Kirby's Study Journal

mhlepore · Post by **mhlepore** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:12 am

Bill Spight wrote: If you don't mind, here is a question. In go, what does it mean to be flexible? OK, if you knew, you could play more flexibly. So here is a related question. What might it mean to be flexible in go? A brainstorming question.

Hi Bill. I know your question is for Brian, but I'm dying to get in here. I'll hide my response:

It seems this could be an issue of style, in addition to technique.

- If you always play thin, scattershot go, then you probably need to be flexible in figuring out how everything should link up.
- If you play thickly, it may be less of an issue.

Consider Brian's last two diagrams:

What he did:

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

What his teacher said would be more flexible:

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

It is true that being more flexible is one way to deal with this. Another way is to perhaps play more slow/thick in the first place, and you wouldn't have to deal with this.

That is why I'm in favor of getting exposed to more teachers - they will emphasize different ways of dealing with situations, and you can hopefully figure out what approach you like best.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:47 am

Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote: I don’t think I can be blamed for not being patient about this. I’ve been his student on and off for about 6 years. The whole time, I’ve been inflexible, and I hear the same story.
Hmmm. Maybe you're not the only one who is being inflexible.

If you don't mind, here is a question. In go, what does it mean to be flexible? OK, if you knew, you could play more flexibly. So here is a related question. What might it mean to be flexible in go? A brainstorming question.

You are right - I don't know exactly what it means to be flexible. I think when I've been told this, Inseong is specifically referring to the fact that I often play aggressively, aiming to get more points than the opponent, even when I'm in an area of the opponent's influence. In reality, I should expect the opponent to get more in an area where he has more, but I don't do it, sometimes.

One concept that I am trying to think about during games is that, when I am in an area where I am already strong, I can afford to play "strong" or direct moves. But in an area where the opponent is strong, I have to be willing to negotiate a little bit. I can't expect the same result in an area where the opponent already has five stones and I have one vs. a situation where I have five stones and the opponent has one.

But sometimes, it seems like I aim for this result.

It's also always easy to chalk these mistakes up to lack of reading - seems like a cop out, but in some ways, I think reading further can help. For example, if I'm outnumbered in the opponent's area, and I see a sequence that clearly seems to work for me, and I have read out the variations for it, then I think it's fine to play it, even if it seems aggressive or whatever. But where I get in trouble, I think, is when the situation is a little fuzzy and I don't see the result. In those cases, I am used to aiming for a good result, even when I'm in an area of my opponent's influence, I think.

But it's always easy to tell this stuff *after* the fact. Because I do think about this stuff before the game. However, when I'm playing a game with 200 or 250 moves, it's easy to have a lapse in judgement for part of the time. So I think that playing the game, seeing the mistake through teacher or AI, and then reviewing it with the idea that I am sometimes inflexible and playing aggressive moves even when I am weak, is a decent strategy.

yakcyll · Post by **yakcyll** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:16 am

I'm not sure if I should be asking this here, but have you ever managed to figure out what he means by having a fixed idea? The mind control score might actually be the one thing we should aim at minimizing.

There's a lot of talk about how playing Go is an exercise in the discovery of truth. I suppose that 'truth' usually refers to the perfect play in this context, but this concept can be extended to any position in the game. I can offer a perspective you maybe haven't considered yet - that the exploration process is not so much about finding the best path from the point X, i.e. looking for the blue move, but rather finding the best final outcome both players can achieve for themselves from that point and then finding a way towards it. In this context, your lack of flexibility may mean that you don't reconsider what the final outcome from a particular position may potentially look like. However, I think focusing too strongly on the outcome coming from the perfect play may, especially during the match, complicate matters too much to be practical. Heuristics and intuition have to remain as the guides here.

On the other hand, considering the positions considered by mhlepore, it may again refer to the concept of 'fixed idea' - you come up with a plan, execute it, your opponent responds as expected. In the end you achieve exactly what you wanted... except not really. Your sequence worked out, but the end result was less satisfactory than planned. I do this habitually and the only practical way I figured to minimize the negative impact of this approach was to get better at evaluating positions in my head (which is a struggle, as visualizing complete positions in my head remains a major challenge). The other option is, of course, to consider the board after each move in separation - 'the value of the stones always changes' and all that.

Overcoming this 'inflexibility' might be a game changer for you. If you find something that truly works, let us know.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:53 am

yakcyll wrote:In this context, your lack of flexibility may mean that you don't reconsider what the final outcome from a particular position may potentially look like.

