Ian Butler's Go Journal

[Ian Butler]

So one of the teachers at JIGS will be at the In-Seong's Dojo Spring Camp. It may very well be possible that I will go to the Spring Camp before heading out to JIGS in Jena.
I think that'd be an amazing experience!

[dfan]

In-seong is an amazing teacher online, and even better in person. At the US Go Congress last year he conducted impromptu game review sessions for his Yunguseng Dojang students, and it was a very enriching and motivational experience. If you went to a weekend camp I have no doubt that you would come back more energized and motivated than ever. If you have the time, money, and energy, I would highly recommend it.

[Ian Butler]

A three-fold post today!

1. Go Training
My decision for a smaller break might have turned out to be a very good call. I am slowly coming into a new peak of Go playing, and that 2 weeks before the 2-week training camp in Germany. The hunger for go is returning stronger every day and now I'll take the upcoming 14 days to warm-up for the actual camp.
I think it'll be perfectly timed and I'll go to the camp with nothing but Go on my mind.

To prepare for the camp, I'll be:

- getting back into daily L&D, it's been a few weeks
- re-read Lessons on Fundamentals of Go, one chapter a day.
- continuing my Pro Games study (already at 83 games since January 1st)
- Picking up Jump Level Up 4 again.

14 days of that, and I'll be perfectly ready for the camp.

2. The Power of Miai
I've gone through a large portion of Invincible, a part of Invisible, but now I've starting going over 9-Dan Showdown, games of Go Seigen against Fujisawa.
In the first game, I've already re-discovered the power of miai. It's probably something that people pick up from DDK to SDK, but is often forgotten again. Or at least by me.
Especially concerning groups that need life, miai is a very powerful tool. If you read it out correctly, it can give you sente without a fear of your group dying. You never need to rush to make that group live, until your opponent plays the other point.

It's an old lesson, but one that felt good to see in a Pro game and that got me thinking again, a good refreshment.

3. Losing is nothing, Fighting is everything
And lastly, one thing I've discovered on my work. (I work as a teacher).
Last few weeks, I've organised quite some football matches with the kids. One such games was with my class: the girls against the boys, and I joined the girls.
We were behind 7-0 at one point. The boys kept asking for a re-arrangement of the teams. But we (me and the girls) refused. We had fighting spirit and lots of it.
We then went on to score 4 consecutive goals, only to lose in the end by 11-10.

Another match yesterday, with 4 great football players against 6 of us, not so great football players. We were losing pretty hard and again the question arose to change teams, but again I said: I wouldn't want any other team.
We doubled our efforts, and kept losing, but every time we did score, we celebrated wildly.

I've discovered an amazing strength in losing. And I think it might also apply in Go.

Recently I played a game against my (former) sensei, Dieter. I started the game okay-ish, but when I didn't connect against a peep, rather made a counter-peep, we marked it as the losing move. After that, the game fell apart for me.
Yet, I do not regret that move. I'd probably play it again under similar circumstances.
Because losing a game while being pushed around by a better player is painful.
Losing a game against a better player while continuing to fight, fight, fight, feels different.

And so, maybe losing can be virtuous, too. Maybe losing and winning is not the point. Rather, it is finding your strength, fighting for everything you can, that matters.
Sometimes it'll bring you down, other times it'll keep your head above the water. But never will you be shamed by your playing.

That might be my new philosophy to Go.
Of course, I'll have to see if I can keep that in my head the next time I'm failing

[Tryss]

I think your last point is what's currently missing in your go (looking at your games). A lack of "fighting spirit", i.e. you're too passive and soft against opposition.

When you're poked at with sharp blades, you don't usually retaliate by trying to smash the head of the presoumptuous who dare challenge you with a war hammer, but you retreat behind your shield.

And while retreating is sometime the best strategy, there's many nails for you to smash on the board with your Maslow's Hammer

PS : This is a war hammer, while this is not

[Ian Butler]

Haha thank you Tryss!
Next time I play, I'll bring the Hammer of Thor to my game!

