Hello,
I was reading about Reduction and Invasion on the Sensei's Library.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Invasion and http://senseis.xmp.net/?Reduction
But I did not understand the difference between them.
Some people tried to explain to me in the OGS chat, but I have not found difference between the concepts yet.
Please, Can anyone help me?
Thank you a lot.
What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
-
DiogoBarbosa
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:55 pm
- Rank: 5 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Diogo
- IGS: Diogo
- Wbaduk: diogobarb
- OGS: DiogoBarbosa
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
On the page you linked, here was a diagram for reducing:
White is not trying to live or split black on the side. Black can simply block, and he will still get territory on the bottom:
But the idea is, white has reduced black's potential to make more territory in the area. For example, if they continue simply:
White is conceding to allow black to make points in the marked area - but not higher than that. For example, if black had played first:
Black may end up getting more points in the area. By reducing, white reduced black's potential in the area.
---
Invading, on the other hand, is not about conceding points to your opponent. It's about trying to take away points in that area completely, either by living there yourself, or by splitting them up.
For example, it may not be a good move, but this is an invasion, from the same position:
Assuming white lives, black won't have many points in the area he did from the reducing variation. For example, assume black plays in a slack and simple way - just to show a simple variation.
It's hard to say that black has gotten points in the area on the bottom of the board, because white has established a presence there.
---
Generally speaking: Reducing concedes more to the opponent - kind of like negotiating. It's like, "you can have this many points here, but that's it. I'm reducing your potential, and you just keep that area.
Invasion, on the other hand, is less about conceding, and more like, "move out of the way. I'm breaking this area up so that you don't get territory here."
You may take away more of your opponent's points with invading, but reducing is safer, since it's less likely the opponent will try to kill you.
There are exceptions to the definitions I'm giving, but to give you a basic idea, this is what I feel distinguishes invasions from reductions.
White is not trying to live or split black on the side. Black can simply block, and he will still get territory on the bottom:
But the idea is, white has reduced black's potential to make more territory in the area. For example, if they continue simply:
White is conceding to allow black to make points in the marked area - but not higher than that. For example, if black had played first:
Black may end up getting more points in the area. By reducing, white reduced black's potential in the area.
---
Invading, on the other hand, is not about conceding points to your opponent. It's about trying to take away points in that area completely, either by living there yourself, or by splitting them up.
For example, it may not be a good move, but this is an invasion, from the same position:
Assuming white lives, black won't have many points in the area he did from the reducing variation. For example, assume black plays in a slack and simple way - just to show a simple variation.
It's hard to say that black has gotten points in the area on the bottom of the board, because white has established a presence there.
---
Generally speaking: Reducing concedes more to the opponent - kind of like negotiating. It's like, "you can have this many points here, but that's it. I'm reducing your potential, and you just keep that area.
Invasion, on the other hand, is less about conceding, and more like, "move out of the way. I'm breaking this area up so that you don't get territory here."
You may take away more of your opponent's points with invading, but reducing is safer, since it's less likely the opponent will try to kill you.
There are exceptions to the definitions I'm giving, but to give you a basic idea, this is what I feel distinguishes invasions from reductions.
be immersed
-
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
DiogoBarbosa wrote:Hello,
I was reading about Reduction and Invasion on the Sensei's Library.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Invasion and http://senseis.xmp.net/?Reduction
But I did not understand the difference between them.
Some people tried to explain to me in the OGS chat, but I have not found difference between the concepts yet.
Please, Can anyone help me?
Thank you a lot.
On the simplest level, both techniques are means to make enemy areas smaller.
The difference, conceptually, is as follows:
1) when you play reduction, your hope is to run away with reducing stone (connect to outside)
2) when you play invasion, your hope is to make life rather than escape.
Or another way of putting it:
1) reduction limits the enemy area from the outside, while
2) invasion jumps right in and hopes for the best.
Invasion, if it works, is a much more severe move. Reduction, on the other hand, is much safer.
It often takes great skill and careful positional judgement to decide which path you should walk in any given position.
But the difference is, in a nutshell, as I stated above.
