Anything other than a 1 moku is a loss.

[Joelnelsonb]

The point being, of course, that go is a two player game, and it is arrogance to think that you alone control the flow of the game. Striving to win by one point is disrespectful to your opponent, IMO.

One of my favorite stories...
http://gobase.org/reading/stories/?id=5

Was this Japanese professional disrespectful to his opponents?

This story is kinda exactly what I'm talking about. Embracing the harmony of the game.

[Polama]

Here's a question. Let's say you are very carefully maintaining your half point lead, and then your opponent makes a surprisingly strong endgame move, a 15 point tesuji you totally didn't see coming. You could have won by 30 points even with that, but now you've lost by 15 points. He gets very excited about the win, telling the others at the club about what a good game he played and how he finally beat you in an even match, soundly at that. Would you say anything?

[Bill Spight]

The point being, of course, that go is a two player game, and it is arrogance to think that you alone control the flow of the game. Striving to win by one point is disrespectful to your opponent, IMO.

One of my favorite stories...
http://gobase.org/reading/stories/?id=5

Was this Japanese professional disrespectful to his opponents?

They were students, not opponents.

[Elom]

Hmmm...

I also remember a story about a western dan player playing a 4 (3?) stone game with a professional. By the endgame, he was clearly behind, but the professional made a few, in his words, "strange" moves, and the game ended with him winning by a small margin. The gentle pro then went on to comment on how strong he was .

It's surprising to hear that some may consider it disrespectful, as unless I am making a bad mistake, professionals frequently opt to play safely and lose points if they are sure that they are ahead by even a small margin (and tend to resign if they are behind by more than a small margin and cannot complicate the game).

This is why games with a difference of more than 10 points become increasingly rare the higher the level of the pro.

Isn't it also looked down upon to destroy students in shidougo?

I agree that a half point game can be a thing of beauty, something to hope for. Every brilliant tesuji, every subtle blunder: balanced in the end. Two opponents gave the game their all, and came up exactly even.

I disagree that forcing a game to a half point balance is beautiful. I've tried that for fun a few times against weaker opponents, and it's clunky. You aren't avoiding overplaying, you aren't adopting a passive style, you're intentionally playing under your ability. You make two space extension where you should extend three, not because it's safer but so you can bleed off your lead. It's tempting to think a slow move should be a safe move, but often it's not safer, just worse. Too often in high handicap games black tries to play safe and just gives white opportunities to attack by it.

Worse, you are tricking your opponent. If you peer into a corner and see that it is killable and profitable to do so, kill it. That is how we teach each other, so that in the future your opponent will not make such a group again. When we overplay and our opponents refuse to punish it, they're tricking us into thinking our overplays were good moves.

It's a mistake to judge the quality of go by score. A masterpiece can be decided in the end by a decisive kill after 100 beautifully flowing moves. And a half point win can be a fierce match between two players rising to the occasion, or random chance in a sloppy, distracted blitz game.

If you wish to have a peaceful, flowing, balanced style then strive for that. If the balanced, flowing, beautiful move puts you 10 points ahead, why not accept it? You can only dictate your moves, not your opponents.

Is it always inherently bad to play "intentionally below your ability"?
Playing for a reasonable margin in teaching games doesn't only help your go skillwise, by learning to count the score more precisely, but it also trains the ability to play in a restrained fashion. Is it "tricking" your opponent to opt not to kill at every opportunity? If after the game you can review the position, it should be fine.

Just a few questions, I don't know if there's a "right and wrong" here. Maybe it depends on whether your pkaying students or opponents

[oren]

Why try to demolish your opponent?

The goal is not to demolish the opponent. The goal is to take as much as you can get from good play. If you can find a way to get 20 points and the risk is small, you take it. If there is a chance to take 50 points and the risk is great, you might pass on it. Go is balance on taking the most you can get with good expectations.

If you can take 50 points with zero risk, you would be a fool for not doing it. It's better to win that game quickly and move on to something else than a meaningless endgame trying not to get a best result.

[Cassandra]

They were students, not opponents.

For every teacher, it is wise to neither overburden their students, nor to not challenge them.

Unfortunately, when playing a professional, we do not realise all the opportunities that were given to us to make the "right" move.

[Polama]

Is it always inherently bad to play "intentionally below your ability"?
Playing for a reasonable margin in teaching games doesn't only help your go skillwise, by learning to count the score more precisely, but it also trains the ability to play in a restrained fashion. Is it "tricking" your opponent to opt not to kill at every opportunity? If after the game you can review the position, it should be fine.

