What are "the Basics"?

[RobertJasiek]

oren, it is not just an opinion but a conclusion from the fact that, during the 19 years, I have seen no [European] 5k to 9k who was aware of avoiding all DDK level mistakes and I have seen only one other player, who was 8p, being able to hint at the general idea of maximising territory when defending its border. Now, that it is stated explicitly, everybody will say "obvious". It is far from obvious. Because nobody had stated the principle before, I learnt it as a 5d and had previously not applied it to center territories. Already every DDK should learn this principle.

Discovering things by oneself is much harder and becoming complete without having explicit references even more so. The history of science in different parts of the world shows this, too.

[Shaddy]

the general idea of maximising territory when defending its border. Now, that it is stated explicitly, everybody will say "obvious". It is far from obvious.

I'm sorry, but... what?! Are you referring to the idea that you should maximize territory at the border, or is there a technique for doing so implicit in this statement? I find it hard to believe that this is not obvious, it's just that doing it takes some reading and so people below mid-high dan don't tend to do it.

[RobertJasiek]

Are you referring to the idea that you should maximize territory at the border,

Yes.

I find it hard to believe that this is not obvious,

As I have said, now everybody will say "obvious";) Why didn't they tell me the "obvious" before? Because it is only obvious once stated explicitly.

it's just that doing it takes some reading and so people below mid-high dan don't tend to do it.

Even without much reading, applying the principle is better than not applying it.

[oren]

oren, it is not just an opinion but a conclusion from the fact...

Your "research" has nothing to do with this conversation. The discussion is what people believe the basics of go is. This is not fact and is only people's opinion. Saying someone else is not correct only shows how flawed your "research" is if you don't understand this. You need to learn to present your opinions better.

So don't dismiss anyone else's posts and opinions by saying "You are not correct". The truth is they are just as correct as you are.

[Shaddy]

Robert, I can't speak for others. But I tell you honestly that I have had explicit knowledge of this idea since I was SDK. Also, in general applying the principle is not always better than not applying it, since if you do it poorly you tend to leave aji behind for the opponent to break in.

[Bazoo]

Try adding "in my opinion" or "in my experience". A statement that says someone else is not correct in this instance can only be an opinion and not fact. This will help you in your communication with others in the future I hope.

Surely you mean:

Try adding "in my opinion" or "in my experience". A statement that says someone else is not correct in this instance can, in my opinion, only be an opinion and not fact.

[speedchase]

Surely you mean:

Try adding "in my opinion" or "in my experience". A statement that says someone else is not correct in this instance can, in my opinion, only be an opinion and not fact.

I doubt he means that. Opinions regarding what constituted "basics" are opinions. Correct classifying of these phrases is objective.

[John Fairbairn]

the general idea of maximising territory when defending its border. Now, that it is stated explicitly, everybody will say "obvious". It is far from obvious.

This is bovine excrement (in my opinion). First, there are many, many cases where it's not true. In just one Shuei game I was editing today, there were two counter-examples. In one case it was strategically bad because the result would leave the opponent with a stable group. In that position it was considered better to keep the group weak and attackable at the cost of quite a few boundary points on the edge. In the other case it was tactically bad because maximising ran the risk of leaving aji - aji which was far from obvious.

Insofar as you wish to claim it is usually true for weak players (i.e. 5-dan amateur and below), it is probably too obvious to need stating even in English, but it might be said to be implicit in the etymology of Japanese terms such as yose and yoritsuku. It is also implicit in the moves of pros whose games we are supposed to study. If you need to be explicit, refer to page 587 of the best ever beginners' book by far (围棋实用全典) by Zhao Jiyun (1997)*. This page is the introduction to the boundary-play section. I'm sure I could also provide examples from before RJ was even born, but such a ludicrous claim doesn't seem to need heavy artillery to shoot it down.

No doubt, though, we'll find that maximising-2 was meant

----
*Over 700 very large pages of small type before anyone asks if it will be translated into Engish or is on the internet. And Zhao was not weak - 6-dan pro.

[lemmata]

Just what are the Basics exactly?

An exact answer is not possible... Each person will have a different idea.

My idea of the basics comes from sports. What are the basics of basketball? For offense: Dribbling, passing, shooting. For defense: Low posture, hands up, sideways movement, boxing out. Notice that these are non-strategic skills. In sports, I tend to think of strategy as a higher level concept and the basics as frequently used basic skills that are put together to create strategic plans.

In that sense, for go, I think the basics are:

1. Recognizing life/death/seki when given a finished position.
2. Counting the territory of a group whose borders are complete.
3. Reading 1 move, 2 moves, 3 moves, 4 moves (and more) ahead.

The basics related to shooting the basketball involve the basic form of shooting an uncontested jump shot well. Elbow tucked in, feet staggered, knees slightly bent, fingers spread apart, one hand on the side, etc...

If I adopt the same paradigm of what constitutes the basics, then, #1 should including all the information about basic L&D shapes such as three-in-a-row, vital points of the bulky-5/flower-6, L+2, common wisdom about making good eye-shape, etc... We might also restate my list as follows:

1. Basic Life & Death
2. Counting
3. Basic Tesuji

I tend to think of whole board strategy as non-basic, and that is because whole board strategies are executed by using the skills in this short list as tools. Each step of a whole board strategy hinges on at least on of these skills.

Similarly, in basketball, you might have a detailed plan about when and where you will shoot, dribble, or pass in response to what the opponent does. However, if your basic shooting/dribbling/passing skills are weak, you will likely fail in the execution of some step of your strategy.

