Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

General conversations about Go belong here.
User avatar
wineandgolover
Lives in sente
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:05 am
GD Posts: 0
Has thanked: 318 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by wineandgolover »

wineandgolover wrote:I'm not saying that studying the opening or joseki is worthless. Perhaps it's worth four stones to a kyu. But once you gain those four stones, you face folks who can out-read and out-fight you, and your superior opening gives way to the final-mistake axiom

Surely I'm not the only who gets wary when my opponent plays a crappy opening? I give a slight squint at the board and think, "Hmmm, despite seeming to know nothing, this person is my rank. Best to be careful."
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders
User avatar
EdLee
Honinbo
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
GD Posts: 312
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 2070 times

Post by EdLee »

wineandgolover wrote:Surely I'm not the only who gets wary when my opponent plays a crappy opening?
In that case, I usually worry for the rest of the game -- surely I'll make even bigger mistakes!
User avatar
Bantari
Gosei
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:34 pm
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: Bantari
Location: Ponte Vedra
Has thanked: 642 times
Been thanked: 490 times

Re:

Post by Bantari »

EdLee wrote:
Bantari wrote:But that depends on the definition of "learn".
I say a better word is "study",

So don't "learn" joseki, and don't "not learn" joseki. Study joseki.
Hi Bantari, what's your definition and understanding of "learn" ? Versus "study" ?

It is sort-of connected to what I was trying to say in the "Understanding" thread. Let me try to explain:

You "learn" things to "know" things.
This often, almost always, involves memorization. You might know many things without really understanding them. A test would be that you are able to answer the question "what have you learned" by repeating/writing the material you have learned. In terms of Go/joseki - you will be able to replay the sequences you have "learned". You might not necessarily be able to correctly play other, similar sequences, or to react to non-joseki moves in appropriate way. In short - learn is only slightly more involved than "memorize", and "memorize" is always an important element of "learn".

A good example of when "learning" is appropriate is learning to be an electrical engineer - you need to learn a whole lot of "standards" which logically make or not make any sense, but which you still need to "know" and apply when you rewire your house. Some of them you might understand, others you only memorize - but you need to "know" them all.

You "study" things to "understand" things.
It usually (and hopefully) involves gaining some level of understanding of the principles behind the things you have studied. You often, but not always, do not really remember the exact sequence you studied, and the exact sequence is not really important in that sense - what is important is the way and the reason this sequence was the way it was, this is what you concentrate on. A good test would be that you are able to apply the same underlying principles you have studied to other, similar situations, or be able to come up with good responses to other moves. It might even be that you can re-create the sequence you have studied - but not because you have learned/memorized it, but because you can derive the moves from the underlying principles and ideas.

A good example of when "studying" is appropriate would be studying to be a math teacher. You do not necessary need to remember every single formula you run across, but you definitely need to have an in-depth understanding of the underlying principles to be able to understand, apply, and explain any formula you might run across.

Of course, "study" and "learn" (or "know" and "understand") are not mutually exclusive, and most of the time you do both at the same time, at least to some degree. However, for me personally, the emphasis in Go is always on "study/understand" rather than on "learn/know", and this is where I put my efforts when I teach or when I study.

This distinction, just like the other ones in the "Understanding" thread, are the way I myself see things, and not sure if this corresponds to any given dictionary or definition. It might be that as a non-native english speaker I am associating concepts and words in an incorrect way, but this is how I understand the difference between "learning" something and "studying" something. I am pretty confident that the distinction and the concepts themselves are valid, but it might be that I associate them with words which are not quite appropriate. Not really trying to confuse anybody here, just explaining how this is organized in my own head.

PS>
In terms of joski, there are actually 3 tiers:
1. learn joseki
2. understand joseki -> learn underlying principles
3. understand joseki -> understand underlying principles

The deeper you go, the better, I think.
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by Bill Spight »

wineandgolover wrote:As my teacher likes to joke, China is full of strong players who would smile and tell me, "You have good knowledge and a sound grasp on go theory. Now I kill you."