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
______________________________________________
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
To distinguish between an invasion and a reduction, if a play is below the 4th line, it is an invasion. For higher plays, a good rule of thumb is to draw a sector line between stones that frame the potential territory. If a play is below a sector line, it is usually considered an invasion. But maybe not. There is no hard and fast distinction between the two in all cases.
is a standard reduction of the Black framework. It lies on the sector line between the two 
stones.
Here lies below the indicated sector line, but is still considered a reduction.
A lot of people would regard this as a reduction, even though it is within four sector lines. But I think that others would consider it an invasion.
I think that most people would call this an invasion, but some might still call it a reduction.
As far as ambiguous cases go, really, nobody much cares what you call them.
is a standard reduction of the Black framework. It lies on the sector line between the two stones.Here
lies below the indicated sector line, but is still considered a reduction.A lot of people would regard this as a reduction, even though it is within four sector lines. But I think that others would consider it an invasion.
I think that most people would call this an invasion, but some might still call it a reduction.
As far as ambiguous cases go, really, nobody much cares what you call them.
Last edited by Bill Spight on Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
Just to add to the purposes of reductions and invasions, sometimes a reduction or invasion may be sacrificed, although invasions are more likely to be sacrificed than reductions. Often a reduction is chosen over an invasion in order to keep sente after the opponent protects against a further incursion. Sometimes the opponent wants to take sente himself, and does not protect, so that a reduction leads to a later invasion. And sometimes a reduction will threaten more than one invasion, so that it sets up a later invasion, since the opponent cannot protect against them all. 
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.
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
A _reduction_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the outside so that, if the opponent defends from the inside, the reduction (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial reduction stones) must live on the outside, and if the opponent attacks from the outside, the reduction (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial reduction stones) can live on the outside or become a reduction-or-invasion.
An _invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the inside so that, if the opponent defends from the outside or the invasion cannot move to the outside, the invasion (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial invasion stones) must live on the inside.
A _reduction-or-invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo so that it depends on the opponent's choice whether it becomes a reduction or invasion.
A _test invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the inside so that it depends on the opponent's choice whether it becomes a reduction, invasion or sacrifice for the sake of a follow-up reduction.
Ko threat play increases the definition fun.
EDITS
An _invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the inside so that, if the opponent defends from the outside or the invasion cannot move to the outside, the invasion (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial invasion stones) must live on the inside.
A _reduction-or-invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo so that it depends on the opponent's choice whether it becomes a reduction or invasion.
A _test invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the inside so that it depends on the opponent's choice whether it becomes a reduction, invasion or sacrifice for the sake of a follow-up reduction.
Ko threat play increases the definition fun.
EDITS
-
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
RobertJasiek wrote:A _reduction_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the outside so that, if the opponent defends from the inside, the reduction (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial reduction stones) must live on the outside, and if the opponent attacks from the outside, the reduction (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial reduction stones) can live on the outside or become a reduction-or-invasion.
An _invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the inside so that, if the opponent defends from the outside or the invasion cannot move to the outside, the invasion (or a follow-up to the sacrificed initial invasion stones) must live on the inside.
A _reduction-or-invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo so that it depends on the opponent's choice whether it becomes a reduction or invasion.
A _test invasion_ reduces the opponent's eyespace, territory or moyo from the inside so that it depends on the opponent's choice whether it becomes a reduction, invasion or sacrifice for the sake of a follow-up reduction.
Ko threat play increases the definition fun.
EDITS
How do you define 'inside' and 'outside'?
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
Inside / outside or internal / external is, for the general application case as needed for invasions and reductions, an open research question. However, until they are defined, the following definition is good enough:
'Neither' is the intersections of the alive stones. 'Internal' is 0- or 1-territory. 'External' is everything else.
'Neither' is the intersections of the alive stones. 'Internal' is 0- or 1-territory. 'External' is everything else.
-
oca
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:53 am
- Rank: DDK
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: aco
- IGS: oca
- OGS: oca
- Location: Switzerland
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
Re: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
to me, the most difficult aspect is still to choose if (and when...) I should start an invasion/reduction or if I should just make a bigger territory / moyo.
