Why are our instincts so bad?

[daal]

I guess this is a stupid question, but I often make the most hare-brained moves and I wonder what in earth leads me to do so.

Why is it that our basic instincts are so often utterly wrong? We read book after book, play game after game, and still in the course of a game we are bound at one point or another to do something positively stupid. Early in my go career, they told me "urgent before big" but despite seeing the principle demonstrated and explained, those big moves still sometimes prove irresistible. Later, I learned the concept of a jealous move, and that playing one is a bad idea. But does that stop me? Of course not. My instinct keeps yelling "That's too big!" and in I plunge. Then they said "pay attention to weak groups!" I do that - but mostly when the siege is already in full swing.

Instincts. I've got 'em, but they are the wrong ones for go.

[gowan]

I think there is a difference between instincts like those genetically wired, as in the case of wild animals, and those we call go instincts. Go instincts are learned from playing through hundreds of pro games or studying until things become unconscious. Many of our instinctual mistakes in go may come from genetic instincts such as safety (making small life, over concentrating groups, etc.), recoiling from aggression (playing too defensively), needing food (grabbing small but certain territory), etc. These genetic instincts might not be helpful in go.

[DrStraw]

I think there is a difference between instincts like those genetically wired, as in the case of wild animals, and those we call go instincts. Go instincts are learned from playing through hundreds of pro games or studying until things become unconscious. Many of our instinctual mistakes in go may come from genetic instincts such as safety (making small life, over concentrating groups, etc.), recoiling from aggression (playing too defensively), needing food (grabbing small but certain territory), etc. These genetic instincts might not be helpful in go.

"Instincts" call also come from playing hundreds of games as beginner without a teacher. Those are more likely the bad instincts which daal is thinking of.

[Bill Spight]

I think there is a difference between instincts like those genetically wired, as in the case of wild animals, and those we call go instincts. Go instincts are learned from playing through hundreds of pro games or studying until things become unconscious. Many of our instinctual mistakes in go may come from genetic instincts such as safety (making small life, over concentrating groups, etc.), recoiling from aggression (playing too defensively), needing food (grabbing small but certain territory), etc. These genetic instincts might not be helpful in go.

"Instincts" call also come from playing hundreds of games as beginner without a teacher. Those are more likely the bad instincts which daal is thinking of.

Even without a teacher, if your opponents sufficiently strong you will pick up good habits from them. Playing over pro games also helps, especially if you use software that will let you guess the next move.

[Bill Spight]

I guess this is a stupid question, but I often make the most hare-brained moves and I wonder what in earth leads me to do so.

Why is it that our basic instincts are so often utterly wrong? We read book after book, play game after game, and still in the course of a game we are bound at one point or another to do something positively stupid. Early in my go career, they told me "urgent before big" but despite seeing the principle demonstrated and explained, those big moves still sometimes prove irresistible. Later, I learned the concept of a jealous move, and that playing one is a bad idea. But does that stop me? Of course not. My instinct keeps yelling "That's too big!" and in I plunge. Then they said "pay attention to weak groups!" I do that - but mostly when the siege is already in full swing.

Instincts. I've got 'em, but they are the wrong ones for go.

Maybe so. But I would say that you have developed some bad habits. Also, what you describe, making plays that you know better than to play, is called not playing up to yourself. Playing up to yourself is not easy for anyone. As bridge great Terence Reese said, a player who plays up to himself is hard to beat.

Psychologists used to talk about extinguishing bad habits, but a better word is repression. We plaster them over. In times of stress they have a way of resurfacing. As mentioned in another thread, relaxation can help. Take a deep breath, count to ten, whatever works.

[DrStraw]

Even without a teacher, if your opponents sufficiently strong you will pick up good habits from them. Playing over pro games also helps, especially if you use software that will let you guess the next move.

Of course. But I was thinking more of someone who doesn't play many stronger players. Say, a 20k who only plays lots of games against people of around the same strength. Bad habits become ingrained and remain, even when you start to play stronger players.

[Kirby]

daal, there is a difference between knowing something because somebody told you, and knowing it yourself.

Take your example: someone told you "urgent before big". Or maybe you read it somewhere. Doesn't really matter. The point is, during the game, you felt big was bigger than urgent.

Step 1.) Why did you think that way at that time? Did you count that you'd get more points? Did you read something out?

Step 2.) Okay, you know why you felt that way during the game. After the game, is your opinion different? Is it different for a reason you can see, or just because of the proverb? If you cannot see it for yourself, why is that?

It's hard to do, but I think it's worth investigating WHY you made a bad call during the game rather then simply saying you made a bad call.

[schawipp]

One example: When I make a risky-looking invasion and - after a complicated fight - finally die, you may call that "bad instinct" (over jealousy etc.). However assumed that a stronger player might be faced with the same board position and playing the same invasion, he might find an important tesuji, which I overlooked and allowing him to escape.

Thus, my failed invasion might be actually played with "good instinct" but bad reading.

[often]

Your instincts are bad because your fundamentals are bad.

