My Problem with Professional Games

[Kirby]

I don't study pro games that much.

If I am in "studying mode", I typically try to study go problems. Or maybe sometimes I try to look at some joseki and try to figure out why the moves are joseki. But I have a hard time studying pro games. They're fun to watch, but I don't feel that I learn much.

Here's an example opening of a pro game that I looked at between Takagawa Shukaku and Ishida Yoshio:

(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[dp];W[pq];B[pd];W[cd];B[ec];W[qo];B[cf];W[de];B[df];W[fe];B[gd];W[dj];B[ei];W[dc]
;B[dm];W[el];B[dl];W[ej];B[fi];W[di];B[eg];W[fc];B[gc];W[fd];B[gk];W[em];B[dn];W[gm]
;B[fj];W[fk];B[gl];W[en];B[eo];W[gn];B[gp])

Okay, it's a pro game. I tried guessing moves that were going to be played (see in daal's recent post about pro games for some interesting ideas), but at this point in the game, I had to stop. Why? Because black's play seems superior to white's. Maybe he's more in line with my style of play. But white's group on the left looked pathetic to me, and black seemed to be in control. As the game progresses, black ends up winning by just 3.5 points.

But my feeling at the end of the sequence shown above makes me think: if I think white's play is bad, is it because I need to think harder about why white's play is good, or is black simply playing better? Maybe it's a little bit of both. But pros make mistakes, so it's difficult for me to assess if Pro X is playing better than Pro Y, or if it's just that my evaluation is off.

I guess I can try to think harder about pro games, but I feel a lot more productive just doing a few more go problems.

[Joaz Banbeck]

...so it's difficult for me to assess if Pro X is playing better than Pro Y...

All I need to know is that pro X/Y is playing way better than me.

When I am as strong as the weaker pro, and am trying to become as strong as the stronger pro, then it makes a difference.

[p2501]

It's not unheard of that even in pro games heavy advantages manifest for one player early in the game. That doen't mean that the endresult has to be as big as the advantage gained early on - a win by +0.5 is not better than one with +16.

Maybe this is the case here, maybe we are misjudging the position.

[jts]

When I study games I don't arrive at "was this move good or bad" until a very late point. I mean, if I have a commentary that says "move 8 lost the game" without comment, maybe I'll try to think about it, but mostly I just want to start by seeing what the move functions are. Once I have a handle on basic things like connections and bases, then I go through the middle game to see what aims each group was able to achieve, and who was able to get important moves in sente, and so on. Then I go back to the beginning and try to see the position with fresh eyes. I don't start trying to determine whether moves are good or bad until I've gotten to the end - at which point I work backward, trying to figure out the size of endgame plays.

If I had to evaluate this board, I would say B has a very large LL, two stones plastered onto a solid W corner in the UL, and a running group that is slightly stronger than its neighbor. W has an enclosure, an UL with top potential, and a running group. There are a lot of big moves left on the board... if B got the first move on the bottom, the top, and the center, it would be a won game, but Go doesn't work like that. If those of you who are great at fuseki tell me B is way ahead, I'm happy to believe you, but it's too active for me to have an opinion.

[wineandgolover]

If white soon played at c3, would you still feel that black clearly leads?

This game seems even to me. White has more cash, and no terrible weaknesses.

[gowan]

When I play through pro games, which is my primary study mode, I don't try to judge moves. I figure that the pros whose games I look at are way way more skillful than I am so I won't be able to judge the correctness of 99.9% of their moves anyhow. I look at things like joseki choice, shape, timing, erasure versus invasion, and the flow of sente and gote. If a move is played that surprises me I will take some time to think about it. Usually in pro games I can at least vaguely understand why a move was played but if a move surprises me it signals that something is going on that I don't understand and could benefit from. Playing through pro games is also a source of aesthetic pleasure, kind of like going to an art museum

[Kirby]

...so it's difficult for me to assess if Pro X is playing better than Pro Y...