The problem with the invasion/reduction is that it often (always?) lead to a new "weak" group that I then need to deal with... but that's also really part of the fun... and maybe that's one problem too as I tend to invade when that's not reasonable just because I like to fight
The problem with the invasion/reduction is that it often (always?) lead to a new "weak" group that I then need to deal with... but that's also really part of the fun... and maybe that's one problem too as I tend to invade when that's not reasonable just because I like to fight
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216
-
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
RobertJasiek wrote:Inside / outside or internal / external is, for the general application case as needed for invasions and reductions, an open research question. However, until they are defined, the following definition is good enough:
'Neither' is the intersections of the alive stones. 'Internal' is 0- or 1-territory. 'External' is everything else.
What is '0-territory' and '1-territory'?
(And what is 'alive'?)
Ok, the 2nd question is a joke, just to point out that if if you wish to be precise, be so.
But the 1st question is for reals.
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
-
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
I would add that reductions are usually sente, and invasions usually end in gote. Bill's rules above are also quite good, but it's also possible to reduce on, say, the second line when you have a secure attachment to a group on the side, like the well-known monkey jump.
I think as a general rule, invasions expect to live locally or have a running fight, while reductions expect to make shape on the outside or connect to a living group, if the opponent fights as severely as possible. Of course, the opposite may happen if the opponent judges that the end result is better for them. Another way to think of it is that reductions seek to nibble at the edges, saying "your plan was reasonable, so I will limit it as much as possible" while invasions strike at the core, saying "you're claiming too much too loosely, so I will prove it by taking away the center of your moyo."
One semi-proverb is that an invasion should be in an open space of at least 21 points to have a good chance, and another is that an invasion should have at least 3 good follow-ups (say, slide left, extend right, or jump into the center) to be viable. If it's not, then a reducing move is called for instead.
Reducing moves on the outside also tend to have more of a global impact, since you might build thickness that will affect a fight on the other side of the board. On the other hand, an invasion is locally focused and ideally timed so that the thickness your opponent builds will not have as much of an effect on the rest of the game as the number of points you stole from their area.
I think as a general rule, invasions expect to live locally or have a running fight, while reductions expect to make shape on the outside or connect to a living group, if the opponent fights as severely as possible. Of course, the opposite may happen if the opponent judges that the end result is better for them. Another way to think of it is that reductions seek to nibble at the edges, saying "your plan was reasonable, so I will limit it as much as possible" while invasions strike at the core, saying "you're claiming too much too loosely, so I will prove it by taking away the center of your moyo."
One semi-proverb is that an invasion should be in an open space of at least 21 points to have a good chance, and another is that an invasion should have at least 3 good follow-ups (say, slide left, extend right, or jump into the center) to be viable. If it's not, then a reducing move is called for instead.
Reducing moves on the outside also tend to have more of a global impact, since you might build thickness that will affect a fight on the other side of the board. On the other hand, an invasion is locally focused and ideally timed so that the thickness your opponent builds will not have as much of an effect on the rest of the game as the number of points you stole from their area.
-
i3ullseye
- Beginner
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:36 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: i3ullseye
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
This is actually a pretty great question, and it looks like people are giving answers coming from different levels. Different interpretations of the words even in regards to the game. I always think there is a fusion here.... some actions are neither purely an invasion or a reduction, but a mix of both. But for me, Reduction is deciding how much you are giving your opponent in territory, and invasion is deciding how much you want to try to take from your opponent that they otherwise might have gotten.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
oca wrote:The problem with the invasion/reduction is that it often (always?) lead to a new "weak" group that I then need to deal with... but that's also really part of the fun... and maybe that's one problem too as I tend to invade when that's not reasonable just because I like to fight
The question of a weak group is why you need to think about sacrificing an invasion, or even a reduction.
You also need to think about greed.
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: What is the difference between Reduction and Invasion?
skydyr wrote:Bill's rules above are also quite good, but it's also possible to reduce on, say, the second line when you have a secure attachment to a group on the side, like the well-known monkey jump.
When I was coming along, such moves were called neither reductions nor invasions, but yose. But language changes with time, and maybe in the future they will be called reductions.
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.