Can amateurs have their own style?

[Bill Spight]

In middle age he went from 4 kyu to 4 dan, a remarkable achievement, which I believe he could not have done without his style.

How is style related to making remarkable progress?

In K. C.'s case I think that his beautiful style indicated a good sense of the whole board and a lack of bad habits. He did not have much to unlearn.

[Knotwilg]

It seems like most of you agree to disagree with me. I remain unconvinced. I don't think I would be able to recognize any of the people I usually play against if I'd play them online with an unknown nickname, even if they gave me a selection of 10 players. I would probably recognize them by strength, but not by style. Players of same strength, I'd have a hard time guessing who's who.

I reckon I'd have a much higher chance of recognizing a game by Takemiya, Go Seigen, Cho Chikun, Fujisawa Shuko, Lee ChangHo or Shusaku, when given the choice. Sure, the era in which they played, plays a role.

So yes, I do think players have a style above a certain level and I put the bar way above mine, somewhere close to pro strength.

And yes, Alphago will not care and "think" all pros play bad go. Styles reflect a preference of how to deal with the uncertainty Alphago is beyond style, close to certainty already.

[Knotwilg]

Yes, but who cares?

Good question. Probably it irritates me because there's some kind of entitlement behind it. On a bad day I think "Get real and get better". On a good day I think "OK, it's nonsense, but who cares".

[yakcyll]

It seems like most of you agree to disagree with me. I remain unconvinced. I don't think I would be able to recognize any of the people I usually play against if I'd play them online with an unknown nickname, even if they gave me a selection of 10 players. I would probably recognize them by strength, but not by style. Players of same strength, I'd have a hard time guessing who's who.

The disagreement, I feel, stems from different meanings we all attach to the word 'style', which arguably is a rather fuzzy term. What I got from your question is that you feel like style in Go can be understood as a collection of refined patterns that can be used to uniquely identify a player. The way the rest sees it, myself included, a style is just a set of preferences, deliberate or otherwise, when it comes to certain decisional aspects of the game. Could I be identified by how aggressive or territorial I am or by the mistakes I make in games? Certainly not from a large pool of international players around my rank. Could my common opponent adapt to my preferred strategies over the course of a couple local tournaments? I think so - and that's good enough to be called a style; whether or not it's a positive thing to have one as such is another matter completely.

[Kirby]

it's possible that *identifying* style also takes some degree of skill. That is to say, even if a player has fighting characteristics, it might take some ability to classify this just by looking at the game. It doesn't mean that those characteristics or tendencies don't exist.

When you start as black, do you like to start with 4-4? 3-4? 3-3?

Maybe you like to mix it up. But if you favor or tend to play any one move over the other, that preference is the beginning of a style.

[John Fairbairn]

It seems like most of you agree to disagree with me.

Although, as yakcyll points out, people here are using style in different ways, I agree with you.

I used to think style meant what most people here assume, a conscious decision to play a certain consistent way (e.g. pure aggression).

But I asked Michael Redmond about this and he told me that style for him was determined by the moves that people play that are different from those that most people play. Underlying this, I think, are two things. One is that Japanese pros speak of an orthodox style (and this is the one most of them have), and the other is that pros have seen so many games that genuinely have a feel for what is normal and what is different. We amateurs, even dan players, lack that, so the only way we can use the word style of ourselves is the one that appears most common in this thread. However, since I personally prefer the word style to carry a nuance of, well, style, I prefer to see the amateur version as just mindset rather than style, and what the pros have is the real McCoy.

It follows that I'm nowhere near identifying a player's style, but I feel I can usually sense the mindset in amateur dans.

[Knotwilg]

But I asked Michael Redmond about this and he told me that style for him was determined by the moves that people play that are different from those that most people play.

"Most people" meaning most professional players, I assume. Because most people play moves that most professionals won't play, not as a matter of style, but as a matter of being dead wrong.

It follows that I'm nowhere near identifying a player's style, but I feel I can usually sense the mindset in amateur dans.

Oh yes! Most notably fighting spirit, which I consider as the most determining trait for a player's potential for improvement.

[Tami]

Of course you can have a style. This is not something reserved just for professionals.

A style means a way of doing things. It means a bias to one thing or another where there is a choice. It means having tastes of one's own. Now, whether an amateur go player can have an original style or not is another matter.

A very simple example of having a style, even at my level: usually, if there is a choice between a solid and a hanging connection, and no feasible way to say one is better than the other, I will prefer the solid connection. Likewise, I like star points better than 3-4 points. I tend to aim for influence early on rather than certain profit. My style of play is made up of such preferences.

Indeed, I would even go so far to say as that part of the fun of go is the clash of wills between players. "You want to play on a large scale? - Well, sunshine, so do I!" or perhaps "You seriously think that that profit is better than the influence I got in exchange? Well, let's see, shall we?" In other words, for me part of the joy of go is in the fight to express myself, to play in the way - i.e., the style - that gives me pleasure.

Maybe an amateur's style is indeed marred by mistakes, but never dare say that one cannot have a style just because one is an amateur.

[Gomoto]

style

a distinctive manner of expression in your play

some players play with more attention to style than to Leela Zero

he has a flowery style = likes to make a ponuki (alternative meaning: likes to prepare a Hanami Ko)

he has a unique style of resigning (duck and cover)

he has an abrasive style (nobody likes to play him)

[sorin]

2.) *Should* amateurs aim to have their own style?
- Yilun Yang says no. Amateurs should try to play the best move. When the opponent forces them to fight, they should fight. If the opponent makes it so they should play for big moyo, they should do it.