[Bill Spight]

On that last point, the James-Lange theory of emotion comes to mind. Just as being afraid can make you run away, running away can make you afraid. (At least until you have run far enough away. ) Conversely, you don't have to develop your fighting spirit in order to fight, you can fight in order to develop your fighting spirit.

BTW, I still recommend playing stronger players at three stones and going for the kill.

[Ian Butler]

On that last point, the James-Lange theory of emotion comes to mind. Just as being afraid can make you run away, running away can make you afraid. (At least until you have run far enough away. ) Conversely, you don't have to develop your fighting spirit in order to fight, you can fight in order to develop your fighting spirit.

BTW, I still recommend playing stronger players at three stones and going for the kill.

Yes!
I'll get many chances to fight stronger players when I'll be playing in Germany! I hope to learn a lot there.

Also, I just played a stronger player on OGS, giving him 3 stones. I'll be uploading it in the Game Analysis section for reviewing, I did some things good, and faltered in other aspects!

[Knotwilg]

We’ll play our next game h3

[Ian Butler]

We’ll play our next game h3

Let's!

[Ian Butler]

Symphonies and whatnot
I'm going to throw around some thoughts I've had today. For me it always feels good to put them onto paper, or in this case, onto my study journal.
Some of these thoughts link together nicely, others are not really related.

----------------------------------------------

One can be the world's greatest music theorist, but to play the piano well, he'll eventually need to sit down and actually play the damn thing.
My head is full of symphonies, but when I sit down at a piano, my fingers can only keep up with 'Frère Jacques'

----------------------------------------------

Yesterday I watched an interesting video about a 5-6 dan. He showed numerous games of his Go-career, from 9 kyu to 3 kyu to 1 kyu to 4 dan. Showing his progression and his change in attitude/thinking.
At 9 kyu he was all about influence and only won or lost his games on a huge middle, so he won big, or he lost after his middle was destroyed. He had to completely change his way of thinking, realizing this is not the only/best way to play go. He had to go find a more balanced style.

----------------------------------------------

I played Leela this morning, a couple of times. Even with giving me six stones, she won. I played my first 3 stones in 3 corners, securing them, while she played 3 stones in the middle. I felt I couldn't possibly lose.
But I did.
A recurring theme in these games is that I am always being picked apart into many groups.
Divide and conquer, ring a bell?

There is something fundamentally wrong with the way I see a game of Go. I think I focus on points too much. I can't believe that white, playing 3 stones in the middle of the board and me securing solid territory in the corners, can win the game. Yet white does.
Maybe I've never become strong enough at attacking because a big part of me still doesn't believe it. Maybe I see territory too one-sided.
I need to put that out of my head and start believing it.
Dieter, my former sensei, always said Go is about strong groups, rather than territory (at least earlier in the game). While I have a basic understanding of that, I don't grasp the full meaning.
And that might also be because I never attacked well, thus I never learned to profit from weak groups. It's only in the other direction I see that it must be true.
So I must learn to attack for profit, to make my opponent weak and use that to my advantage. Instead of simply taking points.

----------------------------------------------

I sometimes see the Go board as too small. 3 stones spread out I see as territory. Tengen I see as intimidating and I feel surrounded.
The board is larger than you'd think. There are many opportunities that can be found if one looks for them.

----------------------------------------------

My opponents are not superhuman. Especially playing even games, they are capable of just as much as I am. So face a sword with a sword, not with a shield.

----------------------------------------------

I also realized that I'm finally "at peace" with my strength/my ranking.
Some part of me even believes this might be my permanent rank. While I think it unlikely and I think I can still grow stronger, perhaps even to Dan level, there is always the possibility that it is so.
And if it is so, I'm actually fine with it.
I am strong enough to enjoy Go. I have a basic understanding of Pro games and I love going over those games.
I of course long to grow stronger, and I'll continue to strive for improvement, but I've noticed it's just a good motivation, it's no longer a source of frustration.
I don't need to grow strong quickly to prove I'm smart, to beat someone in particular, to boost my ego... I just want to grow stronger to appreciate the game even more, and because I have an inner motivation to just become better at the game.

