How do you choose your opening?

[SmoothOper]

I suspect they're all more or less equal in value as areas of study. The opening is undeniably where the biggest moves are played, but I also suspect it's the area where the potential loss of points for making an error is smallest, hence the need for fighting and reading skill. It's also the stage of the game that leaves the longest period in which to claw back a deficit on the board.

I doubt however that you can ever progress to professional level play without being exceptional in all three areas - show me a pro that disregards the opening and just wins his games in the middle game fighting and endgame, and I'll change my opinion

But we are not talking about pros here, if I am not mistaken. We are giving advice to a low-level amateur, like all of us here, no?

As an extreme example - consider a beginner...
Whole board strategies are important, and you certainly cannot get good/pro without it. But at that level their influence on the game outcome is minimal, if any at all - when (a) the beginner would not understand anyways, and (b) he loses huge groups because he has no clue about two eyes yet... What is the point in this context to stress how important understanding whole board strategies is?

You can make the same argument here - you cannot be a pro without in-depth understanding of whole board strategies. But in the context of this discussion, this just completely misses the point. For now, whole-board strategies are just not that important to teach or explain or delve into. Just learn about life-and-death and some basic tesuji - this is the stepping-stone to the next level.

Just like, in this case, for a kyu player (I assume, or low dan ama, or whatever) an in-depth knowledge of a specific fuseki (or fuseki in general) is much less important than many many other aspects of the game. Some understanding of basic fuseki principles is more than enough. The games are decided elsewhere.

I am not really sure how to make it any more clear.

Like I was saying weak ignorant players aren't good at Fuseki, only the strong players pay attention to Fuseki.

[Eerika Norvio]

I suspect they're all more or less equal in value as areas of study. The opening is undeniably where the biggest moves are played, but I also suspect it's the area where the potential loss of points for making an error is smallest, hence the need for fighting and reading skill. It's also the stage of the game that leaves the longest period in which to claw back a deficit on the board.

I doubt however that you can ever progress to professional level play without being exceptional in all three areas - show me a pro that disregards the opening and just wins his games in the middle game fighting and endgame, and I'll change my opinion

But we are not talking about pros here, if I am not mistaken. We are giving advice to a low-level amateur, like all of us here, no?

As an extreme example - consider a beginner...
Whole board strategies are important, and you certainly cannot get good/pro without it. But at that level their influence on the game outcome is minimal, if any at all - when (a) the beginner would not understand anyways, and (b) he loses huge groups because he has no clue about two eyes yet... What is the point in this context to stress how important understanding whole board strategies is?

You can make the same argument here - you cannot be a pro without in-depth understanding of whole board strategies. But in the context of this discussion, this just completely misses the point. For now, whole-board strategies are just not that important to teach or explain or delve into. Just learn about life-and-death and some basic tesuji - this is the stepping-stone to the next level.

Just like, in this case, for a kyu player (I assume, or low dan ama, or whatever) an in-depth knowledge of a specific fuseki (or fuseki in general) is much less important than many many other aspects of the game. Some understanding of basic fuseki principles is more than enough. The games are decided elsewhere.

I am not really sure how to make it any more clear.

Like I was saying weak ignorant players aren't good at Fuseki, only the strong players pay attention to Fuseki.

No, many weak players pay attention to fuseki too. All pro players are strong at fuseki, but the implication doesn't go the other way.

[SmoothOper]

Like I was saying weak ignorant players aren't good at Fuseki, only the strong players pay attention to Fuseki.

No, many weak players pay attention to fuseki too. All pro players are strong at fuseki, but the implication doesn't go the other way.

You're bad at Fuseki, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your reading ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes. Its pretty clear cut.

[Bantari]

Like I was saying weak ignorant players aren't good at Fuseki, only the strong players pay attention to Fuseki.

No, many weak players pay attention to fuseki too. All pro players are strong at fuseki, but the implication doesn't go the other way.

You're bad at Fuseki, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your reading ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes. Its pretty clear cut.

Ok, back up a little.
So, for the purposes of this conversation fuseki is about creating strong groups with two secure eyes?
If this is so, I withdraw anything I have said in this thread... but - is it so?!?

[SmoothOper]

Ok, back up a little.
So, for the purposes of this conversation fuseki is about creating strong groups with two secure eyes?
If this is so, I withdraw anything I have said in this thread... but - is it so?!?

Fuseki, *ain't* about making dead groups now is it?

[DrStraw]

Ok, back up a little.
So, for the purposes of this conversation fuseki is about creating strong groups with two secure eyes?
If this is so, I withdraw anything I have said in this thread... but - is it so?!?

Fuseki, *ain't* about making dead groups now is it?

No, but bad fuseki has the potential for making future dead groups.

[Eerika Norvio]

Ok, back up a little.
So, for the purposes of this conversation fuseki is about creating strong groups with two secure eyes?
If this is so, I withdraw anything I have said in this thread... but - is it so?!?

