Flattened handicaps

[SmoothOper]

I get the impression that stronger players assume that they are being nice giving handicaps, and that playing them will somehow improve the weaker players game. Though in my experience at clubs mostly you just see mostly vulgar hamete. Also it seems the "stronger club players" are seldom disciplined enough to effectively use komi as an alternative to handicaps or freely placed handicaps, which suggests that they prefer the nirense fuseki because that is the only game they know. So I find playing these types of players to be a degrading experience, and prefer not to do it, until I can legitimately beat them evenly. Go be a professional player and study in a dojo and pass some tests then you can be considered an honor to play.

People actually think it is an honour for other to play them? I find that hard to believe that would be at all common. And in my experience is that, if anything, when a weaker player takes full handicap it is more a matter of the weaker player being nice, and if there is less handicap the stronger player is being nice. When I play weaker players, they usually don't want to take handicap, or at least not enough to make the game challenging. So saying that giving handicap is trying to be nice to the weaker player sounds strange to me. But saying that the stronger player does it because s/he expects to be worshiped for it sounds even stranger.

How do you explain that "strong club players" don't like to use komi or free handicaps then?

[skydyr]

I get the impression that stronger players assume that they are being nice giving handicaps, and that playing them will somehow improve the weaker players game. Though in my experience at clubs mostly you just see mostly vulgar hamete. Also it seems the "stronger club players" are seldom disciplined enough to effectively use komi as an alternative to handicaps or freely placed handicaps, which suggests that they prefer the nirense fuseki because that is the only game they know. So I find playing these types of players to be a degrading experience, and prefer not to do it, until I can legitimately beat them evenly. Go be a professional player and study in a dojo and pass some tests then you can be considered an honor to play.

I think there are two schools of thought to this. One is that hamete or trick plays are fine in this context, and the other that they are unfair. I think it depends on the way the game is played. If it's seen as a game to be won, then however you win is fine, within the rules; the handicap makes up for the fact that these will sometimes work. If it's more of a teaching game, then it's up to the stronger player to play in a way that is instructional. At some point, a player needs to learn to deal with trick plays, so provide that there is a review after, I think it should be acceptable even in an instructional game. The big difference to me is whether white makes sure that black learns how to handle the situation the next time it comes up, or expects to keep relying on it to further their own ego. This is more of a problem with the player than the handicap used, of course.

[Coyote]

Tradition and consistency.

When a stronger player gives a handicap they've put themselves in a situation where they are behind on the board. This is a situation you can get yourself into during the course of a game so practice against it is important. The weaker player must make proper use of the stones to defend while not being too passive, a situation which can also naturally occur during a game.

Komi is not natural. If you were given a high Komi you can play very slow knowing that losing territory isn't such a big deal because you have guaranteed points.

The goal should be a fun challenging game.

[SmoothOper]

Tradition and consistency.

When a stronger player gives a handicap they've put themselves in a situation where they are behind on the board. This is a situation you can get yourself into during the course of a game so practice against it is important. The weaker player must make proper use of the stones to defend while not being too passive, a situation which can also naturally occur during a game.

Komi is not natural. If you were given a high Komi you can play very slow knowing that losing territory isn't such a big deal because you have guaranteed points.

The goal should be a fun challenging game.

These are subjective in my opinion for example one stone vs. having no komi. The no komi is more natural, because the player is free to place that one stone, which is IMO more natural. Counting komi and territory on the board are fundamentals of the game, and shouldn't matter whether there are handicaps or not, and stronger players not doing this indicates that they need to work on their fundamentals more and less on their hamete.

[Grisalger]

How do you explain that "strong club players" don't like to use komi or free handicaps then?

I don't. It is easy to think of possible reasons why people would dislike those forms of handicap, but don't actually know. I still think that the explanation that it is because they want to be worshiped makes no logical sense.

[SmoothOper]

How do you explain that "strong club players" don't like to use komi or free handicaps then?

I don't. It is easy to think of possible reasons why people would dislike those forms of handicap, but don't actually know. I still think that the explanation that it is because they want to be worshiped makes no logical sense.

So they don't want to be worshiped. That is fine, I am just saying those worthy of respect would have had to do a little more to earn my respect than show up with a bunch of hamete moves, then try to tell me what's what, like for example participated in professional examination or study in a dojo. These are typical ways that go players learn their actual strength and what are the proper methods to teach, and techniques for teaching.

[oren]

So they don't want to be worshiped. That is fine, I am just saying those worthy of respect would have had to do a little more to earn my respect than show up with a bunch of hamete moves, then try to tell me what's what, like for example participated in professional examination or study in a dojo. These are typical ways that go players learn their actual strength and what are the proper methods to teach, and techniques for teaching.

I don't think they show up and care about your respect. They go to go clubs to have fun games. If you're proposing something they don't consider interesting to them, then why would they play? I usually play smaller handicap games thank rank differences call for because I'm lazy in handicap games.

