skydyr wrote: I was going to say... There are certainly places you can go to play where the prevalent style seems to be one of fighting anywhere and everywhere possible, without much greater strategic emphasis than that, for a significant range of levels.
In someways the traditional fighting style reminds me of bluegrass, they improvise alot they emphasize spontaneity, but darn if it doesn't all seem the same, and if you play an opening that isn't on the hoshi or in key and perfectly tuned they look at you funny
It's actually not like that at all: nonstandard openings are not uncommon on Tygem, and if you play weird stuff in turn, they won't blink twice.
Shaddy, I was referring to many local clubs, perhaps skydyr was also. My point remains that certain fighting traditions will actually be highly structured and repetitive, so structured that they will require one or both players to play hoshi.
RobertJasiek wrote:"Is it possible to play Go without strategy?" Yes, by playing legal random moves.
The more interesting question, of course, is: "Is it possible to play strong Go without strategy?" Apart from the variety of possible definitions of "strategy" and apart from subconscious replacements for strategy, the answer is: No. It is "No." because strategy-free tactics is simply computationally too complex for decision-making. At the very least, one needs low-level strategy (or related subconscious thinking) for filtering "obviously" uninteresting moves quickly, using a strategy like "First identify and throw away all uninteresting moves, then use tactics and the like for only the interesting moves."
Random is a strategy, perhaps not a very good one, involving no reading and lots of tenuki, and who is to say that under certain high miai games players at many levels confronted with equally good choices don't choose randomly or unpredictably in that context. Pure randomness is simply an extreme extension of that concept.
At this point you're probably going to need to decide on what you consider as strategy...If you are going to say that any set of board plays and passing qualifies as a "strategy", then the original question is a bit silly. Obviously you have to have something classified as a "strategy" if everything is a strategy (even random combinations of board plays and passes). Similarly you will never have to worry about finding a True Scotsman. If you are more interested in "does there need to be a full board plan for coordinating your moves," then I think it's safe to say that yes, a player can play without having a strategy, however that is unlikely to be the strongest course of action. I think the cases that might be most interesting would either be a blitz or large simuls, where you have a strong player who might not have the chance to develop a full board plan for coordinating moves, and instead relies upon exploiting local weaknesses or obvious errors to accumulate an advantage.
RobertJasiek wrote:"Is it possible to play Go without strategy?" Yes, by playing legal random moves.
The more interesting question, of course, is: "Is it possible to play strong Go without strategy?" Apart from the variety of possible definitions of "strategy" and apart from subconscious replacements for strategy, the answer is: No. It is "No." because strategy-free tactics is simply computationally too complex for decision-making. At the very least, one needs low-level strategy (or related subconscious thinking) for filtering "obviously" uninteresting moves quickly, using a strategy like "First identify and throw away all uninteresting moves, then use tactics and the like for only the interesting moves."
Random is a strategy, perhaps not a very good one, involving no reading and lots of tenuki, and who is to say that under certain high miai games players at many levels confronted with equally good choices don't choose randomly or unpredictably in that context. Pure randomness is simply an extreme extension of that concept.
At this point you're probably going to need to decide on what you consider as strategy...If you are going to say that any set of board plays and passing qualifies as a "strategy", then the original question is a bit silly. Obviously you have to have something classified as a "strategy" if everything is a strategy (even random combinations of board plays and passes). Similarly you will never have to worry about finding a True Scotsman. If you are more interested in "does there need to be a full board plan for coordinating your moves," then I think it's safe to say that yes, a player can play without having a strategy, however that is unlikely to be the strongest course of action. I think the cases that might be most interesting would either be a blitz or large simuls, where you have a strong player who might not have the chance to develop a full board plan for coordinating moves, and instead relies upon exploiting local weaknesses or obvious errors to accumulate an advantage.
Strategy is a way to consider something less than simply every possible combination of legal moves while deciding how to play the next move, in this case a random strategy considers no moves.
SmoothOper wrote:Strategy is a way to consider something less than simply every possible combination of legal moves while deciding how to play the next move, in this case a random strategy considers no moves.
So then you would consider exhaustive search of the move tree to find the perfect order of play not a strategy? And everything else is a strategy? Seems like there's no real point to the discussion then...
SmoothOper, the discussion seems difficult when you have a definition of the word strategy that appears to be difficult to all the other contributors so far
SmoothOper wrote:Strategy is a way to consider something less than simply every possible combination of legal moves while deciding how to play the next move, in this case a random strategy considers no moves.
So then you would consider exhaustive search of the move tree to find the perfect order of play not a strategy? And everything else is a strategy? Seems like there's no real point to the discussion then...
