Go is an intuitive game. I so love that you don't need to learn "preprogrammed" sequences in order to enjoy it. Of course there are josekis, but one needs to understand them in order to successfully apply them. Go is a game in which you can and need to be creative. It's (thankfully) not "memorize to win".
You will just need to cluelessly wander around that huge go board and lose many games before you learn to fight, before you learn how to make a base, before you learn to keep an eye out for ladders, before you learn to see invasion points, before you understand miai, before you learn how to use thickness, etc, etc.
Memorizing a few josekis won't save you all that trouble! (*evil laughter*)
In other words (and in my humble 5k opinion) knowing a few openings and a few josekis simply doesn't matter around 15k. (Mainly because your opponent will most probably don't know them thus they will diverge at which point lacking the fundamentals, you won't know how to react anyway.)
(I just used the word "fundamentals", yay.)
A question on openings.
-
Boidhre
- Oza
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:15 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: Boidhre
- Location: Ireland
- Has thanked: 661 times
- Been thanked: 442 times
Re: A question on openings.
The equivalent to teaching the Philador opening is to teach "Corner, Sides Centre" and then give some basic overview of the differences between the 4,4 point (including the invasion), the 3,4 point and the 3,3 point. That's enough to play a game of go with for quite a long time when you start out.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: A question on openings.
Not to mention:Uberdude wrote:Yes, there are 'structured openings' that have been studied and played a lot. Have you looked at any opening books*? There are thousands of pages of variations and analysis on them. For example here is a main line of what we call the micro Chinese which has been popular the last few years:
But if your opponent doesn't want you to play your favourite opening then he can do something different, for example this pincer prevents the micro Chinese above and then a different opening will happen:
Or even:
And so on.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
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: A question on openings.
Along the lines of a skeleton to work with, a popular and effective opening is the nirensei (play on the 4-4 points in adjacent corners). And it is something that you can almost always manage to play, either as Black on White. But I am afraid that that only gets you through 3 or 4 moves (2 chess moves). Welcome to go!Joelnelsonb wrote:Well, the reason for my post was simply that whenever I teach someone to play Chess, I always teach them the Philidor opening right off the bat. They don't have to understand anything about it to begin with; it simply gives the novice a skeleton to work with. Instead of sitting there, looking at a board full of pieces, thinking "lot options, why not move... This one!" Instead, it gives them a basic plan to play by. This being said, every game of Go that I play opens up completely different beyond the first three moves. I was just wondering if Go was such a game that you could learn structured openings and follow-ups so that you're not a goose in a hail storm, trying hopelessly to navigate through what I consider to be the most abstract part of the game.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Mike Novack
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:36 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 182 times
Re: A question on openings.
Go and chess are fundamentally different.
A game of chess is (eventually) won by creating a local imbalance of power around the opponent's king sufficient for checkmate regardless of the balances of power in the entire rest of the board. Ultimately, only the local situation around the kings matters. You can be decimated in the rest of the board, but if your few remaining pieces can force checkmate, you win, and all the opponent's pieces scattered elsewhere just so many pieces of wood.
Go is won or lost on the global basis. You can be at a disadvantage on a local basis almost everywhere but have a won game because all your local positions add up to a global victory.
Chess is about creating imbalance out of balance and go about maintaining balance.
A game of chess is (eventually) won by creating a local imbalance of power around the opponent's king sufficient for checkmate regardless of the balances of power in the entire rest of the board. Ultimately, only the local situation around the kings matters. You can be decimated in the rest of the board, but if your few remaining pieces can force checkmate, you win, and all the opponent's pieces scattered elsewhere just so many pieces of wood.
Go is won or lost on the global basis. You can be at a disadvantage on a local basis almost everywhere but have a won game because all your local positions add up to a global victory.
Chess is about creating imbalance out of balance and go about maintaining balance.
-
Joelnelsonb
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 6:45 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- OGS: Saint Ravitt
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: A question on openings.
Also, when I teach a beginner, I often give them rules of thumb that I don't actually follow myself. Things like "only advance your two central pawns and try to leave the rest alone until necessary". I do this because it teaches them a safer, less sophisticated way to play and I consider the student to be ready to disregard these rules as soon as they realize for themselves that they're not hard and fast principles (in fact, they're not even really "good" play). I feel like I'm seeing this in Go. In the books I've read and lectures I've watched, I've seen a few different concepts reinforced quite a bit, however, real players don't appear to follow them at all. For instance, one book I read talks about the proper order of opening moves (corner approaches and enclosures first, followed by long extensions and then short extensions last). I then saw a pro game played by the actual author of the book (I wanna say it was Fundamental Principles of Go but I've been through a lot of books) where he completely disregarded everything he had taught. I 'll see a DDK game given as a bad example where contact fighting begins right away and this is highly discouraged, however, I've seen plenty of Dan games where players will fill in an entire section of the board before even making an approach or enclosure on the other side of the board. So in case I've been misled, is it correct to say that before the middle game starts (first invasion), the outer fringe of the board ought to be completely filled in with extensions on the 3rd and 4th lines such that there are no open spaces large enough to build a base?
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...
-
Shaddy
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:44 pm
- Rank: KGS 5d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Str1fe, Midorisuke
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 192 times
Re: A question on openings.