On the other hand, considering the positions considered by mhlepore, it may again refer to the concept of 'fixed idea' - you come up with a plan, execute it, your opponent responds as expected. In the end you achieve exactly what you wanted... except not really. Your sequence worked out, but the end result was less satisfactory than planned.

Both of these happen to me. Sometimes the situation ends up not as I expected it - I didn't read far enough, and the result seems bad. And sometimes, the result is what I expect. But then I review with the AI or with teacher, and what I thought was good was bad.

The latter case is probably more instructive, but it remains difficult to know when I'm in that situation. Sometimes I read out a sequence to be good for me, it plays out that way, and the AI agrees that it's good. Sometimes I read out a sequence to be good for me, it plays out that way, and the AI (or a teacher) evaluates it as being bad.

In fact, in the game in question, the opening seemed pretty good for me, both by Inseong's review and by the AI. And in particular, I remember playing this move:

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

The move above isn't something that is natural for me. After getting used to all of these various 3-3 sequences, my inclination is to just tenuki as white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X W . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

playing the top right attachment, or the approach.

But not too long ago, in a game, I tenuki from this shape, and my opponent played here (at least that kind of local shape):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . B . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And I felt a lot of pressure during the game - it seemed like things had gone wrong. I mean, when I played tenuki, I knew that black had this move. But it didn't seem bad in my head until I saw it on the board.

Then in review, I found out that AI sometimes suggests that white continue:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . W . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . C . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

That helps against black's approach on the bottom, strengthens white, and gives black some pressure.

The high move isn't totally natural, especially since black can approach in the marked area above. But OK, AI likes this sometimes. So I played it in the game to get used to it.

I guess in this case, I have a bad intuition of the board regarding when white should tenuki. But it's somewhat "curable" since I can try out what the AI thinks is good, and kind of get used to it by playing it.

But it's a lot harder to do this in the middle game. Now I know that if I'm in a position like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

then it's good to play in a more flexible way:

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

OK, cool. But it's pretty unlikely that I'm gonna be in this exact situation again. So what are the characteristics of the position that make this move/sequence a good one?

I can think of:
* I have weak groups in the opponent's area - I want to live with both without giving black too many forcing moves and outside influence.
* Black is strong in this area
* My inflexible move doesn't work in the sense that it doesn't connect my groups.

But there's some nuance here. In the game, I imagined this sequence:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X W . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O O 4 1 W . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . 3 2 5 7 . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . 6 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Here, I thought, "white might end up capturing my two stones there, but I strengthen my two weak groups and become stable in black's area".

I don't think this line of reasoning is all that bad. Black does get a lot of points on the top, but my groups are somewhat stabilized here.

So my inflexible move here was flexible in my head because I imagined that I'd be willing to give up a little bit - 2 stones - but I'd be able to stabilize my group.

I think thought that was a reasonable thought, and I still do.

But what I didn't think about enough in the game was that black may be more ambitious than simply capturing the two stones. Indeed, as we saw in the game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O O O X O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . X O . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . B . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black's not going for just the two stones. He's aiming bigger than that! And rightly so, because now I have two weak groups.

In my naivety, I imagined a sequence where I thought I was being flexible, giving up a few stones, for a decent position in the center. But I was blind to the fact that my opponent wasn't going for that.

And as a result, my move was inflexible.

Psychologically, how do I fix this?
* During the game, I thought I was being reasonable, giving up a little to gain a little.
* But I missed a key variation where, in fact, my opponent doesn't give me the option to give up two stones.

First, I think there's a reading problem here. The variation that resulted in this case was not what I expected. Second, maybe I thought that my opponent would play in a stupid way in his own territory? Not really sure.

But I do know it's not as simple as thinking before the game, "Let's be flexible!". Because from my thought process during the game, I could totally rationalize that I was being flexible - but in fact, I was missing a variation where my stones were brittle.

Anyway, I know that reading better can help all of this. But I still need to remain vigilant in trying to maintain flexibility in my opponent's area when the result of the situation is not clear.

yakcyll · Post by **yakcyll** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:07 am

Kirby wrote:Anyway, I know that reading better can help all of this. But I still need to remain vigilant in trying to maintain flexibility in my opponent's area when the result of the situation is not clear.

I'm not sure if this also constitutes reading (whether it does is more of a conceptual/translational problem rather than semantical one), but in the case of the your match, the problem arose from not seeing a move, not exactly misreading (missing a liberty or seeing a different shape). That's a different issue, even less clear when it comes to ridding yourself of it. But in this context the 'flexibility' we're discussing turns out to be a heuristic: by playing flexibly - less in contact with your opponent's stones, less forcefully, more keeping shape in mind, which stones are more or less important - you avoid pitfalls that come from tactical struggle. This however sounds like a crutch, I think (or I'd like to believe that) ISH wouldn't suggest something in this vein.