Just a few questions, I don't know if there's a "right and wrong" here. Maybe it depends on whether your pkaying students or opponents

It seems very hard to me to review the position afterwards and not come across as harsh. You just beat me by a point, and now we're going to go back and look at all the other chances you had to beat me and that you didn't feel you needed to bother with? If you're going to let an opponent come close, I think you're best just saying "well played.", like in the stories given.

There's value to a restrained style, but I think Oren puts it well: restrained play should be about minimizing risk. If there's a speculative invasion I choose not to take, that's good strategy: a good, restrained style. If I take a 2 point endgame move over a 4 point endgame move, or fail to finish off a large dead group, those are just mistakes.

Even for teaching games, my personal preference isn't for playing for a half point win, but for pushing the game into what I think will be instructive for the student. If they're too reliant on joseki, you might play an inferior non-joseki move. If they're too cautious, you might invade too deeply. Maybe an overly deep invasion will leave one of you 20 points ahead: I have a lot of respect for a teacher willing to put themselves into losing positions to help the student learn.

But anyways, I find a world of difference between a professional pulling the "win by 1/2 point" trick on somebody 9+ stones weaker, and trying that out in a properly handicapped even match. But I do acknowledge this may be partially cultural, and that others put more value in helping each other save face.

[Kirby]

You're my tic-tac-toe teacher, and you're playing X.

It's your move to play. How will you play?



Is it more elegant to force a draw?

[daal]

You're my tic-tac-toe teacher, and you're playing X.

It's your move to play. How will you play?



Is it more elegant to force a draw?

A1 is the only move. C3 is illegal, and anywhere else, you will immediately be captured.

[cyndane]

A1 is the only move. C3 is illegal, and anywhere else, you will immediately be captured.

Sadly (or maybe not?), I thought exactly the same thing!

[Alexfrog]

So I've been toying with this idea for a long time but now I'm becoming pretty adamant about it. I feel like anytime I win a game by more than 1 moku, I actually should count it down as a loss simply because my play was clearly inferior. Not inferior to my opponents, inferior to Christ's. I picture Jesus playing Go and as the ultimate player (given that he did invent the game and everything) I strive to play just like him.

Personally I choose real entities to strive towards in my quest for perfect play. Like Sai.

[Bantari]

So I've been toying with this idea for a long time but now I'm becoming pretty adamant about it. I feel like anytime I win a game by more than 1 moku, I actually should count it down as a loss simply because my play was clearly inferior. Not inferior to my opponents, inferior to Christ's. I picture Jesus playing Go and as the ultimate player (given that he did invent the game and everything) I strive to play just like him. I don't believe that Jesus would ever beat someone by more than a 1 point moku. Jesus understands that beating your opponent by more than this means that you overplayed and would've been bested if playing against a stronger player. I strive to always play like water. This means to always take the path of least resistance and to always be flexible. Water is actually invincible. You can't destroy it. No matter what you do to it, it just adapts to it's environment, changes forms if need be and continues on. As in Go, the player with the most flexible plan will always win. You need to control 181 points of the board to win without komi and from now on, every game I play, my goal will be just that: to control 181 points, no more no less. Anything else is a loss in my book.

About Physics:

You make some remarks about physics which are simply not true. "Water is invincible. You can't destroy it." You can destroy water (or split it into Hydrogen and Oxygen) via a process called "electrolysis" - kids learn about it and do it in grade schools these days, I think. Time will always "overcome" water, which constantly evaporates in almost any environment.

I think I get what you say about water adapting to its environment, but so does any fluid or gas, and even most solid matter if you wait long enough and shake it a little - so there is really nothing that special about water or the concept itself.

About Religion: (Am I breaking the forum rules here? Possibly... Please skip if you don't have an open mind.)

You also make quite a number of definitive remarks about somebody named Jesus. Is he a Go player as well? What is his Go level? Does he post here? What do you base your belief that Jesus would not win by more than one point in any game? If you talk about THAT Jesus (and I am not sure, there are some mexican kids running around here named "Jesus", so one can never take things for granted) - I would still like to know what you base your assumption on.

Theologically, one could as well make a point that Jesus would never win at all, but always "turn the other cheek" in Go terms and let his opponent win. What would Jesus need with a Go win? Its not like He needs more rating points...

Or one could make a point that He would take after His father - you know, THE God - who has a history of doing some really bad things to people who oppose Him. The flood, cities of the plain, etc.