I think that's a very important change that's come over me, and I hadn't realized it happened.

[Bill Spight]

I played Leela this morning, a couple of times. Even with giving me six stones, she won. I played my first 3 stones in 3 corners, securing them, while she played 3 stones in the middle. I felt I couldn't possibly lose.
But I did.
A recurring theme in these games is that I am always being picked apart into many groups.
Divide and conquer, ring a bell?

My girlfriend's father in Japan used to give me 7 stones. If I only lost two groups I could win the game.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the way I see a game of Go.

Welcome to the club!

I tend to think that two players with a 5 rank difference play different games. Not fundamentally different, but still quite different. As a 2-3 dan I once took 50 pts. reverse komi from a pro and lost by 100 pts. As a 4 dan I once gave a 4 kyu 100 pts. reverse komi and won by 100 pts. Different games. Pros often recommend playing against someone three stones stronger. They are strong enough that you can learn something, but weak enough that you can understand most of their game, IMO.

I think I focus on points too much. I can't believe that white, playing 3 stones in the middle of the board and me securing solid territory in the corners, can win the game. Yet white does.
Maybe I've never become strong enough at attacking because a big part of me still doesn't believe it. Maybe I see territory too one-sided.
I need to put that out of my head and start believing it.
Dieter, my former sensei, always said Go is about strong groups, rather than territory (at least earlier in the game). While I have a basic understanding of that, I don't grasp the full meaning.
And that might also be because I never attacked well, thus I never learned to profit from weak groups. It's only in the other direction I see that it must be true.
So I must learn to attack for profit, to make my opponent weak and use that to my advantage. Instead of simply taking points.

Takagawa, who was not known for his attacks, once wrote that go is a game of territory, but territory is almost impossible to make. He went on to explain that throughout most of the game, "territory" is not secure. There are almost profitable plays inside the opponent's territory. (Not that they are always profitable enough to play.) Secure territory, he said, almost always arises through skirmishes. (Today's pros are, IMO, more territorial than Takagawa's generation.) Based upon that, when I was coming along I never worried about territory, trusting that it would arise during the fighting.

In your recent three stone game your opponent made fairly strong groups and didn't give you much to attack until the end. That is partly why he lost, I think. Still, he managed to put three of your groups in peril, but failed to kill any of them. Then you still had a large moyo with a strong wall to contend with. A riskier approach might have worked for him, leaving some weak stones about. A strategy I used to call, "Just us women and children here in the fort."

[Ian Butler]

Haha thank you, Bill, for your wonderful story. It's hard to accept one could lose with 7 stones, but one can be slaughtered to no end.
Against a pro, I do think I'd fare well with 25 stones

The 'women and childeren at the fort' reminds me of Go Seigen or Lee Sedol, giving the opponent something to attack.


Anyway, I do think my recent activity in Go has made me a stone stronger. Of course that's hard to say, but at the very least I'm in a more positive flow again. The game below demonstrates that. In my losing streak I even had difficulty against OGS 10 kyu. Now I think I'd win half my games at 8 kyu. Though we'll have to see to make sure, of course
The game had rather tight time limits, and I lost 2 minutes after my connection failed, but despite that, I didn't play blitz. I played fast, but not blitz.
I made almost no thoughtless moves. That's not to say I didn't make bad moves But I faired all right, and in the end I was able to prevail!

Almost blundered my way into a huge loss after missing a shortage of liberties at move 145, but luckily my opponent also missed it
My main mistakes (that I gather from Leela) are playing smaller moves when bigger ones are available, and not responding to the hane often enough. My endgame was rather all right, with the disconnect at the top side for another capture. The capture in the middle was all decisive, linking together a weak group, another group and cutting stones.

My opponent played the same horrible move twice. (:w12: and )
Recently I had played a game where threw me off, so I looked up some possible answers, and this one felt okay.

is perhaps too assertive. Just defending is big.
again ignores the hane, but since it cuts, it's excusable.
is not the biggest play on the board, but I liked it, it had options of running, going in the corner, making a base on the right. And it revealed white's bad move with the empty triangle.
was not Leela's move, needless to say. It's perhaps a bit slow, but stealing that entire corner felt good.