No, it's not really true. The middle game starts when the two players disagree about something enough to fight over it.
-
Boidhre
- Oza
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:15 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: Boidhre
- Location: Ireland
- Has thanked: 661 times
- Been thanked: 442 times
Re: A question on openings.
It's about the value of moves. In the dan game approaching the corner was worth less than continuing the fight. In the DDK game it wasn't worth more than playing in an empty corner.Joelnelsonb wrote:I 'll see a DDK game given as a bad example where contact fighting begins right away and this is highly discouraged, however, I've seen plenty of Dan games where players will fill in an entire section of the board before even making an approach or enclosure on the other side of the board.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: A question on openings.
A practice I avoid.Joelnelsonb wrote:Also, when I teach a beginner, I often give them rules of thumb that I don't actually follow myself. Things like "only advance your two central pawns and try to leave the rest alone until necessary".
That may be an illusion. Znosko-Borovsky addresses a similar question in How Not to Play Chess, about White moving his King's Bishop four times in one variation of the Ruy Lopez. The general principle of moving each piece once in the opening is violated, but for reasons.For instance, one book I read talks about the proper order of opening moves (corner approaches and enclosures first, followed by long extensions and then short extensions last). I then saw a pro game played by the actual author of the book (I wanna say it was Fundamental Principles of Go but I've been through a lot of books) where he completely disregarded everything he had taught.
No, that is not correct.is it correct to say that before the middle game starts (first invasion), the outer fringe of the board ought to be completely filled in with extensions on the 3rd and 4th lines such that there are no open spaces large enough to build a base?
I am of the school that includes Ben Hogan in golf and Reti in chess that says that it is good to develop power early in your career. Here are a couple of illustrative ancient games.
I have shown you a few old games, courtesy of GoGoD (Go Games on Disk). I highly recommend that you buy it for yourself. A treasure trove!
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Joelnelsonb
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 6:45 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- OGS: Saint Ravitt
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: A question on openings.
Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about, Bill (Thanks!). I wonder why this concept seems to be so reinforced in beginner books if its seemingly incorrect. My suspicion is that it's highly misunderstood given that I continually see my peers playing the same way I do. That being said, sounds like I need to re-empty my cup and go back to the fuseki drawing board.
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...
-
quantumf
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:36 pm
- Rank: 3d
- GD Posts: 422
- KGS: komi
- Has thanked: 180 times
- Been thanked: 151 times
Re: A question on openings.
It's not really incorrect, as it's simple to demonstrate that you need the fewest stones to securely surround points in the corner, then the side, then the center. So it's worth bearing those things in mind as options at any point, and that sequence you describe (corners, long sides, short sides) actually is more or less the order you'll see in many if not most pro games. But part of the beauty of go is that you can play and win in many different ways, as Bill's games demonstrated, and that some of the strongest bots are now also demonstrating.Joelnelsonb wrote:Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about, Bill (Thanks!). I wonder why this concept seems to be so reinforced in beginner books if its seemingly incorrect. My suspicion is that it's highly misunderstood given that I continually see my peers playing the same way I do. That being said, sounds like I need to re-empty my cup and go back to the fuseki drawing board.
-
skydyr
- Oza
- Posts: 2495
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:06 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: skydyr
- Online playing schedule: When my wife is out.
- Location: DC
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 436 times
Re: A question on openings.
It's worth bearing in mind, also, that these games were played prior to the development of most if not all fuseki theory. They played based on fighting strength, and until you are at the peak and still need something besides fighting strength to get an edge, there's no real need to develop it. There's been a lot of research in go over the past 1200 years, after all.quantumf wrote:It's not really incorrect, as it's simple to demonstrate that you need the fewest stones to securely surround points in the corner, then the side, then the center. So it's worth bearing those things in mind as options at any point, and that sequence you describe (corners, long sides, short sides) actually is more or less the order you'll see in many if not most pro games. But part of the beauty of go is that you can play and win in many different ways, as Bill's games demonstrated, and that some of the strongest bots are now also demonstrating.Joelnelsonb wrote:Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about, Bill (Thanks!). I wonder why this concept seems to be so reinforced in beginner books if its seemingly incorrect. My suspicion is that it's highly misunderstood given that I continually see my peers playing the same way I do. That being said, sounds like I need to re-empty my cup and go back to the fuseki drawing board.
-
Pippen
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:34 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: 2d
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Re: A question on openings.
This one.
Somebody mentioned that Go is so much more complex than Chess that you have a lot more freedom and that's true. I remember when I started it was like an adventure, anything seemed possible. Of course like in life the more you learn and the better you get the more all things narrow down and top pro's would probably only consider a handful of openings playable in a serious match.
-
lemonpie
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:41 pm
- Rank: after ten years
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: 6 kyu
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: A question on openings.
It's true of course, but even if you spent 100 years playing chess, you'd still get nowhere in terms of mastering perfect play. But I guess if you're playing a game, it's nice to point out that theoretically speaking it's more complex than others.Pippen wrote:
Somebody mentioned that Go is so much more complex than Chess that you have a lot more freedom and that's true.
Also, just because there's more freedom to chose between twenty moves in chess and only two or three moves in a typical card game doesn't mean you can use cards in a chess game.