Interesting - I don't understand why this should apply just to amateurs, if it is true - why would pros not benefit from the same advice?

[Knotwilg]

Indeed, I would even go so far to say as that part of the fun of go is the clash of wills between players. "You want to play on a large scale? - Well, sunshine, so do I!" or perhaps "You seriously think that that profit is better than the influence I got in exchange? Well, let's see, shall we?"

That's not style, that's situational gamesmanship, which I endorse.

In other words, for me part of the joy of go is in the fight to express myself, to play in the way - i.e., the style - that gives me pleasure.

Maybe I have never felt the pleasure to express myself through Go and therefore am irritated when someone around my rank claims they can. I have reviewed so many games by players in the kyu-low dan ranks and I'm always amazed at the gross mistakes we make. I just don't consider our level of mastery to be sufficient to speak of our own style.

Okay, let's make a comparison - not an analogy. I do find I have a style of writing and I'm able to express myself in writing. Even if acclaimed writers may consider my writing poor, I think I don't make too many mistakes in grammar, spelling or vocabulary, I'm able to create some sort of structure and have written in many different contexts, like business, essays, stories and songs.

Nwo lets cmpaare taht to me cailming have I a style this like. Taht wood be syllie no?

The native speakers among you may argue my command of English doesn't warrant for having a style. I'd be fine with that judgment but would probably be more defensive when judged likewise on my native writing.

This idea of my personality appearing through my writing is not silly or delusionary, I think, even if you remove personal references in the content. In fact Tami, I'm more confident of recognizing your writing style than your go style. But I am not entitled to deciding on your behalf what you identify with. So if you identify yourself with Go and honestly believe you have a style (one that is not overshadowed by wild deviations from the standard) than who am I to deny that?

So let me speak for myself: I have no style whatsoever. I'm a clumsy low dan player. It doesn't prevent me from having a lot of fun with the game. And I enjoy writing about it

PS: Or maybe I approach Go more like a kind of science than an art. I'm very good at math, even if I'm not nearly as good as I was in my twenties. But I'd never think of having a "style" in math. It's just understanding theory and problem solving. But at the boundaries of science, where one moves into the unknown, I can imagine there's a style to dealing with the uncertainty of it all.

[Tami]

Maybe I have never felt the pleasure to express myself through Go and therefore am irritated when someone around my rank claims they can. I have reviewed so many games by players in the kyu-low dan ranks and I'm always amazed at the gross mistakes we make. I just don't consider our level of mastery to be sufficient to speak of our own style.

Nwo lets cmpaare taht to me cailming have I a style this like. Taht wood be syllie no?

Well, if you made a habit of it and did it with purpose - then I would call it a style!

Amateur songwriters write songs in the style of 60s folk-rock -they may do it badly, but they still have a style.

Fashion students may look ridiculous - but they still have style. The unkempt chap in a tank top and chinos, and who wears socks and sandals may also look funny, and have no sense of style - but that, too, is a style.

My Japanese may be peppered with grammatical mistakes, but there will be something about my syntax and choice of words that gives it personal flavour.

You don't have to be among the world's elite to have a style. Denying that is just being...really grumpy. Life is too short to be so hard on oneself and others.

[Knotwilg]

Amateur songwriters write songs in the style of 60s folk-rock -they may do it badly, but they still have a style.

Fashion students may look ridiculous - but they still have style. The unkempt chap in a tank top and chinos, and who wears socks and sandals may also look funny, and have no sense of style - but that, too, is a style.

My Japanese may be peppered with grammatical mistakes, but there will be something about my syntax and choice of words that gives it personal flavour.

You don't have to be among the world's elite to have a style. Denying that is just being...really grumpy. Life is too short to be so hard on oneself and others.

In that case, I have a style of mowing the lawn, poking my nose and talking to the cat. If you reduce "style" to the fact that something is done by a distinguishable person, well, then we of course all have our style at Go. Bringing it back to the original post where I believe Rikuge wanted to "find his style", I would say: don't look for it any longer, you already have your style, because it is you. And if you disagree with that, I'd say, life's too short to be grumpy.

[jlt]

Style exists in go because we are not perfect problem solvers. Watching a go game doesn't give me the impression of reading a solution to a problem, but of reading a story. Go is like a foreign language: professionals are perfectly bilingual, dan players are fluent but make occasional mistakes or even gross mistakes. A kyu player can still hold a conversation but sometimes the sentence doesn't come out, or is not intelligible. It doesn't mean he cannot express anything, nor that his writing has no personality. Watching someone mow the lawn is much less entertaining.

That said, I believe that amateurs' style often reflects their weaknesses, so it can be beneficial to change one's style.

[Kirby]

2.) *Should* amateurs aim to have their own style?
- Yilun Yang says no. Amateurs should try to play the best move. When the opponent forces them to fight, they should fight. If the opponent makes it so they should play for big moyo, they should do it.

Interesting - I don't understand why this should apply just to amateurs, if it is true - why would pros not benefit from the same advice?

He said this before AlphaGo - maybe he'd include pros in the statement now, too

Anyway, my feeling is that sometimes, there may be only one correct way to play. So I'd think that, the closer you are to playing optimal go, the less room there is for different styles - just play optimally.

But maybe in some parts of the game, there are many equally good ways to play. I suppose there is room for style or preference then.