[Abyssinica]

Your instincts are bad because your fundamentals are bad.

I think he's referring to the instincts that almost everyone seems to develop when starting the game and wondering WHY they're so bad in the context of this game.

[Bill Spight]

Your instincts are bad because your fundamentals are bad.

I rather think it's the other way around.

The play of rank beginners is not random, but it has a large random element. But after players have gained some experience, it does seem that errors are far from random, that players prefer certain types of bad plays to good plays.

[jeromie]

If the eye space of a large group was reduced to a bulky five, I dare say you would play on the key point before taking another big point on the board. When we skip those urgent moves, it's most likely because we didn't really consider them urgent at the time. Sure, it's sometimes obvious in retrospect, but I'll bet you thought you could make life / stave off an invasion / achieve local equity when you decided to play elsewhere. And at our level, we're just beginning to (really) learn about how important efficiency is in go. Playing one extra move in a local fight that wasn't really necessary can have a huge impact on the outcome of a game - but can you really judge when that move isn't necessary?

We also are aware of the gap between what can be done and what we can do, but it's not always easy to tell on which side of the divide a particular move lies. Was that invasion too deep, or did I just fail to make life where it was possible? The opponent invaded my area of influence and lived - but was that because it wasn't really territory, or because I played a weak defense? Was that move too slow, or did I fail to take advantage of my territorial lead? Some of these errors of judgment can come out in a self review, but others can only be revealed when a stronger player offers feedback. This makes it difficult to really take the lessons we learn from our own games to heart; there is always a seed of doubt regarding whether our assessment of the mistake was correct.

A third factor (in my own games, and probably in many around my level) is an inability to accurately count / estimate the score. This can contribute to those jealous moves or cause us make silly moves that don't fit into a sensible strategic plan. This is exacerbated by the dominance of online go. Counting at the end of a game is a natural way to learn to judge the sizes of territories, but most of us skip that step more often than not. Short time limits also make it difficult to take the time to get an accurate count.

[daal]

daal, there is a difference between knowing something because somebody told you, and knowing it yourself.

Take your example: someone told you "urgent before big". Or maybe you read it somewhere. Doesn't really matter. The point is, during the game, you felt big was bigger than urgent.

Step 1.) Why did you think that way at that time? Did you count that you'd get more points? Did you read something out?

No. As Jeromie points out, if one's go culture is restricted to online games, counting tends to be an un(der)developed ability. Essentially, my perception tends to be skewed, and because I find counting too time consuming and difficult, no correction takes place. My perception of size in real life does not transfer well to my perception of the size of go territory. My personal experience with this matter was that after reading a book by Robert Jasiek, I started to believe the proverb of "urgent before big" based on his examples, and although I remain unable to verify in hard numbers in my own games, blind faith was what got me from 6k to 5k.

Step 2.) Okay, you know why you felt that way during the game. After the game, is your opinion different? Is it different for a reason you can see, or just because of the proverb? If you cannot see it for yourself, why is that?

Most of this I guess I answered above. When I review a game afterwards, I can often recognize where I did something I knew I shouldn't do and can see how it led to a loss, but what I'm saying is that the impulse to play these type of moves remains strong. as Bill says, bad habits are hard to eradicate, particularly when they are as Gowan says, "genetic instincts."

[Tami]

I think what daal needs to do is make a "leap of faith". It's one thing to learn what kind of things one should do, and another actually to do them.

I remember a certain player I knew several years ago. He was forever stuck at about 7 or 8 kyu. Time and time again, I would tell him that one should not play - for example - the diagonal attachment in response to a knight's move approach to a 4-4 corner if the intention was to hold on to territory. (As you know, the idea of this move is to make the approacher heavy in order to attack him.) He never could summon up the courage to try a different idea, sticking instead with what he knew and trusted, even after what he knew and trusted had been exposed as faulty in many games with me (or other stronger players).

It's difficult for me too. I'm working on my fuseki skills, using Yang Yilun's book on fundamentals, and there are certain situations that are difficult for me, such as when the move that I ought to play based on his advice appears less enticing than the move I want to play. But I have to overcome my bad instinct and make what I think is the principled move; if it turns out that I am wrong, then at least it gives me something to learn from. It's only when you are willing to change your thinking and your actions that you can change your strength for the better.

So, you have to trust in the new ideas that you've learned or been shown, and give them a try, even if it means going against the ones that have brought you up to your current level.

[Bill Spight]

When I review a game afterwards, I can often recognize where I did something I knew I shouldn't do and can see how it led to a loss, but what I'm saying is that the impulse to play these type of moves remains strong.

I have thought a bit more about this question, and I think that overlearning is important. That is, we need to practice eliciting the impulse to make a certain type of bad play, then inhibiting that impulse and making a better play. And do that again and again. If we can do that while playing, in the heat of battle, that's fine. But if we could do that it wouldn't be a problem, would it? One way, perhaps, is to review our games more than once, so that we face the problematic situation again, and reinforce choosing the better play. Another is to play over pro games and note where we have the impulse to make the bad play and see where the pro played.