That's true in Japan and Korea, as well. :) There are plenty of players in those countries who learned by the seat of their pants and got quite strong. Not so many in the West, I think, but that is changing, as we get a larger pool of strong amateurs to play against, as well as strong opponents in the East.

OC, it's a joke. Just because there are players who learned by the seat of their pants does not mean that we should.

I think of Muhammad Ali. He was not a slugger or street fighter, now-I-kill-you type: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." But he was The Greatest. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by Bill Spight »

Studying joseki by memorizing standard sequences is like studying icebergs by photographing what is above the water.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
DrStraw
Oza
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:09 am
Rank: AGA 5d
GD Posts: 4312
Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 662 times
Contact:

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by DrStraw »

Bill Spight wrote:I think of Muhammad Ali. He was not a slugger or street fighter, now-I-kill-you type: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." But he was The Greatest. :)


I thought you were older than that. I still think of him as Cassius Clay. :)
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).
often
Lives with ko
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 8:51 am
Rank: weak
GD Posts: 0
KGS: often
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by often »

Robert Jasiek:
Then he will understand that assessment of thickness and territory are not difficult but assessement of complex fights can be difficult when what starts as a joseki creates a large middle game fight.

So you're also agreeing that the middle game is more important than the joseki that got you there. In other words, how you navigate the outcome of your opening will bring you the win more than the opening steps.

But also, the assessment of thickness and territory ARE difficult for joseki. Thickness changes based on surroundings. That's not an easy thing to really grasp.

MagicMagor
Also i don't like the a joseki mistake makes no difference in an amateur game argument, because it sounds like the opening doesn't matter at all in amateur games. But what strength is meant here by amateur? For a 20k or DDK game it may indeed be true, but what about SDK or dan-players? If i don't know any joseki and make a 10-point mistake in each corner of it, i'm 40 points behind going into the middle game and my opponent is leading by 40 points and this doesn't affect the outcome of the game at all? Actually i find that quite insulting.

Amateur is just that, amateur. These problems apply to even dan players. If you find me just saying that insulting be prepared to be insulted some more, haha.
Dan players make the same fundamental mistakes that kyu players do, just in different ways. This includes joseki. Even dan players will say "i started out so good, but somehow i lost the game because of some middle game fighting". It might be less obvious, but it's still there.

But let's take your point, where you've got a small loss in every corner for the opening. If your opponent is around the same rank as you, there is no guarantee that even he knows that he's a little ahead because of opening choice. And even if he does, it doesn't mean that the middle game fighting will go his way to where he can maintain that lead. Let's also stress the fact that a "10 point mistake" doesn't exactly always mean 10 tangible points. It could be applied in a way that is realized in thickness or aji. Don't take that number and think that it actually means he's ahead by that much. It's a little bit more vague than that.

Magic Magor
If I make a big joseki-mistake and are behind during the middle game but then miss the chance where my opponent made a mistake allowing me to come back and lose the game. Did I lose because I made the later mistake or did I lose because I made a joseki mistake? On which mistake should I focus my study?

Both are valid issues. The middle game problem is a bigger issue that can be applied in more areas more times in future games than simply a "don't do this" problem in a joseki. Thus, middle game lessons are more important than a joseki lesson here.

-----------------------------------------
Here's another way of looking at it. Yilun Yang once talked about this as well. He showed a opening position and argued against this one move that the player did.
The player responded with: "Well Go Seigen plays this and says it's a good move.
Yilun Yang said: "Well, if it's Go Seigen i won't argue with him, but do YOU understand this move? If you don't understand this move and what it's doing its not a good move. Just play the move that does something you can understand"

Joseki is the same thing.

If you don't know what you're getting out of the joseki you're playing, you're doing yourself and your game a great disservice. If you play within the bounds of what you comfortably can understand, it is better than playing the "correct" move that might lead to a variation you can't handle. (AKA, learning joseki really isn't that necessary)


Let's also look at it this way. For joseki to get "complicated" it requires both players to get into that complication. If you play simple responses the difficult variations will never occur and you'll never be in danger of losing because of "joseki".

