What are the fundamentals?

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:08 pm

Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental?

Good question. Could be a pedagogical thing -- one wonders about the similarities and contrasts between Eastern v. Western traditions (the Greeks?) in this regard.

DrStraw · Post by **DrStraw** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:39 pm

EdLee wrote:
Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental?
Good question. Could be a pedagogical thing -- one wonders about the similarities and contrasts between Eastern v. Western traditions (the Greeks?) in this regard.

I also thought about this east vs west thing earlier in the thread but did not post about it. I was wondering if this discussion would even take place in the east.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:47 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:
These shape patterns being second nature is part of what I would call having a mastery of the fundamentals.

I wouldn't dispute in the slightest that instilling such patterns as second nature is useful or that they are common. They are so common, in fact, that I suspect people who ask about the fundamentals know about (and perhaps even know) them already.
But my sense of what they are really asking is how do you know when to choose between the various options: which White 1 in the above case.

In my attempt to apply the idea of the trivium to the study of go, I think that the question of which option to choose, at least on the level of what people are calling fundamental, would fall under the classification of dialectic. Basic patterns would fall under grammar.

I also have a sense that the problem is something of a western one in that too many people here try to reduce shapes (or other facets of the game) to some sort of essence as an exercise in mathematical elegance. Good shape becomes a static concept when it should be dynamic; people want help on what shapes do (and don't do), not what they are.

I am not sure who you are talking about. If anyone is associated with mathematical go, I am. But I raised cain on Sensei's Library about the treatment of shape as static. (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?DynamicNatureOfShape ). As you say, shape is dynamic.

daal · Post by **daal** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:51 pm

Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental? To me, learning fundamentals is about establishing a good foundation. When you have gaps in your knowledge, no matter how "basic" the topic is, fill them. That's why I responded the way I did earlier in the thread - somewhat as a joke, but also seriously.

If you want to learn the fundamentals, study the gaps you have in your own understanding. Does it matter if you enumerate what this means for each individual?

Gaps is an interesting way of putting it. One can imagine go fundamentals as a net, the gaps through which the lost games slip.

Presumably, there are different nets; the kyu nets being woven more loosely than the dan nets.

Also, the possibility exists that the net, however closely woven, may be torn in some places and in need of repair.

You are right that it might be a waste of time to look at individual damaged nets, but on the other hand, it would be nice to know for example what a good 3k or 3d net looks like.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:52 pm

EdLee wrote:
Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental?
Good question. Could be a pedagogical thing -- one wonders about the similarities and contrasts between Eastern v. Western traditions (the Greeks?) in this regard.

I dunno. Certainly there are a whole lot of Japanese go books with kihon in them, but I don't know of many English go books with basic or fundamental in them. OC, I could be wrong about the English go books.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:06 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:
These shape patterns being second nature is part of what I would call having a mastery of the fundamentals.

I wouldn't dispute in the slightest that instilling such patterns as second nature is useful or that they are common. They are so common, in fact, that I suspect people who ask about the fundamentals know about (and perhaps even know) them already.

I wouldn't assume it is so well known among mid-sdk, I have found quite a broad spectrum of knowledge among players of the same strength. Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them? It depends a lot on how they learnt: did they read books, sensei's library, have a teacher and what did their teacher teach, hack about online etc? I have come across dan players who didn't know what an L group was: and I don't just mean didn't know the term; they didn't recognise the shape as a commonly-occurring one that was worth remembering it was a dead shape but treated it as just another life and death problem to read from scratch every time.

To take another one of these common shapes/sequences, the sente 2nd line hane-connect from a 3-3 invasion of a 4-4 with an approach stone:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ | . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . $$ | . . A A . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . $$ | . . 1 2 6 O . . $$ | . . 5 3 4 . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . $$ +----------------[/go]

There was a recent post from Fedya (6k) in which he expressed surprise about this technique (it would have been better than what he played in order to increase his eyespace more in sente, I seem to recall he essentially just played 3 at 5): it wasn't a standard part of his Go vocabulary. These kind of common shapes, the different options available and when to use them are one of the most useful teaching topics I think for mid sdks. I actually did a lecture on this exact topic which was recorded here: https://youtu.be/csIMlfMzA_k.

Fedya · Post by **Fedya** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:22 pm

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . X . O . . . . $$ . . . . a . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

Doesn't Attack and Defense say that it's better to play at a than where White has played?

daal · Post by **daal** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:24 pm

Uberdude wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
These shape patterns being second nature is part of what I would call having a mastery of the fundamentals.

I wouldn't dispute in the slightest that instilling such patterns as second nature is useful or that they are common. They are so common, in fact, that I suspect people who ask about the fundamentals know about (and perhaps even know) them already.

I wouldn't assume it is so well known among mid-sdk, I have found quite a broad spectrum of knowledge among players of the same strength. Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them?

Know about: 90%

Know: 10%

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:34 pm

DrStraw wrote:but did not post about it.

Yes, lots of land mines. :-?