Fuseki, *ain't* about making dead groups now is it?

The life and death of groups doesn't happen at fuseki. It's usually a bit later.

Shapes created by good fuseki may die. Even shimaris die engulfed in middlegame fighting. If you are creating really secure eyeshape at fuseki, it is slow.

[Dusk Eagle]

You're bad at Fuseki, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your reading ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes. Its pretty clear cut.

You're bad at Life & Death, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your fuseki ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes.

You're bad at Sabaki, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your fuseki ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes.

You're bad at Tesuji, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your fuseki ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes.

Its pretty clear cut.

(In case it's not clear, I'm being facetious. I don't think fuseki or fuseki principles are worthless, but the argument you presented actually makes more sense when turned around.)

[speedchase]

Ok, back up a little.
So, for the purposes of this conversation fuseki is about creating strong groups with two secure eyes?
If this is so, I withdraw anything I have said in this thread... but - is it so?!?

Fuseki, *ain't* about making dead groups now is it?

Dat Straw man

[topazg]

I suspect they're all more or less equal in value as areas of study. The opening is undeniably where the biggest moves are played, but I also suspect it's the area where the potential loss of points for making an error is smallest, hence the need for fighting and reading skill. It's also the stage of the game that leaves the longest period in which to claw back a deficit on the board.

I doubt however that you can ever progress to professional level play without being exceptional in all three areas - show me a pro that disregards the opening and just wins his games in the middle game fighting and endgame, and I'll change my opinion

But we are not talking about pros here, if I am not mistaken. We are giving advice to a low-level amateur, like all of us here, no?

As an extreme example - consider a beginner...
Whole board strategies are important, and you certainly cannot get good/pro without it. But at that level their influence on the game outcome is minimal, if any at all - when (a) the beginner would not understand anyways, and (b) he loses huge groups because he has no clue about two eyes yet... What is the point in this context to stress how important understanding whole board strategies is?

You can make the same argument here - you cannot be a pro without in-depth understanding of whole board strategies. But in the context of this discussion, this just completely misses the point. For now, whole-board strategies are just not that important to teach or explain or delve into. Just learn about life-and-death and some basic tesuji - this is the stepping-stone to the next level.

Just like, in this case, for a kyu player (I assume, or low dan ama, or whatever) an in-depth knowledge of a specific fuseki (or fuseki in general) is much less important than many many other aspects of the game. Some understanding of basic fuseki principles is more than enough. The games are decided elsewhere.

I am not really sure how to make it any more clear.

Indeed, we are not talking about pros, merely an amateur hobbyist - but if that's really your argument, my advice instead becomes "who cares whether it's the best thing to study - it's got value, and if you enjoy it do it"

Either way, I find it hard to argue cohesively against someone's desire to study something in depth when they're clearly interested in it and it isn't valueless.

[hyperpape]

Its like Lee Changho, sure he touts his end game, but he knows if he doesn't play his standard baduk he is gonna get it handed to him.

I don't even know what to say.

[wineandgolover]

Like I was saying weak ignorant players aren't good at Fuseki, only the strong players pay attention to Fuseki.

No, many weak players pay attention to fuseki too. All pro players are strong at fuseki, but the implication doesn't go the other way.

You're bad at Fuseki, therefore you must be a weak beginner, and it doesn't matter what your reading ability is because you have all of these weak groups with no eyes. Its pretty clear cut.

I'm trying to figure out if this post is intentionally rude, or just willfully ignorant.

[Bantari]

Indeed, we are not talking about pros, merely an amateur hobbyist - but if that's really your argument, my advice instead becomes "who cares whether it's the best thing to study - it's got value, and if you enjoy it do it"

This we absolutely agree on.

Either way, I find it hard to argue cohesively against someone's desire to study something in depth when they're clearly interested in it and it isn't valueless.

Oh, my impression was not "I love studying fuseki, is that ok at my level?" but "At my level, is fuseki study the best way for me to improve?" I admit, I might have to go back and re-read the original question, might have gotten caught up in the conversation a little and start making things up. If it is as you say, you are certainly right and I have no problem with that.

[SmoothOper]

I'm trying to figure out if this post is intentionally rude, or just willfully ignorant.

I was primarily just pointing out that you could poopoo just about anything by saying look beginners do X and their groups die therefore X must be not worth while. Try it. The Chinese Fuseki won't help you because beginners play it and they can't use the moyo effectively, so their stones die, therefore it must not be worth while to study that opening.

[often]

liang wei tang 9p once told me that for amateurs, a 10-20 point loss in the joseki/opening might as well not really be a loss. his reasoning was that so much happens in the middle game (swings/deaths/etc) that you can easily make it back.

i mean, if you're equally matched, it's not like your opponent is gonna have the best handle on everything anyway