But most likely, THE Jesus is much too busy and has much better things to do, or so I hope. Listening to all the prayers 24/7 must be a full-time job many times over, not to mention about actually answering some of them...

I don't want to believe that He ignores all these prayers because he would rather play games...

About Go:

Flexible plans are nice - you might have a point here, but its only a part of the whole picture. Given two plans of equal value, the more flexible one is probably better. But you can have flexible plans which are simple bad, and they tend to lost to less flexible but better plans almost every time. Not to mention that plan is one thing, and the skill to execute it is another.

Winning by 1 point is sweet - but at DDK level it is a lottery, and not really any measure of skill, plan validity, religious devotion, or anything else.

Why I say all this:

Not to be mean or offend anybody. It just seems to me that to get better in Go, as in any other field I can think of, personal honesty is pretty important. And personal honesty assumes you take a critical and very realistic look at your own actions and beliefs. This, at times, can be cruel and painful, but it is a necessary step.

Take your idea about holding back when the opponent makes a mistake... It might be noble or it might be dumb, I am not judging, but one thing I know: To get better, to really get to the point that you can actually afford to play like that and lead games down such with conviction, you need to spend many years beating the cr*p out of other players - simply to learn the necessary skills to become that good.

Consider, for example, that when you fail to kill a group which your opponent just allowed you to kill, you might not learn how he would try to desperately save it, and you will never get a chance to make mistakes and allow him to save it, and thus you will never learn from those mistakes and get stronger. You will stagnate.

Does THE Jesus really want to to stagnate?

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
A highly confusing and misguided post, I'd say.

[Joelnelsonb]

So after taking three weeks off from Go and coming back, I have found that I've gained a much better understanding of the game in general and I think I should revise my original statement a bit (Btw, I've heard of benefiting from taking time away, anyone else have this experience?) It occurs to me now that "anything other than 1 moku is a loss" is quite dramatic. Here's what I was really trying to say: Let me start with a Chess analogy (because Chess and Go have a lot more in common then you may realize). Chess, like Go, is an economical game built on the idea of exchanges. As you play, you're continually negotiating for different types of exchanges with your opponent. Now in the beginning of your Chess career, these exchanges are always based on material advantage. The more you progress at the game, the more the game becomes about positional exchanges. To the extent that you might give up a free rook (Bobby Fischer played a famous game where he gave up a free queen) in order to gain a positional advantage over your opponent. The point is this: once you've managed to "win" even just one such exchange, or rather once you've made a single exchange that you received the better end of the stick, you then welcome even exchanges for the rest of the game. This is because every time you make an even exchange, your advantage grows. The player on the deficit, however, should avoid exchanges at all cost unless he's really making out well which would re-even the playing field. So in Go, the better I understand the game, the more I see that it likewise is built on the idea of exchange. The point I was trying to make is that once you "win" a single exchange, there's no reason to play risky and try to win another. Just continue to make balanced exchanges for the rest of the game and you'll win. I now realize how it's a little silly to say "anything other than 1 moku" because an exchange is quite difficult to quantify, and more difficult the earlier in the game it occurs. None the less, if you're leading in the game at any time, why try to aggressively further that lead? Why not play tight and conservative and watch your opponent beat his head against a wall for the rest of the game?

[CnP]

well, firstly I do think not playing is a good way to improve ... but anyway what you're saying is the same as the famous proverb http://senseis.xmp.net/?ARichManShouldNotPickQuarrels

of course that relies on you being able to accurately judge who is ahead (including influence) and by how much.

[Joelnelsonb]

Since writing this post, I've become an even firmer believer in the concept. The only difference being that I now realize that aiming for a 1 point victory does not leave much margin for human error. The concept still remains intact though: that a player ought to strive to when the game by as little margin as possible. Anything beyond this is technically overplay and can be punished. The following game is a brief example of the type of game play I'm talking about. In this game, my opponent offered plenty of opportunities for me to attack weaknesses and further my lead beyond what I came out with, however, my only interest is in winning. And before you say "wow, you sure won by a lot more than one point!", I never claimed to be anywhere near skilled enough to actually accomplish this goal, I'm simply talking about the mindset that should drive every move. Perhaps in 20, 50 or 1000 years (on the other side) I might be capable of keeping every game I play within 5-6 points, regardless of the skill level of the opponent. Another way to say this is: If I played Lee Seedol today, I would make every attempt to win though I certainly would not. Each and every subsequent game played thereafter would be played with the same goal as I (slowly) journey down the path.

http://lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=6679