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:38 pm

Fedya wrote:
$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ c . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . X . O . . . . $$ c . . . a . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

Doesn't Attack and Defense say that it's better to play at a than where White has played?

Yes, if white was the last one to play in this position, then the 4th line "invasion" is rather unusual and the 3rd line is often better if you want to invade (however, see http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/74056/). I think Attack and Defense does point out though that this 4th line invasion can be a powerful splitting move with support nearby (like that c). But who said white played last? Maybe it was like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . 2 , 1 . . | $$ . . 3 . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ ------------------+[/go]

Or this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . 1 . 4 . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . 2 . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Or this:

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

Fedya · Post by **Fedya** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:44 pm

Uberdude wrote:

There was a recent post from Fedya (6k) in which he expressed surprise about this technique (it would have been better than what he played in order to increase his eyespace more in sente, I seem to recall he essentially just played 3 at 5): it wasn't a standard part of his Go vocabulary.

Funny you should mention this. I just had another recent game where a 3-3 invasion failed and I wound up with a bunch of dead stones. I was wondering why I hadn't learned anything from that post and everybody's following comments, but as it turns out in this game, I didn't have an approach stone, so the position was totally different. (Specifically, it was this one.) And, of course, I didn't notice how it was different and what the implications of those differences were. :oops:

Apparently, the invader isn't supposed to live in this one, or at best get a seki. One of several games I've been thinking about commenting about at length and posting in my study journal.

Fedya · Post by **Fedya** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:53 pm

Perhaps sparky, daal, Fedya, dfan and others can say how much of my post was old hat to them?

Well, I can say that

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . 1 . . . $$ . . X , O . . a . $$ . . . . . . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

was new to me. And aiming a isn't something I would have considered. My first thought would be to try to find a way to get an eye on the side, followed by a way to get out to the center for a second eye. So I'd probably play :w1:

at a or b instead:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . X , O . . . . $$ . . . a . . X . . $$ . . . . b . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:59 pm

My first thought would be to try to find a way to get an eye on the side

Turns out this is not uncommon, at all.
At our local club, at least two or more members also tend to have similar reactions given certain corner or side situations.
My guess is this "defense mechanism" may have come from having groups killed (often),
leading to fight or flight, and trying to live ASAP could be a variation on the "flight" side.
Whereas the :w1:

kosumi feels more like "get out, split B into two groups, let's fight":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . 1 . . . $$ . . X . O . . . . $$ . . . . . . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

DrStraw · Post by **DrStraw** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:15 pm

Fedya wrote:
$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X a . a . . .
$$ . . . . a . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . X a . a . . . $$ . . . . a . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]
dit
Doesn't Attack and Defense say that it's better to play at a than where White has played?

Usually the points marked are considered best, but that does not mean that the others cannot be considered, depending on the surrounding conditions.

Gotraskhalana · Post by **Gotraskhalana** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:36 pm

Kirby wrote:Why do we have to define the set of things that are considered fundamental? To me, learning fundamentals is about establishing a good foundation. When you have gaps in your knowledge, no matter how "basic" the topic is, fill them. That's why I responded the way I did earlier in the thread - somewhat as a joke, but also seriously.

If you want to learn the fundamentals, study the gaps you have in your own understanding. Does it matter if you enumerate what this means for each individual?

The context for this discussion are conversations like this:

Question: What do I need to do to fill the gaps in my knowlegde?
Answer: Learn the fundamentals.

So, no, "just fill your gaps" is not an answer because it is circular, and yes, it matters, because usually that is the original question that was answered with "just learn the fundamentals".

On the invasion example:
I have seen them (I am actually just trying to read "Get strong at invasions" again), however, I am not able to use them properly for several reasons. It is one of my weakest points. I think that I have not used different sequences enough to integrate them to a set of choices with predictable consequences. I will certainly study this post again.

On Fedya's example:
I am quite aware of the role of these helper stones in corner invasions/survival, especially since I have learned about the corresponding invasion of the ogeima shimari. I am comparatively good at corner survival, however, I recently messed up a 3-3 invasion defense because I tried out a variation where I keep the corner and I did not really believe that it is the invader who chooses the side to come out.

More importantly:
There are things that, like Fedya's example, just totally escaped my notice.
I only recently realized this *as a sequence*:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$........ $$..3T1... $$..B.2B.. $$........ $$........ $$---------[/go]

This may sound trivial and I have certainly heard before "no, play above this gap and not above that gap", but I only now realized in a game that the important thing was that 3 should be close to my strength because of the defense against the triangled point and that the point was usually to build a moyo. It is hard to explain that I did not see it as an object before. I use it now in more than half of my games (and my peers don't expect it, either). Similarly, I have only recently tried a double approach in response to a pincer (and mess it up a lot for now).

The problem is, these things you cannot ask for because you just interpret your opponents move as attachment or leaning, but not as a common sequence.

Life In 19x19

What are the fundamentals?

Re:

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re:

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?