Realism, realism, realism!

[Splatted]

Even if your not being modest, it still sounds like you have a better sense of shape than me. XD

It is really fun going over pro games. I didn't realise before. I just bought the first in John Fairbairn's series detailing Honinbo Shuhei's games. I think it's going to be really interesting to not only analyse his style of play, but also watch his development as a player. There are so many other players that I also want to read about though.

[Boidhre]

The go club went very well today as per usual and really put me in a mood to study afterwards. I used the Chinese fuseki in two games for the first time in over 3 months and had forgotten the theory behind it. So I spent my evening fixing that, or at least beginning to fix that. It's put me in quite a good mood. I do enjoy study with an immediate use. I look forward to my next even games with black with eagerness and equally look forward to playing against the Chinese as white.

Is it efficient for me to be studying fuseki? Perhaps not. But the Chinese, when played properly (or as properly as someone my level can do anyway), forces the kind of fighting that I desperately need to improve at so I think the Chinese might be a good platform for me to grow from for the moment. I flirted with the mini-Chinese and Orthodox fusekis (I fell into the Orthodox by people refusing to play 4,4 and allow the mini/micro Chinese :p) but found the first too tricky variation wise for me yet and the second too, well, slow feeling? It's not slow but it doesn't feel "fast" to me and one thing I really favour for black is fast, fast openings for no good reason other than taste (well I could argue komi but eh I'm not strong enough to make those kinds of arguments in my opinion). Orthodox is obviously played by pros today so it's obviously perfectly viable as a fuseki, I just didn't find it a good fit for me taste wise.

Health wise: Can't sleep tonight despite taking sedatives.


So the question I have for anyone reading this: What has been your experience with the Chinese fuseki? I'd be interested in hearing if people found a lot of counter play from opponents opening with two 3,4 points and similar.

Also I'm intrigued by: http://senseis.xmp.net/?HighConceptOpeningMyth
I find 1934 games with a nirensei vs Chinese opening in GoGoD running up to 2011. So if the pros are playing it and still playing it, surely it can't be that bad? All points about the popularity of micro and mini Chinese variants accepted. The mini/micro Chinese *really* appeals to me shape-wise. Moreso than the Chinese which already appeals to me shape wise. I fell in love with them the first time I saw them on a board. The Chinese is a *lot* more straightforward variations wise if you ignore the option of pincering the N4 approach by black from ym admittedly limited understanding of these things. Am I correct in avoiding fuseki whose shape/feel I prefer simply because of the mountain of variations involved? Or would I be getting into fuseki territory with them that is far above my head at the moment? Or should I be challenging myself and pushing the envelope out by a good bit taking myself out of my comfort zone and tackling a fuseki that interests me for no reason other than I think the shape is nice and some of the ideas behind it interesting?

Anyway, sorry, very much in a study/thinking about go mood after today's club and my lack of ability to sleep is just compounding things greatly.

[Bill Spight]

The mini/micro Chinese *really* appeals to me shape-wise. Moreso than the Chinese which already appeals to me shape wise.

The mini-Chinese was used by White in handicap games by the early 19th century.

Am I correct in avoiding fuseki whose shape/feel I prefer simply because of the mountain of variations involved? Or would I be getting into fuseki territory with them that is far above my head at the moment? Or should I be challenging myself and pushing the envelope out by a good bit taking myself out of my comfort zone and tackling a fuseki that interests me for no reason other than I think the shape is nice and some of the ideas behind it interesting?

Given that you have a good feel for the game, I would generally say go with your feel.

As for getting in over your head, pushing the envelope, and your comfort zone:

1) At your stage of learning you should not have an envelope. Does a baby learning to walk worry about envelopes?

2) Your comfort zone is not a very good guide for learning. Experimentation is good.

3) How far you are over your head is a good guide for learning. Go has an element of jumping in the water to learn how to swim. If the level of difficulty is too low, you do not learn much. As Goethe said, if you can think something through you are not really thinking. If the level of difficulty is too high, you do not learn much, either. There is a Goldilocks level that is just right. For winning games, traditional handicaps provide a good level of difficulty. But, especially at your level, learning occurs within games, so somewhat inadequate handicaps may be best for learning.

[virgo]

For Chinese at our level, look at my EGC games. I will use it at Bochum tournament next month too. I will keep you posted. Unfortunately, since I went back from holidays, it is tough to take time to play more.

[Boidhre]

For Chinese at our level, look at my EGC games. I will use it at Bochum tournament next month too. I will keep you posted. Unfortunately, since I went back from holidays, it is tough to take time to play more.

Thanks virgo.