Ian Butler's Go Journal

[BlindGroup]

Game 3.
I like move 17, instinctively.
This was 40 seconds + 10 extra per move with 40s max. So quite blitz.
Happy with my quick L&D thinking up top. #Progress

This is interesting. I might give it a try too!

One thought on move 19 in game three. Would A have worked? I played around with a it a bit and couldn't find a way for white to save the group on the left. But I haven't played 9x9 since I first learned the game

$$Bc
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O O B . |
$$ | . . . O X X X . . |
$$ | . . , O X . , . . |
$$ | . X . O . . O . . |
$$ | . . X O , a , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O O B . |
$$ | . . . O X X X . . |
$$ | . . , O X . , . . |
$$ | . X . O . . O . . |
$$ | . . X O , a , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

[Ian Butler]

@BlindGroup: I really recommend it, going back to 9x9 or 13x13 at times is challenging and forces you to make the most out of every move. I like it. It's also less time consuming. If you have only 30 minutes to play, mostly I'd rather have 3 9x9 games than half a 19x19 one Depends, of course.



Anyway, success is a very subjective thing. Were I to measure my success by my ranking alone, the past month has been "uneventful". After a rather amazing rise to 10 kyu from January to July, things were bound to slow down. But combined with my new "outlook" on Go, meaning no longer obsessively studying for hours a day, it was certain to slow down A LOT.

Yet I feel I've been very successful since my "2nd" career in Go. Only playing when you feel like it means you enjoy every game.
Not caring about your rank means you explore, experiment, open up with moves you ordinarily wouldn't do, aren't afraid to accept handicap matches...
And almost contrary to that is that I've finally managed to leave DDK level behind me. This week I've won a 4H stone match against a 15 kyu, a 2 stone match against a 12 kyu and an even game against a 10 kyu. All in which I was mostly blitzing, only in the first one was my opponent blitzing, too. I feel fairly confident I'd win most of my matches against a 10 kyu in an even match. Of course, I could be mistaken, in which case it'll become obvious soon enough.

Either way, I now have 3 accounts on OGS and they are 8.1 kyu, 8.4 kyu and 9.0 kyu, so I think that says something. Also note that I just said I don't care about rank and yet I list 3 rankings here However, I use rank as an estimator of strength and see if there is improvement or not. In this case, I see that there has been improvement and I have officially surpassed the DDK-SDK mark on OGS. A small celebration is in order.


Besides that, here's what I need to be attentive about:
- I play a lot of blitz games right now. It's a fun activity in the evening to play a Go game in about half an hour. (contradicting my opening statement in this post) The danger, however, is that it'd become my standard. I'll take note of that and "force" myself to play real/non-blitz games too. Also because direction of play etc are my strong suits. Tactical playing (requires reading & time) is my weakness. So blitzing doesn't help that a lot.
- L&D with throw-ins. I need to try to kill more with throw-ins and be weary of my opponent throwing in more. I almost never take it into account and it gets me killed often.


That's it for today. I've had a good weekend with plenty of Go games, on different dimensions. I lost against a 4 kyu in a tight battle, lost heavily against a 6 kyu twice, both times creating a dragon for myself after non-sente plays that my opponent left unanswered. (learning opportunity there), won many games, too. Against DDKs, also a 9x9 game against an 8kyu, which I consider a huge victory for me, with my weak tactical skills.

I'm learning all about sente these days. Thanks to dwyrin and his basic series, I'm making healthy decisions during my games.

happy Go learning!

[rikuge]

Inspiring read!

How is your Go club coming along?

[Ian Butler]

Inspiring read!

How is your Go club coming along?

Thanks!
The one at home is okay. We have some bad days (with just 1 or even no people), but yesterday for example there were 6 of us, that's pretty nice.
I played a friend, giving 6 handicap stones for the first time ever and won with 50+ points. Of course he's perhaps 10 stones weaker than me, so the handicap could be further increased, but it still felt tight for a while there. Never played against so many stones before.

The Go club at school is starting tomorrow, and I'm excited about that. We already have like 16 kids who want to participate! Hopefully we can keep most of them throughout the year!