All I need to know is that pro X/Y is playing way better than me.

When I am as strong as the weaker pro, and am trying to become as strong as the stronger pro, then it makes a difference.

Sure, both play better than me. But if I try to figure out why move Z is a good move, when it's not, I might trick myself into false reasoning.

Maybe it's not about finding which side is better, as others have indicated.

[Polama]

But if I try to figure out why move Z is a good move, when it's not, I might trick myself into false reasoning.

That's fine, though. I think it's much better to experiment with many different ways of reasoning about the board and having some of them be wrong, then to develop an orthodoxy and stay with it. When you play a game, you test ideas out. What if I make straighter lines? Then you win or lose, and refine you theories, discarding bad ones. Professional games are another way of testing ideas out. If positions or shapes that look terrible to you keep coming up in professional games, that suggests an error in your way of evaluating a position. I don't think that can be simply waved off as 'style', because at the very least, you need to know what your opponents with such a style are trying to obtain.

The white group being pushed around in the kifu ends up having access to two areas of the board. The profitable path to life isn't obvious to me, but he's clearly got options. I also noticed that as black commits to harassing that group, white solidifies the top left corner. Now, when it ends, he has a nice view into the influence black created from the chase. That negates the value of the black group. I can even imagine white now threatening the middle black stones as a leaning attack on the lonely two black stones at the top. And as somebody else pointed out, the bottom left looks invadable.

Thanks to computers, a helpful thing you can do is flip back and forth between late in the game and the opening in the kifu. If you think black is much stronger here, where do you expect him to profit? Jump to the late game, did he? Follow the fate of weak groups: are they bordered by large black territory, implying they gave up a lot to settle? Or do they protrude into black regions, destroying profit? When what looks like territory vanishes by the end, find where that happens in the kifu. Did the player sacrifice it? What did they get in return? Or did the other player attack and destroy it? Why were they able to? When were the seeds of the invasion planted? What aji mattered? And going back again, why did the aji get left? Did the other player profit leaving the aji behind? In hindsight, does it suggest a different path? Not having to actually play out the stones, you can explore the consequences of a game very quickly.

Pro moves that don't make sense are markers to go theories or reading you don't posses yet.

[yoyoma]

Clearly the answer is you should pay for good game commentaries. Injecting money into the Go economy in the process.

[skydyr]

Pro moves that don't make sense are markers to go theories or reading you don't posses yet.

I think you can pretty safely say that if a move looks unreasonable to other pros, you would see a note about it in the commentary (assuming you have one). In the absence of that, it's wise to assume that your judgement is off rather than the pro's. That's not to say that all of their moves are perfect, by any means, but the line of thinking behind them is clear (to a pro) and reasonable.

[Bill Spight]

...so it's difficult for me to assess if Pro X is playing better than Pro Y...

All I need to know is that pro X/Y is playing way better than me.

When I am as strong as the weaker pro, and am trying to become as strong as the stronger pro, then it makes a difference.

Sure, both play better than me. But if I try to figure out why move Z is a good move, when it's not, I might trick myself into false reasoning.

Maybe it's not about finding which side is better, as others have indicated.

Move Z by a top pro is almost always a good move, even if it is not the best move.

[dumbrope]

If you think white is so bad, start at that point and get a stronger player to take white against you in that position. (Not a much stronger player, because that's not so fair.) Then you can come to your own conclusions. If that's not easy, just take the position back to move 7 and ask yourself what white can reasonably expect in that area of the board.

[Bill Spight]

I have added a few thoughts to the game record.