If you show me a game where you were at a disadvantage because an opening joseki, i will probably ask you "why did you choose this joseki, what were you thinking going into it, and what were you trying to do while play it". Chances are you were playing something beyond your comprehension.
User avatar
Loons
Gosei
Posts: 1378
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:17 am
GD Posts: 0
Location: wHam!lton, Aotearoa
Has thanked: 253 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by Loons »

Bill Spight wrote:Studying joseki by memorizing standard sequences is like studying icebergs by photographing what is above the water.


Which is to say; useful! If you're taking into account environmental variables like the densities of icebergs and seawater.
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.
RobertJasiek
Judan
Posts: 6273
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
GD Posts: 0
Been thanked: 797 times
Contact:

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by RobertJasiek »

often wrote:So you're also agreeing that the middle game is more important than the joseki that got you there.


1) This was not what I have meant. Most josekis worths studying as such end in a settling of territory and influence (and sometimes other relevant aspects to be related to them) so that territory and influence can be assessed, related to each other and evaluated.

2) Regardless of (1), everything is important: middle game, josekis, other things. So I would not say that one is more important than the other. Concerning a greater number of moves - yes.

the assessment of thickness and territory ARE difficult for joseki.


They WERE difficult until I invented and described methods for that. Territory can be judged with positional territorial judgement applied to the local joseki shape(s). Thickness is judged a) by constructing it as well as possible for the sake of making it thick and efficient and b) assessing its influence by the influence stone difference. Then use my method for relating the stone difference, territory count, the influence stone difference and possibly other relevant aspects.

Thickness changes based on surroundings. That's not an easy thing to really grasp.


The global context is another aspect to be considered indeed. However, usually it also is easy: choose the right direction and ensure that the thickness you build has efficient development potential. Etc. Difficult it is only for players (say, weaker than 3d) not having studied all basic go theory yet.
User avatar
Bonobo
Oza
Posts: 2224
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:39 pm
Rank: OGS 13k
GD Posts: 0
OGS: trohde
Universal go server handle: trohde
Location: Lüneburg Heath, North Germany
Has thanked: 8262 times
Been thanked: 924 times
Contact:

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by Bonobo »

DrStraw wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:I think of Muhammad Ali. He was not a slugger or street fighter, now-I-kill-you type: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." But he was The Greatest. :)


I thought you were older than that. I still think of him as Cassius Clay. :)
I, too, do, and I remember those times well, but I for one respect his name change.
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali
User avatar
MagicMagor
Lives with ko
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:14 am
Rank: EGF 1k
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: MagicMagor
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by MagicMagor »

If you don't know what you're getting out of the joseki you're playing, you're doing yourself and your game a great disservice. If you play within the bounds of what you comfortably can understand, it is better than playing the "correct" move that might lead to a variation you can't handle. (AKA, learning joseki really isn't that necessary)

But without learning/studying joseki i will never know what to get out of a joseki. And playing the joseki if i know what i'm getting out of it is better than playing something different which might lead to a bad variation.

I'm not talking about playing joseki just "because its joseki" and learning joseki doesn't mean just memorizing the sequence.

So learning these as an amateur is a waste of time?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 5 . . 3 . .
$$ | . 4 . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 6 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 5 . . . .
$$ | . . 6 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . 7 . . . .
$$ | . 8 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 9 . . .
$$ | . . 3 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 6 a . . .
$$ | . 8 5 1 7 . . .
$$ | . 9 . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 3 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Of course knowing why :b7: isn't played at a and how to punish it, is part of knowing this joseki.

I find joseki extremly helpful because they give me a basic idea what can happen in a certain situation (for example after a low pincer). Then i can look at the various different josekis i know and compare the "end result" with the rest of the board to see which one is best - or if none is really good and i have to play something else.
I think not knowing josekis for a certain situation will lead you more often into bad variations, that you can't handle, than knowing and then encountering someone who doesn't.
often
Lives with ko
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 8:51 am
Rank: weak
GD Posts: 0
KGS: often
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by often »

MagicMagor
So learning these as an amateur is a waste of time?