I'm learning new things every day and that also includes Go. I've learned that playing handicap games is rather interesting. I almost always get in positions I can suddenly read out a variation that works so well for my opponent that I think: how did I get in this situation? Of course my opponent doesn't notice it and I get off scott-free, but I still got in that position.
Playing weaker players I also often get in a position where I think: had I been playing a stronger opponent, I'd surely lose the game from this position. Like I "give" them too much leeway or something?

I think it's all about concentration and knowing who you're playing. Handicap games showed me this.
I played against 6 stones. My first 20 moves where well thought out, read variations and such. As soon as I felt the handicap stones were made up for, my game slacked a bit and I get lazier in reading.
Playing an opponent you know is weaker without handicap, the game starts like that.
Maybe it's a natural thing and playing stronger players brings out the best in you. Only logical playing weaker players brings out... not a lot in you.
An observation that I'm not sure what to make of.
Make it a lesson to practise reading even in those games? Or accept that and just enjoy those games where I can practically do what I want on the board and have fun with my friends and teach them.
I'm not sure.
And I don't really care at the moment either we'll see!

[Knotwilg]

Maybe it's a natural thing and playing stronger players brings out the best in you. Only logical playing weaker players brings out... not a lot in you.

I can honestly say that I play as seriously against weaker players as against stronger ones. The big difference in handicap games is: as white you play against an excess of enemy stones on the board but your will power works better for you than for the opponent, as black you try to make the best of the excess of stones and keep your balance against the better targeted will power of the opponent. I overplay as White, but not in the sense that I play moves I know for sure don't work, rather moves where
I expect Black to back off more often when not needed or to play elsewhere when defence would be appropriate.

As Black I back off a little more than when playing even handed but not so much as to lose the advantage and certainly not when I don't see why I should answer.

[Ian Butler]

That makes sense.

I must, however, add the fact that I start "slacking" when I play players considerably weaker, and usually the slacking starts happening when I'm comfortably ahead, or when I've caught up on the handicap stones.
To be more precise, I think that in a friendly game against a weaker friend, I use all strategy and less tactical playing because I know that my tactical playing is better than theirs even if I don't pay too much attention.
One could say it's a wrong attitude, for me it's just something that happens.

Part of that might also be that I don't wish to play razor sharp against a friend and beat him down completely. When I "slack" (though don't get the wrong idea here, I don't play bad. But I don't play optimally either) I win with over 50 points difference. If I were to play up to my usual standards, in some games I'd win with over 100 points difference. So it's also a way for me to play, have fun and still give my friend a nice game, too.
Though that doesn't mean I don't point out mistakes that he makes when I, for example, can kill his corner. So instead of killing it, I show the sequence, show his mistake and, if he agrees, he can pick a more suited move.


Biggest obstacle in getting better?
Today I've been quite ill so I spent almost an entire day in bed, unable to read or watch tv or... So I have been thinking a lot.
My biggest obstacle in getting better might well be my own laziness. It's tough to admit but I could play a lot better if I were to: take my time better, read out things better, think of alternative for every move, think more before playing... These are all things I'm able to do, it's not beyong my abilities. A good example is leaning to attack. I know the theory, I understand it, I see it in games. In my own game, I need to attack and I don't think of it. Because I play too fast and don't think enough.
It's hard to admit because in general I'm a person who is quite disciplined, thinks about everything/every choice and whatnot. Yet in my Go playing, I'm often lazy, more instinctively and too quick. My attitude will need to change to play better. Is it a curse from playing online? Is it a subconscious decision to be wild & free in this game (me being quite strict, disciplined and calm in real life) and just have fun on the board without thinking too hard?
I have no idea, but it's an interesting thought and I'll be thinking more about it. Though a few things are clear:
- I still have a lot of potential left (just fixing the above should make my game a lot stronger. Though it's easier said than done)
- I enjoy Go a lot. I used to love studying but when I played I was anxious. Now I love playing games, experimenting...
- Playing Go can mean a many different thing. Quickly online as relaxation, focused against a foe of the same strength as a mental challenge...