I think I got off easy in the right bottom corner. White could've made life harder there.

perhaos white needs to give up the 3 stones, build strength and counter attack black's middle group. I had expected something like that.
Black 101 is doubtful. However, it does threaten to cut off and take a lot of stones.
The most beautiful double empty triangle move at 118 is premature. I can read liberties. This feeling safe is DDK. Just count!
Black 131 is doubtful. It offers white a moyo on the right. I just just keep him in the corner.
Lastly, black 193 was a nice move to find

[Knotwilg]

I thought some more about "your case" and fighting spirit in particular. I realized there are two kinds of stubborn play: "I don't have to believe what my opponent is trying to tell me" and "I don't have to believe what the board (or Go wisdom) is telling me". The first type of resistance is proper fighting spirit, not giving the opponent what he wants. The second type is more adventurous, not necessarily to warn off, but more likely to be what kids call "random" these days

Borrowing from that game we played ...

$$W Exchanges
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 6 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . 3 . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . 4 . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . 2 . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O O 1 . . . . . . . a . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Exchanges
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 6 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . 3 . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . 4 . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . 2 . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O O 1 . . . . . . . a . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

When you played the developing B2 (not directly after) in the face of the solid stone at W1, saying "harmony between my stones", you were being original and adventurous, but you were defying common sense in Go, which is not to develop towards solid, low positions. Your move gave me the obvious thing to do, which was jumping into your corner. Had you played the more common sense move at 'a', I would not have such an easy decision.

However, when you played the light B4 in response to my descent at W3, you were doing the logical thing and giving me a hard time attacking this group wholesale.

And when you took a corner, up until B6, in response to my W5, you were saying "well, jump into my side, if you dare, I'm already strong on both sides AND I've taken territory"

These are good examples of fighting spirit, resisting the opponent's desire, by doing things that adhere to common sense.

[Ian Butler]

Interesting division you make there, knotwilg. Trying to not give the opponent what he wants is so paramount in Pro Games, yet not always easy to accomplish.

I know you don't approve of the K4 (star point) move, and you're definitely right if you say there are objectively better moves on the board, but I still don't feel it's necessarily a bad move because it defies Go wisdom (though a saying I've never heard before, oddly enough)
Sometimes even good moves defy original Go wisdom. Wasn't it Go wisdom once that jumping in the 3-3 too early was bad?

OF course I'm not saying my move is anything like that

However, I do agree with your point about the fighting spirit. You can feel it from the board that the latter moves also felt easier and better to play. The K4 move was just a gut move, but I easily could've played 'a', too, and it'd be fine, too. And K4 doesn't feel like a move a professional would play, although professionals occasionally make moves that professionals would never play, too
With 4 and 6 on your diagram, they feel much better, though. Those moves feel right. 2 on your diagram feels daring and original, 4 and 6 feel strong and proper.

Interesting point, indeed.
I'd consider the counter-peep (game losing move) later in the game as another example of adventurous play

One remark, though, I don't like the term "random". I didn't play K4 at random. It's just personal, that I really dislike the word "random" about something like that

[Knotwilg]

If you have been questioning the Go wisdom that early 3-3 was bad, and played it regardless, then today you have been proven right

Still, I remain suspicious, and most of us do. If early 3-3 invasion is so good, then why would it be bad to defend early just there. Isn't even "the enemy's key point is yours" true anymore these days?

So, some healthy skepsis of Go Wisdom to be the fashion of the day, is due, but in general that kind of doubt is best reserved for study and discussion. If bots and pros think a move is good enough for them, it's likely good enough for us.

I think that, if you had followed up the criticized hoshi with another moyo developing move, like tengen, then I would have thought "wow, the guy doesn't believe me telling him my territory will be superior to his moyo; I'll have to prove him wrong!"

There was already a lot of good fighting spirit in this game. You didn't make it too easy for me. Let's play again soon.