Knotwilg wrote:BTW, I disagree that there wouldn't be a structured approach to tsumego. For L&D, "surround, cut, reduce, vital point" is the proper approach, unless of course you "see" the solution.
The main reason is that
- by surrounding you get a favorable position in the game, even if you don't kill
- cutting is the most basic way to put chains in trouble
- reducing the eyespace reveals the vital points and it also reduces the depth of the reading
- finally vital points
I can't say whether there is a proper approach, I already heard so many approaches and all seem - in the end - hinge on personal taste.
For instance, I'm not a fan of a rule of thumb like "surround, cut, reduce, vital point" because why should I consider surrounding a living group? Check the status should come first, in my opinion.
If a group can locally be killed, there is the question whether my stones around are a sufficient surround already, which needs a lot of experience and careful planning.
If I'm behind and can only aim for the kill to gain the upper hand (even when it's unlikely that I succeed) then surrounding is not the right move - again.
If I can chase the opponent and build up something while attacking or run through his Moyo then maybe surrounding is also not the best play.
And lastly, a surround does not always lead to a favourable position. This stone can very well just end up on a Dame, too. Or turn out to be a wasted Ko-threat when played without the proper timing.
Cutting, a delicate matter.
I don't want to cut where my opponent can use the cutting stone to make shape.
I don't want to cut where my opponent can gain sufficient counter-play to capture or threaten to capture my cutting stone (reversing attacker and defender).
I don't want to cut the tail, when I could have killed the whole group.
I don't want to cut unimportant stones, that my opponent gladly sacrfices for the moment.
So much experience and reading involved...
In the end there are so many exceptions, each depending on how the board looks like. I always tell beginners, when in doubt, try to kill everything. They learn sooner or later (at last when they don't skip reading practice) whether to attack from the outside or the inside.
I pretty much agree with the last two points, but my phrasing would be "When you can't spot a vital point (or when it doesn't work yet), reduce the group's eyespace" to cover the cases where something like Hane on the first line is not correct.
Then again, I also agree with Bill Spight and Hushfield. Forming a theory is probably nice for teaching and computer Go but it really does not make grinding those problems any less neccessary. And as far as I know the big difference between western and eastern players is still the reading skill.
When I look back, I could theorise a good deal about the Mini-Chinese-Fuseki when I was like 5-kyu (thanks Battousai : D), had no practical impact at all.