Pro Games
Last few days I replayed some old pro games. I really love to do that. This time from the book 'The Playing Styles of Seven Top Pros', which gives detailed commentary for those games on a level I can understand.
I'm also happy to say I start understanding more about those pro games than I used to.
Though I probably still don't understand 5% of what's going on, the games speak out to me, they are beautiful, and so sharp.

Go teaching about life?
I used to look towards Go mostly for learning lessons and - in fact - I have learned a lot from Go. Both studying it and how there are laws on the board.
But I've also learned there are severe limits to Go as a teacher about life. In fact, Go is a very restricted teacher.
When you lose someone dear, you finally understand Go is about as trivial as watching a movie.
Maybe the best lesson Go has to teach me is that Go is, after all, just a game.
Life is a million times more complex than that. A few stones could never capture anything that massive.

[ez4u]

...
Biggest obstacle in getting better?
Today I've been quite ill so I spent almost an entire day in bed, unable to read or watch tv or... So I have been thinking a lot.
My biggest obstacle in getting better might well be my own laziness. It's tough to admit but I could play a lot better if I were to: take my time better, read out things better, think of alternative for every move, think more before playing... These are all things I'm able to do, it's not beyong my abilities.[emphasis added] A good example is leaning to attack. I know the theory, I understand it, I see it in games. In my own game, I need to attack and I don't think of it. Because I play too fast and don't think enough.
It's hard to admit because in general I'm a person who is quite disciplined, thinks about everything/every choice and whatnot. Yet in my Go playing, I'm often lazy, more instinctively and too quick. My attitude will need to change to play better. Is it a curse from playing online? Is it a subconscious decision to be wild & free in this game (me being quite strict, disciplined and calm in real life) and just have fun on the board without thinking too hard?
I have no idea, but it's an interesting thought and I'll be thinking more about it. Though a few things are clear:
- I still have a lot of potential left (just fixing the above should make my game a lot stronger. Though it's easier said than done)
- I enjoy Go a lot. I used to love studying but when I played I was anxious. Now I love playing games, experimenting...
- Playing Go can mean a many different thing. Quickly online as relaxation, focused against a foe of the same strength as a mental challenge...

...

Personally I think this is not correct. I believe that we all tend to think this way with regard to most of our lives, not just Go. But we are just fooling ourselves. The thought that we are "better" at something than our results show is very comforting, nothing more.

OK perhaps in the study of mathematics it might be true. You couldn't remember that theorem today but if you thought about it a little longer you would be able to recall it more clearly.

However, in a competitive game against another person you cannot blame your losses on your laziness without giving equal credit to you opponent's laziness for you wins! You think you would do better if you took things more seriously, read more carefully, and so on? Does that mean you think you will do worse if your opponents take things more seriously, read more carefully, and so on instead? You said that fixing the list of things would make your game a lot "stronger". However, I it would just make your results in your existing pool of opponents better. To show that your "game" were really better would require that you sought a pool of studious players who also take their time, consider alternatives on each move, etc. Otherwise you are really just sandbagging in a pool of slackers. "Oh, I crushed that guy last night, ho hum" Yeah, the poor guy dropped his beer on the keyboard just as you threatened to cut and forgot to connect because his shorts were suddenly freezing cold and his wife was screaming about not getting any stains on the upholstery (been there, done that ).

There is only one way -- do better! Never rationalize your results based on laziness or any other "reasons". Either you do better... or you aren't better, IMHO.

[Bill Spight]

Biggest obstacle in getting better?
Today I've been quite ill so I spent almost an entire day in bed, unable to read or watch tv or... So I have been thinking a lot.
My biggest obstacle in getting better might well be my own laziness. It's tough to admit but I could play a lot better if I were to: take my time better, read out things better, think of alternative for every move, think more before playing... These are all things I'm able to do, it's not beyong my abilities.

Personally I think this is not correct. I believe that we all tend to think this way with regard to most of our lives, not just Go. But we are just fooling ourselves. The thought that we are "better" at something than our results show is very comforting, nothing more.