Basic skills (in the way I have defined them), tend to be easy to describe, but hard to acquire, and often require somewhat monotonous repetition (ever try doing dribbling/rebounding drills?) so that you can use them without thinking about them.

Of course, the reward is well worth the effort...

[EdLee]

(围棋实用全典) by Zhao Jiyun (1997)*.

If it's 趙之雲 (赵之云), the pinyin is Zhao Zhiyun.

[John Fairbairn]

If it's 趙之雲 (赵之云), the pinyin is Zhao Zhiyun.

Yes, as I indeed have it in my Names Dictionary. Just my sloppiness, I'm afraid.

[SmoothOper]

Just what are the Basics exactly?

An exact answer is not possible... Each person will have a different idea.

My idea of the basics comes from sports. What are the basics of basketball? For offense: Dribbling, passing, shooting. For defense: Low posture, hands up, sideways movement, boxing out. Notice that these are non-strategic skills. In sports, I tend to think of strategy as a higher level concept and the basics as frequently used basic skills that are put together to create strategic plans.

In that sense, for go, I think the basics are:

1. Recognizing life/death/seki when given a finished position.
2. Counting the territory of a group whose borders are complete.
3. Reading 1 move, 2 moves, 3 moves, 4 moves (and more) ahead.

The basics related to shooting the basketball involve the basic form of shooting an uncontested jump shot well. Elbow tucked in, feet staggered, knees slightly bent, fingers spread apart, one hand on the side, etc...

If I adopt the same paradigm of what constitutes the basics, then, #1 should including all the information about basic L&D shapes such as three-in-a-row, vital points of the bulky-5/flower-6, L+2, common wisdom about making good eye-shape, etc... We might also restate my list as follows:

1. Basic Life & Death
2. Counting
3. Basic Tesuji

I tend to think of whole board strategy as non-basic, and that is because whole board strategies are executed by using the skills in this short list as tools. Each step of a whole board strategy hinges on at least on of these skills.

Similarly, in basketball, you might have a detailed plan about when and where you will shoot, dribble, or pass in response to what the opponent does. However, if your basic shooting/dribbling/passing skills are weak, you will likely fail in the execution of some step of your strategy.

Basic skills (in the way I have defined them), tend to be easy to describe, but hard to acquire, and often require somewhat monotonous repetition (ever try doing dribbling/rebounding drills?) so that you can use them without thinking about them.

Of course, the reward is well worth the effort...

I like this approach that you are suggesting for what the "basics" are. In general the basics in basketball only introduce the rules as are necessary, but in general are more about how to compete at the game.

However depending on the overall strategy that your systems plays the basics may be different. For example if your team is a fast break team, vs. press break, vs. slow down ball control vs. an execution team vs. a dribble drive high contact team. vs. a shooting team etc. vs. an execution team. Pressing teams will almost only shoot layups and slow down ball control team may never press.

The same goes for go there are different styles of play, and they will have different "Basics". Territory oriented and influence oriented for certain have very different basics.

[hyperpape]

oren, it is not just an opinion but a conclusion from the fact that, during the 19 years, I have seen no [European] 5k to 9k who was aware of avoiding all DDK level mistakes and I have seen only one other player, who was 8p, being able to hint at the general idea of maximising territory when defending its border. Now, that it is stated explicitly, everybody will say "obvious". It is far from obvious. Because nobody had stated the principle before, I learnt it as a 5d and had previously not applied it to center territories. Already every DDK should learn this principle.

Discovering things by oneself is much harder and becoming complete without having explicit references even more so. The history of science in different parts of the world shows this, too.

http://xkcd.com/1112/

[Tami]

An additional twist is that things can have a habit of seeming basic, once and only once you have understood them. What is "basic" to me will seem advanced to a 10 kyu, because a 10 kyu might not have grasped it yet, and likewise what is difficult for me may seem like common knowledge to a 3 dan, and what is difficult for such a player may seem trivial to a pro, etc.

I`m coming to the conclusion that it`s best just to learn as much about go as you possibly can, and to let your unconscious mind synthesise it into a working system, rather than to attempt to funnel the game into a set of algorithms. The game seems far too big to tackle with a "top down" approach; instead, it appears better to take each position as it comes, and to use what you know and can read to find the best solution you can. This is coming from the one who has given "checklists" and "compasses" and what have you a jolly good testing, and not gained very much from them.

[RobertJasiek]

I have had explicit knowledge of this idea since I was SDK.

So do you agree that having had this knowledge as explicit knowledge has been an advantage for you in comparison to not having had it as explicit knowledge?

I do not doubt that some people have had this explicit knowledge for themselves, but I have observed that those (except that 8p) having it have not shared it to me: not in teaching me, not in teaching others, not when they must avoid related mistakes in their own games, not in kibitzes of KGS games.

I also do not say that every player makes exactly the same mistakes, but I say that every 5k-9k player still makes some DDK mistakes because he is not aware of the related explicit knowledge with which to avoid them. (For 1k-5k, it may more often be a case of having related DDK knowledge but sometimes still forgetting to apply it.)

Also, in general applying the principle is not always better than not applying it, since if you do it poorly you tend to leave aji behind for the opponent to break in.

It is one of the principles that can have exceptions. Before one can study and understand the principle's exceptions, one must first be aware of the principle itself. One of the exceptions is to take a slightly less than maximal amount of territory so as not to strengthen the opposing stones unncessarily but leave behind aji due to which his increased territory potential can still be reduced.