You're mixing two ideas together. What the pro means is you don't have to go out and study every little joseki out there to get better. All you have to do is play moves that you feel give you a handle of the situation.
Yes, there are joseki out there that can be considered "basic" joseki that maybe everybody should know. Yes there are trick plays and punishable moves. But even if that moves gets out of control, as long as you play moves that you're comfortable with you won't exactly lose the game because of a move.

What's more, as you get stronger, you learn why to do things and why not to do things naturally. So it's better to naturally play moves and understand more compared to just forcing the matter.

Most josekis worths studying as such end in a settling of territory and influence (and sometimes other relevant aspects to be related to them) so that territory and influence can be assessed, related to each other and evaluated.

If you're figuring out the thickness/influence/territory after the joseki is over, that's sort of midgame concepts. So you're still arguing for midgame knowledge.



Either way, both of you are missing the point of the pro's position

1. There's no reason to spend time studying opening joseki when a lot of the game is determined in the middle game.

2. Simply studying and memorizing joseki isn't helpful for the times that someone strays away from a difficult joseki variation. That's why it's better play moves that you know and are comfortable with in the event that when it strays away, you still know what's happening on the board.

3. As you get stronger and more comfortable with a position, you're more open to trying new things and straying away from the original moves that you've know

In fact, think about why so many pros seem to say "i don't really know joseki"

If you find learning joseki helpful, fine. I wrote a whole paragraph on the argument for learning joseki as well you know.
User avatar
Loons
Gosei
Posts: 1378
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:17 am
GD Posts: 0
Location: wHam!lton, Aotearoa
Has thanked: 253 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by Loons »

Often, do you think there's not such a thing as just haymakering someone during the first couple joseki?

Whether it's a trick play, or an offer of a hard joseki you're better prepared for.

I guess your point is you could consistently back down at the cost of a few points and hope for midgame.
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.
lemmata
Lives in gote
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:38 pm
Rank: Weak
GD Posts: 0
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 254 times

Re: Myths in Go #1 "Joseki"

Post by lemmata »

often wrote:In fact, think about why so many pros seem to say "i don't really know joseki"

This is just another myth. Pros do know joseki. They are just being coy. For people who don't know joseki, they certainly love writing joseki books to make money. They certainly use the word when doing commentary. What is likely true is that they didn't learn joseki by memorizing some dictionary. However, consider the fact that pros train by playing and reviewing tens of thousands of games. A pro's optimal training regimen is bound to be quite different from that of your typical amateur with a 9 to 5 job, family obligations, and a social circle of non-players.

Nevertheless, I will not argue that people should study joseki. What I am sure of is that people should do what they find interesting and just enjoy themselves, optimal progress rate be damned.
User avatar
EdLee
Honinbo
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
GD Posts: 312
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 2070 times

Post by EdLee »

lemmata wrote:
often wrote:think about why so many pros seem to say "i don't really know joseki"
This is just another myth. Pros do know joseki. They are just being coy.
The coy theory is interesting, and one view.

But not the only hypothesis:

It has to do with what we mean when we use the word know or understand.

Others more knowledgeable about the history (e.g. John) can correct this:
When Go Seigen first played the "inside turn" in the large avalanche in a pro tourney,
Takagawa (or another top pro?) had never seen that move. But the next 10 moves (or so?) Takagawa played what would later turn out to be the exact "joseki" sequence.

So Takagawa did not know the new move or its variations then, but his level
was such that he still found the "joseki" moves. That's his level.

Similarly, pros don't have to have memorized every single sequence in the
joseki dictionary -- of course, they have already digested hundreds of thousands
of the "standard" variations -- they can "just" play.

When they say they "don't know" something, it's (partially) because to them,
the words "know" and "understand" take on a much higher level than what some
people take them to mean.
Post Reply