I don't find that thought very comforting, actually. And I tend to think that Ian is right, although laziness doesn't seem like the right word to me. Several times on this site (including once to Ian) I have quoted bridge great Terence Reese to the effect that someone who plays up to themselves is hard to beat. That hit home to me when I was in my early twenties and I resolved to play up to myself at bridge, and I did raise the level of my game. Recently I challenged BlindGroup to play as a 4 kyu. He did so, and apparently raised the level of his game (although he may have been playing at that level already). In go, as I have also related before, I went from 3 dan to 4 dan simply by playing one stone better. For whatever reasons it is not unusual for people to perform not just below their potential, but below their current ability.

A good example is leaning to attack. I know the theory, I understand it, I see it in games. In my own game, I need to attack and I don't think of it. Because I play too fast and don't think enough.

You may want to rethink that. There are any number of players who play too fast and without thought who attack like crazy.

[dfan]

However, in a competitive game against another person you cannot blame your losses on your laziness without giving equal credit to you opponent's laziness for you wins! You think you would do better if you took things more seriously, read more carefully, and so on? Does that mean you think you will do worse if your opponents take things more seriously, read more carefully, and so on instead?

Well, yes, of course. It is just like thinking both "I would do better if I was better at life and death" and "I would have done worse if my opponent was better at life and death." Everyone can improve in various areas, both us and our opponents.

Being able to "bring your A game" consistently is a skill like any other, and improving it will improve your results. I know people who are good at it and people who are bad at it. Some of them are worse than me overall and some of them are better than me. (The simplest way to be bad at it is to play too fast.) I don't see any contradiction.

The thought that we are "better" at something than our results show is very comforting, nothing more.

I don't think anyone is saying this. I am agonizingly aware that the true measure of my skill is my results in actual games. I, at least, am just saying that playing with more care will improve results just as playing with more knowledge will.

[Ian Butler]

There is only one way -- do better! Never rationalize your results based on laziness or any other "reasons". Either you do better... or you aren't better, IMHO.

Haha. Of course, you are right.
What I actually meant to say was:
I wish I took the game more seriously.
And that on itself is silly to say. Either do or don't. Apparently I don't. (online, mostly)

But we are just fooling ourselves. The thought that we are "better" at something than our results show is very comforting, nothing more.

That depends, I believe. I do believe I'm better at Go than my results ONLINE. Note, however, I never use these things are an excuse. I'm not bitter about it or anything, too. It was just something that I noticed. And also that I do a lot of practice reading, but online I hardly do ever reading. So that's also what I meant with: without being lazy, I'd improve. Because then I'd finally apply my reading skills properly.

I see your point and I do agree. But I also persist that you can underperform at things if some criteria are not met. (which is not the same as sayin: I could be better IF....)
I am saying: my Go playing is actually of X strength, but (basically) online I play under my own level because I often play lazy or quick. For me it has to do with the screen.

Let me use an analogy:
playing go online for me is jogging in jeans.
while I could run faster wearing shorts.

There's no excuse: I should wear shorts to run. Not jeans. But I wear them. And I get results I should get running with jeans. And in running with jeans, I'm at my level.
But if I'd take the trouble to always wear shorts, I'd run at a slightly higher level.

That's all.

[EdLee]

Hi Ian,

Hope you recover soon.

Lazy hardwired?

[Ian Butler]

Hi Ian,

Hope you recover soon.

Lazy hardwired?

Interesting article.
I've played a real life game against Knotwilg a few days ago and I certainly didn't suffer from laziness or fast playing there, proving to myself again it's mostly constricted to Online playing (still a majority of my games, but still).

It was a great game. I had almost forgot how great it can be to play Go under optimal conditions. For me, optimal means:
- a beautiful Goban and nice stones
- a stronger opponent
- a means to discuss/Review the game afterwards

All the ingredients were there, and I thouroughly enjoyed it. I might share the game later.
Of course I lost. Dieter is a Dan and we played without handicap. I made some questionable mistakes/moves and having two weak-ish groups ruined my chances of completing a big area, which I definitely needed to win the game.

