Where should a beginner look for moves?

[daal]

Thanks, I edited it. BTW, even if I failed miserably, I think this is a great type of exercise.

[PeterPeter]

This thread has been really helpful in focussing my middle-game play on potentially vulnerable groups, and attacking them. Thanks all!

[Phoenix]

This thread has been really helpful in focussing my middle-game play on potentially vulnerable groups, and attacking them. Thanks all!

Remember to watch for your own stones. It's easy to attack a weak group and find yourself on the defensive ten moves later. Always plan ahead.

[Mef]

There are a lot of good answers and good discussions going on. Just to throw one more idea into the mix, a saying I heard somewhere and have found useful - Only play moves you can name.

It might seem strange at first, but there's a certain logic to it. If you can name the move, it's something you have seen before and are familiar with. If you can properly describe the move you know what you are trying to accomplish with it. Perhaps an example will help. this is slightly artificial, but a similar position came up in a game I was review recently:

$$B Awkward shape
$$ -------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . O O O X . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . B X . .
$$ | . . . . . b a . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Awkward shape
$$ -------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . O O O X . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . B X . .
$$ | . . . . . b a . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

was a move that had been played along the edge of two frameworks trying to expand. But the shape relationship between and is an awkward one. I don't know how to describe it and I'm pretty sure the person playing black didn't either (=

Now a move at 'a' on the other hand would feel natural, and is easy to describe (knight's move!). Being familiar with a knight's move you would know how relatively connected it is to , you would know common cuts to watch out for, and maybe that a ladder to the lower right corner might come into play later. Similarly, you could look at 'b' and it would be a familiar large knight's move. You would know that this is a larger, looser expanding move, can be more easily cut with move at 'a', and that perhaps could be used for a sacrifice or redirection strategy. Coming back to you don't quite have that same familiarity. Similarly, the fact that there isn't a common shape name for it might suggest it doesn't solve a lot of common problems.

Now this can be applied for both tactics and strategy, but at the end of the day it helps specifically if you can put what you are doing into words (Name your move) -

Common Tactics: Hane, connect, one space jump, knight's move, diagonal move, eye-stealing tesuji, shoulder hit, cutting at the waist, etc, etc

Common strategic aims - Wedging, reducing, splitting, etc

[skydyr]

There are a lot of good answers and good discussions going on. Just to throw one more idea into the mix, a saying I heard somewhere and have found useful - Only play moves you can name.

It might seem strange at first, but there's a certain logic to it. If you can name the move, it's something you have seen before and are familiar with. If you can properly describe the move you know what you are trying to accomplish with it.

Just make sure it's not a bad name, like "broken shape" or "empty triangle".

[EdLee]

Only play moves you can name.

I've never heard that and I respectfully disagree -- I think it's terrible advice.
If nothing else, that's the start of yet another bad habit, mental block (and we all develop enough of those as it is.)

Go is FREE. That's the correct direction, not the other ways --
"Only play such moves...", "Never play such other moves..."

(I'm under the impression that not long ago, the top Japanese Go schools (like the Honinbo)
would forbid certain moves in the opening, like the star point.
This was their understanding [*cough-dogma* for a few hundreds years?];
until people like Go Seigen, Kitani changed it.)

[Twitchy Go]

Only play moves you can name.

This feels wrong to me also. As a maxim at least. If we treat it like a go proverb I might be able to accept it. After all, an empty triangle is bad....until it isn't. A one-point jump is never bad...until it is. And A ponnuki is worth thirty points....except when it isn't.

Likewise, standard hanegama(which are likely moves with names) usually work. But if your reading tells you this crazy move works better go for it.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoProverbs

[billywoods]

that's the start of yet another bad habit

There are bad habits that keep you stuck at 20 kyu, and there are bad habits that can see you through to 5 dan. I think Mef's 'bad advice' would not have served me particularly badly up to now.

It's pedagogically sound, too; mathematics is free, but try teaching it to schoolchildren (or even university students) like that, and you'll be met with "yes, yes, but what do I do?".

[golem7]

that's the start of yet another bad habit

There are bad habits that keep you stuck at 20 kyu, and there are bad habits that can see you through to 5 dan. I think Mef's 'bad advice' would not have served me particularly badly up to now.

It's pedagogically sound, too; mathematics is free, but try teaching it to schoolchildren (or even university students) like that, and you'll be met with "yes, yes, but what do I do?".