(;SZ[19]FF[4]CA[Windows-1252]AP[GOWrite:2.2.21]ST[2]GM[1]FG[259:]PM[0]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[dp]
;W[pq]
;C[*** Statistics give Black an edge, something that the players would not have known at the time. Kajiwara likes Black. He was brilliant, but not always right.]B[pd]
;C[*** Doubling up. ]W[cd]
;B[ec]
;C[*** As planned, I am sure. The approach and the enclosure are miai.]W[qo]
;C[*** Black makes a severe pincer. Perhaps expecting to get an advantage from one star point or the other.]B[cf]
;W[de]
;B[df]
;W[fe]
;B[gd]
;C[*** White counter-pincers.]W[dj]
;C[*** Now White has prevented an ideal development for Black on the left side with sente.]B[ei]
;C[*** Making a base while preventing a Black slide, which would also make a base. White is preparing to attack the Black stones on the top. I did not appreciate this kind of play until I was a dan player, so I would be happy to find it in a game.]W[dc]
;C[*** I agree. Protecting the top side and allowing White to make a dual purpose play by approaching the bottom left corner would be lame.]B[dm]
;C[*** It would be painful to be forced to make life on the side. This is a nice shape play. Not one I would have found, though. ]W[el]
;B[dl]
;W[ej]
;B[fi]
;C[*** White cannot let Black make a base while attacking.]W[di]
;B[eg]
;C[*** A play that I am not happy with. White has made three extra plays in this corner without a lot to show for it. But something had to be done, and I am sure that White thought hard about this play. And probably long, too.]W[fc]
;C[*** Black decides to sacrifice the stone in sente.]B[gc]
;W[fd]
;C[*** Right! ]B[gk]
;W[em]
;B[dn]
;C[*** Right.]W[gm]
;B[fj]
;W[fk]
;C[*** Nice shape play. I would be happy to find it in a game.]B[gl]
;W[en]
;B[eo]
;W[gn]
;C[*** Both players have played according to plan. Black has managed to crawl on the fourth line and now has made this dual purpose extension. My sense also is that Black has the lead by a few points. Maybe W4 was the game losing play.]B[gp]
)

It also seems to me that Black is a bit ahead at this point in the play, so that the eventual result is no surprise. The White play that I understand the least is the clamp in the top left corner. Maybe White's mistake was or . (If was a mistake, surely was. )

[Polama]

The White play that I understand the least is the clamp in the top left corner.

$$B
$$---------------------
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . 8 7 5 . . . .
$$- . . 6 O X . . .
$$- . . O 3 1 . X .
$$- . . 4 O 2 O . .
$$- . 9 X X . . . .
$$- . . . . X . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . O X X . .
$$- . . . O O . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . X O . . .
$$- . . . X . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$---------------------
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . 8 7 5 . . . .
$$- . . 6 O X . . .
$$- . . O 3 1 . X .
$$- . . 4 O 2 O . .
$$- . 9 X X . . . .
$$- . . . . X . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . O X X . .
$$- . . . O O . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . X O . . .
$$- . . . X . . . .[/go]

$$B
$$---------------------
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . . 4 . . .
$$- . . 6 O X . 7 .
$$- . . O 3 1 . X .
$$- . . 5 O 2 O . .
$$- . . X X . . . .
$$- . . . . X . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . O X X . .
$$- . . . O O . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . X O . . .
$$- . . . X . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$---------------------
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . . 4 . . .
$$- . . 6 O X . 7 .
$$- . . O 3 1 . X .
$$- . . 5 O 2 O . .
$$- . . X X . . . .
$$- . . . . X . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . O X X . .
$$- . . . O O . . .
$$- . . . . . . . .
$$- . . . X O . . .
$$- . . . X . . . .[/go]

Perhaps white found something like this unbearable, if black plays next locally? If black strengthens those center stones, that hurts the white group being chased. Plus it's a chance for black to settle his upper group some

[Bantari]

It is often easy to see what a pro does, especially after he does it.

But I agree with Kirby's uneasiness.
The trick is not to see what pro does, although this certainly has a value in learning. The trick is not even to see what moves are mistakes - which, for us, might not even mean much, such pro level mistakes. The important thing to learn is what to do when your opponent - as he invariable will - plays differently from the pro. How to make the moves make sense *then*. Because this is the ultimate test for any player.