Points to take away:
- Take territory. Influence only is very risky and you'll need a lot of points as compensation.
- Check better if a move against a closed off opponent is - in fact - sente.
- Look into cuts even more! CUTTING & CONNECTING IS SO BASIC!
- When behind, you have a play a bit sharper, but don't disband the basics.

All in all, though, it wasn't a bad game either. It was definitely okay for my level. I was just facing a strong opponent who definitely didn't let me get away with my mistakes. As it should be!

Most fun moment:
At one point (already behind) I made a move that seemed to do a few things at once. I definitely liked it. When Knotwilg (/my sensei) called it a small 'ear reddening move', I was very happy with it. Even if, in LeelaZero analysis later on, it turned out not to be such ear reddening after all, I still liked it a lot and my opponent didn't. So even if the robots disagree, it was a nice move on the board

[Knotwilg]

When Knotwilg called it a small 'ear reddening move', I was very happy with it. Even if, in LeelaZero analysis later on, it turned out not to be such ear reddening after all, I still liked it a lot and my opponent didn't. So even if the robots disagree, it was a nice move on the board

It was reddening my ears because I then overplayed with a peep and next played an "ear move", both of which were unnecessary risky.

For me, Lizzie's analyis was extremely valuable. On the upside it showed that I had been playing very consistently - actually we both did, but Ian more so in a slowly decaying way, displaying what I thought was a lack of fighting spirit. On the "learning side", it showed an almost astounding preference for moves that create or remove inefficiencies. This has been pointed out by John F. as a remarkable feature of AI, making it truly intelligent.

There was a particular forcing move Black could play, which gave a group of stones slightly better shape. If White played there, it was a reverse sente kind of move, which turned the group in a wasted lump of stones and it also voided some more forcing moves in the follow up of Black's forcing move. White's move wasn't so much sente as it lowered the temperature in that corner, being white territory plus an adjacent useless lump of black stones.

Neither Black or White (Ian or me) had these moves on our radar. Both of us considered other areas to be bigger and other groups to be more urgent.

This learning moment aside, the majority of assessments made by Lizzie are not surprising at all. The pattern here is that Lizzie keeps it simple, in a similar way as I have observed from Dwyrin: take territory, don't be too impressed by loosely shaped spheres of influence and be patient. I've heard people say that AI analysis is way over their head. Maybe I'm overestimating my ability to analyze a game with Lizzie's hindsight, but I find it quite easy to understand and learn from.

[Ian Butler]

Well, I can't seem to win games anymore. Be it against 7 kyu, 10 kyu or even 12 kyu OGS.
Combined with my inability to concentrate on a book (I've read +100 books last year, now I haven't finished a book in more than a week), I believe I'm in some sort of decompression period. I've lived fairly disciplined and studious for the past few years, and now I feel like the bucket is full. I can't keep focused on anything anymore and I play aimlessly, tactically okay but without any sense of direction or plan.

Therefor I have decided to give myself 3 months (or shorter or longer, it's just a reference) of low-discipline living. Meaning I say f*** it to Go, reading and other things I've done so well for the past few years. Meaning I will totally reverse to someone who only seeks joy, plays games, goes for walks, watches series. (and have fun at work!)
I'll loosen the strings entirely, even allowing myself less-healthy food again, like icecream every so often!

You could argue this seems drastic, or child-like, but I feel it's something I need to do right now. I've always been highly responsible, dutiful and disciplined. While those abilities have served me very well, I want to get away from them for a while, in some manner.

So probably not a lot (or no) updates in this study journal. Because, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Ian Butler]

Boy oh boy. Still doing my "sabbath" thing, but I've played some games every now and then.
I really shouldn't, though. I've completely seemed to lose my flair at the game.

At the moment, I think I play as a 13-14 kyu OGS, while just two months ago I was a solid SDK.
My Go is just terrible at the moment. I have some ideas how and why, but no real solution at the moment. So I really need to stop playing for now, until I can fix some things that have a negative effect on my Go playing. Because this isn't good for morale.

But I'll be back. And I'll get back to my former level and beyond.
It's just... It'll take a while.