That is why I find the whole prospect so perplexing but so many peoples arguments either rely on reading to the end of the game or having access to some professional Oracle
I'd suggest as a useful definition of strategy 'a method for selecting moves past a player's positional judgement and reading ability.'
So on an empty board, is it better to build a moyo or claim safe territory? Since we can't really say for certain, they're both strategies.
Is using 3 stones to claim 3 corners better than using them to build an empty triangle in the center? Yes. That's just positional judgement, no strategy needed.
Is eye-jabbing a strategy for killing a group when careful reading reveals that sealing it in is the only way to kill? No, that's just a mistake if the player was capable of reading out the correct path but didn't.
Exhaustive search of the gametree wouldn't be a strategy under this definition, because that's just a player with perfect reading ability, thus nothing is past it. Neither would random play by even a 30kyu, because they're playing under there ability, just making mistakes.
SmoothOper wrote:That is why I find the whole prospect so perplexing but so many peoples arguments either rely on reading to the end of the game or having access to some professional Oracle
It is only perplexing because you use a definition that is not shared by anyone else in he conversations you have. Similarly I could say that strategy is "playing left handed, but only after making a prime number of passes where that prime number is also greater than your opponent's age." I then could be dumbfounded that this is an abstract strategy game that no one in recorded history has ever used strategy to play! Of course, it would be better to simply try and figure out what others are referring to when they say strategy.
SmoothOper wrote:That is why I find the whole prospect so perplexing but so many peoples arguments either rely on reading to the end of the game or having access to some professional Oracle
It is only perplexing because you use a definition that is not shared by anyone else in he conversations you have. Similarly I could say that strategy is "playing left handed, but only after making a prime number of passes where that prime number is also greater than your opponent's age." I then could be dumbfounded that this is an abstract strategy game that no one in recorded history has ever used strategy to play! Of course, it would be better to simply try and figure out what others are referring to when they say strategy.
Are you suggesting that I should simply accept that reading out every possible combination of moves is a valid strategy for playing Go as well as consulting professional Oracles and maybe psychic readers too?
Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good. My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.
SmoothOper wrote: Are you suggesting that I should simply accept that reading out every possible combination of moves is a valid strategy for playing Go as well as consulting professional Oracles and maybe psychic readers too?
Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good. My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.
Can you be a little more specific? Maybe give an example? Otherwise it's very unclear what is even at stake with this argument. You have some kind of bone to pick but it's not obvious who you're picking it with.
SmoothOper wrote:Are you suggesting that I should simply accept that reading out every possible combination of moves is a valid strategy for playing Go as well as consulting professional Oracles and maybe psychic readers too?
Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good. My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.
Senseis wrote: Go strategy entails devising a plan that may lead to victory, while considering the global position; Go tactics refers to moves played in a local area.
It is foolish to assume that just because people use different definitions than you, that they have some secret agenda.
SmoothOper wrote: Are you suggesting that I should simply accept that reading out every possible combination of moves is a valid strategy for playing Go as well as consulting professional Oracles and maybe psychic readers too?
Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good. My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.
Can you be a little more specific? Maybe give an example? Otherwise it's very unclear what is even at stake with this argument. You have some kind of bone to pick but it's not obvious who you're picking it with.
Not to pick on golem7, but the way he has structured his argument is that you have to "read it out" to make any strategic assessment, I highlighted the relevant text with *** ***.
golem7 wrote:
SmoothOper wrote:Everyone talks about a Professional as if they were an oracle of the game. I am pretty sure this is not true and that professionals are very concerned about strategy
Of course Pros are concerned about strategy. We all are. But you're missing the point. For making good strategical decisions you need to know the status of groups (thick, dead, alive, weak, strong, unsettled, light, cuttable, whatever). That way you can decide whether to tenuki, follow-up, direction of play in general. But therefore you need very good reading. And that is what practise (tsumego) is all about. If, say, you defend a group that was already alive or make attacks that don't threaten anything big, or don't work at all (***because you cannot read it out***), it's almost like a pass. Your opponent can tenuki and you'll lose a lot of points and/or momentum.
Your first diagram unfortunately shows that you cannot yet judge the status of groups accurately. White is clearly in a disadvantageous position. Black is making solid territory while white has two unsettled groups to look after. Please listen to the advice of others: tsumego will help you way more than musing about strategy which you cannot understand without proper reading. I'm not saying: don't study strategy. It helps, of course and can be fun, but it will only take you so far. Reading is the basis of everything. If you want to get stronger, that is.
but so many peoples arguments either rely on 
reading to the end of the game or having access to some professional Oracle 