I definitely have to agree with ed here. Getting stronger is all about reading deeper but also reading wider (that is considering more moves). Of course, proverbs (pruning) help, but only to a certain point. You definitely have to unlearn rules and learn to consider unlikely moves or else 5d will stay far far away. Maybe one could even argue that you pass the border to master (dan) level when you start questioning established guidelines and begin to think creatively for yourself (backed up by solid reading, of course).

As for the original question, one of my own guidelines: always play moves that have a clear purpose or follow-up (defend/attack/take territory/build influence/cut/connect)! The more purposes you can combine in one move, the better. And try to read as deep as you can if you can really achieve your goals. Of course, you have to evaluate the varying degrees of effects on different areas of the board, too. No one said it was going to be easy

[snorri]

Lots of good ideas. I think that for beginners, Bruce Wilcox's rules (in Go Dojo and Easy Go) are useful. Not to be followed religiously, but I think that beginners leave positions which are tactically unstable alone for too long but at the same time tenuki too little, so watching liberties is important and will pay off later.

Also, his concept of sector lines is pretty powerful. It's a good way to get you looking at the whole board and also a way to avoid being surrounded by surprise.

In Michael Redmond's ABCs of Attack and Defense, the main rules fall into cutting/connecting and escaping/surrounding.

The only other thing I'd recommend for a beginner is to spend some time looking at where your opponent wants to play. You have to learn to do this while simultaneously not being greedy.

Hmm. Go is hard...

[EdLee]

It's pedagogically sound, too;
mathematics is free, but try teaching it to schoolchildren (or even university students) like that,
and you'll be met with "yes, yes, but what do I do?".

No, it's pedagogically un-sound and there's a problem in your line of reasoning; I'll let you figure it out.

[xed_over]

Only play moves you can name.

I've never heard that and I respectfully disagree -- I think it's terrible advice.
If nothing else, that's the start of yet another bad habit, mental block (and we all develop enough of those as it is.)

I think its a rather clever idea. Its just a "your mileage may vary" kind of idea.

Sure, it might cause other bad habits, but at least they'll be better than the current bad habits of playing totally wrong moves.

[jts]

The main problem with "play moves you can name" is that the people who would benefit most from it are least likely to know all of the named jumps/approaches. And there are some borderline cases - for example, does the 3-space jump from the third line to the fourth line have a name?

But in general Mef's suggestion seems quite sound. What's the point of learning the names of all these jumps, approches, tesuji, connections, etc. if not to highlight that there is usually something worth looking at there? We are perfectly comfortable telling beginners things like "broken shape is bad," "the second line is the line of defeat," "corners-sides-center", but it is far easier to find broken shapes, second-line stones, and center-facing moves in joseki than it is to find stones in a two-three jump relationship.

More generally, any advice that you give beginners, if it is more specific than "play lots of games and do lots of tsumego", is going to take the form of a general rule that overrides their weak beginner instincts. If they could already apply the rule without having some sort of faith in the rule, they wouldn't need the rule. For example, "give your stones five liberties" is a rule that is helpful for beginners who can't see that once all their stones have three liberties, they are exposed to painful forcing sequences, double atari, squeezes, and so on. "Give your stones five liberties if and only if giving your stones five liberties is the best play" is not a rule that is helpful in this situation; the problem is precisely that the beginner can't see why getting five liberties might be the best move. So he starts out following the rule against his better judgment. Then he grows comfortable with the rule, then he starts to get a feel for when his stones are safe because they have enough liberties, and eventually he can read well enough that the rule is unnecessary.

So any advice that requires you to go against your better judgment and try out something new carries within it the seed of a bad habit, if you prefer to rely on your comfy old rule past the point where you need it as a heuristic.

[Mef]

The main problem with "play moves you can name" is that the people who would benefit most from it are least likely to know all of the named jumps/approaches. And there are some borderline cases - for example, does the 3-space jump from the third line to the fourth line have a name?

If you want to be pedantic, it's a daidaigema, but in the context of my suggestion "light extension" is fine, because if you know it's a light extension then presumably you know why you are making it (to extend) and have a plan for dealing with it if it is split (treat it lightly). Personally I think the fact the problem you list is actually one of the strengths of the advice -- as you get stronger and learn more named techniques, you have more tools in your arsenal. The idea is mainly to stop the "I don't know why I made this move" or "I don't know what this move is doing" type of plays.