[jts]

I might give a friend free handicap to humor him, but in general, the fuseki of a handicap game is very aggravating for white, and the only silver lining is that you can experiment with new ideas that you can apply later in your other handicap games. (Beyond the fact that most people who want free placement have bizarre ideas about what would be a good setup.)

If we define a hamete as "a bad move that becomes good if the opponent responds the way you want him to", it's black who usually plays more hamete.

Be that as it may, I agree that there's a tendency for a 6k reviewing for a 8k to assume that every single black move where he would have played differently is bad. It's often embarrassing to eavesdrop on weaker players reviewing for still weaker players, so I try to channel that and focus on the most obvious points in my own reviews.

[SmoothOper]

If we define a hamete as "a bad move that becomes good if the opponent responds the way you want him to", it's black who usually plays more hamete.

I don't think hamete is generally defined that way. From sensei's library: "Hamete is a Japanese go term, also used in English, referring to a trap in joseki, typically a tricky but incorrect play that requires skill to refute."

And the reason I prefer not to learn these, is because I don't want to have to unlearn them when I play better players. This is also the reason why clubs fail to attract really good players, the good players don't want their games ruined by skillfully refuting bad plays. The shameful thing about hamete is that often the player playing hamete doesn't know the difference, or what hamete is.

[oren]

This is also the reason why clubs fail to attract really good players, the good players don't want their games ruined by skillfully refuting bad plays. The shameful thing about hamete is that often the player playing hamete doesn't know the difference, or what hamete is.

Why do you think this has anything to do with people showing up to clubs? This is the first I would have heard this line of reasoning.

If anything I see more hamete online (Except for Sol ).

[Mef]

If we define a hamete as "a bad move that becomes good if the opponent responds the way you want him to", it's black who usually plays more hamete.

I don't think hamete is generally defined that way. From sensei's library: "Hamete is a Japanese go term, also used in English, referring to a trap in joseki, typically a tricky but incorrect play that requires skill to refute."

And the reason I prefer not to learn these, is because I don't want to have to unlearn them when I play better players. This is also the reason why clubs fail to attract really good players, the good players don't want their games ruined by skillfully refuting bad plays. The shameful thing about hamete is that often the player playing hamete doesn't know the difference, or what hamete is.

I get the feeling that you are actually defining hamete as "move that I think is an overplay but wasn't able to punish in a game". Instead of worrying about whether something is hamete, just focus on finding the best response, and if you are able to win, great, if not figure out how you can play differently to do better in the future. The mentality behind your opponent's move has no effect on the way the actual board position can play out. In short, play the position, not the player.

[SmoothOper]

If we define a hamete as "a bad move that becomes good if the opponent responds the way you want him to", it's black who usually plays more hamete.

I don't think hamete is generally defined that way. From sensei's library: "Hamete is a Japanese go term, also used in English, referring to a trap in joseki, typically a tricky but incorrect play that requires skill to refute."

And the reason I prefer not to learn these, is because I don't want to have to unlearn them when I play better players. This is also the reason why clubs fail to attract really good players, the good players don't want their games ruined by skillfully refuting bad plays. The shameful thing about hamete is that often the player playing hamete doesn't know the difference, or what hamete is.

I get the feeling that you are actually defining hamete as "move that I think is an overplay but wasn't able to punish in a game". Instead of worrying about whether something is hamete, just focus on finding the best response, and if you are able to win, great, if not figure out how you can play differently to do better in the future. The mentality behind your opponent's move has no effect on the way the actual board position can play out. In short, play the position, not the player.

Well, go ahead feel that way. No one is stopping you. But I tell you where I put my handicaps.

[cdybeijing]

I feel my original comments have been interpreted poorly.

If I am a significantly stronger player, all I want is a challenging game. I want to avoid the boredom of repeatedly playing tedious even games against an opponent with a small chance of winning. There is no reason to assume I would oppose free placement or alternative komi or time odds or some other such factor. There is also no reason to assume I would want to play hamete.

People generally love the feeling of playing a stronger player even because they are freerolling. But there is very little appreciation for how a stronger player feels while playing a highly ambitious albeit much weaker opponent.

[hyperpape]

Quantification is key here. How much weaker are we talking about? I'm not questioning the value of handicaps in general, only the need to be persnickety about the size of the handicaps we give between players who are only a few stones apart.

[cdybeijing]

Quantification is key here. How much weaker are we talking about? I'm not questioning the value of handicaps in general, only the need to be persnickety about the size of the handicaps we give between players who are only a few stones apart.

I actually think a qualitative assessment is more appropriate, but for the sake of quantifying let's assume we are talking about opponents with a difference of at least 4 ranks.

Quick ninja edit: If the appropriate handicap is 4 stones, I am unlikely to care or notice if we play on 3 stones, or 2 stones. But if the weaker player insists on even games only, that is rude. The mental barrier of the weaker player is typically not about the size of the handicap given, but whether or not he/she will accept handicap in principle.