As for why you didn't consider such a move... I've been struggling with a similar issue for a long time too, both when solving problems and in actual play. I'm in the camp claiming that it is a bit of a psychological issue, pertaining to attitude, state of the mind and other things... It doesn't mix well with my 'counter-Zen' thought processes.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:15 am

Yeah, I classified "not seeing a move" as a misread. Some people might consider this as a different concept than reading. I agree that the language/concept behind what constitutes "reading" may be ambiguous.

Generally speaking, I feel that doing things like life and death problems helps in increasing one's "reading ability". From this perspective, I think such problems help in gaining the flexibility to consider alternative moves - that kind of thing is required in order to solve life and death problems correctly.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:00 am

Kirby wrote:Yeah, I classified "not seeing a move" as a misread. Some people might consider this as a different concept than reading. I agree that the language/concept behind what constitutes "reading" may be ambiguous.

Following Sakata, I think that reading consists of (at least) three different skills:

1) the selection of candidate moves;
2) the calculation of variations;
3) the evaluation of results.

By that view, not seeing a move is a failure of skill 1), selection of candidate moves. Even bots overlook good moves.

Generally speaking, I feel that doing things like life and death problems helps in increasing one's "reading ability".

That's the common wisdom. But note that L&D problems don't do much for skill 3), the evaluation of results. And the pool of moves to choose from is limited, so their help in developing skill 1) is limited, as well.

From this perspective, I think such problems help in gaining the flexibility to consider alternative moves - that kind of thing is required in order to solve life and death problems correctly.

If I may make a suggestion, following Kotov, perhaps the best way to develop reading skills and flexibility is the study of middle game positions. Kotov studied middle game positions in games with published commentary, spending 30 minutes — Too long for me. Maybe 15 min.

— studying a crucial position, then writing down the results of his reading, and then checking with the commentary. At first his results were horrible, he wrote. And he was quite a good player already.

Today KataGo can supply the commentary and we can interact with it to see what it thinks of different moves. It and other bots can suggest candidate moves, calculate variations, and evaluate results. What's not to love?

Edit: Also the bots play flexibly.

lightvector · Post by **lightvector** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:53 pm

Kirby wrote: But what I didn't think about enough in the game was that black may be more ambitious than simply capturing the two stones.

Just an idle thought: given that the opponent is supposed to be resisting you... when you try to play flexibly from a position of weakness and are looking for flexible moves, do you subconsciously also bias towards expecting the opponent to favor moves that are flexible too when you look for their moves in response?

Flip side: when you do have a clear local advantage and are intentionally trying to play uncompromisingly and sharply, do you subconsciously expect the opponent to also play uncompromisingly rather than to negotiate when reading their responses?

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:05 pm

Bill Spight wrote:
If I may make a suggestion, following Kotov, perhaps the best way to develop reading skills and flexibility is the study of middle game positions. Kotov studied middle game positions in games with published commentary, spending 30 minutes — Too long for me. Maybe 15 min. — studying a crucial position, then writing down the results of his reading, and then checking with the commentary. At first his results were horrible, he wrote. And he was quite a good player already. Today KataGo can supply the commentary and we can interact with it to see what it thinks of different moves. It and other bots can suggest candidate moves, calculate variations, and evaluate results. What's not to love?

Edit: Also the bots play flexibly.

I think it's a good idea - and more possible these days than before given the bots that are publicly available.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:11 pm

lightvector wrote:
Kirby wrote: But what I didn't think about enough in the game was that black may be more ambitious than simply capturing the two stones.
Just an idle thought: given that the opponent is supposed to be resisting you... when you try to play flexibly from a position of weakness and are looking for flexible moves, do you subconsciously also bias towards expecting the opponent to favor moves that are flexible too when you look for their moves in response?

Flip side: when you do have a clear local advantage and are intentionally trying to play uncompromisingly and sharply, do you subconsciously expect the opponent to also play uncompromisingly rather than to negotiate when reading their responses?

I think it's difficult for me to answer these questions, since I don't have a clear picture of what my subconscious is doing.

That being said, even when I'm doing go problems where there is a clearly defined solution, it seems to take some degree of discipline to imagine the strongest responses from the opponent. The goal I have when doing a problem like that is to find a solution, and I feel some amount of pleasure when I find it. So there's the hope that the move I imagine during reading cannot be refuted. Of course, there often *is* a refutation, so it's important to think of the strongest responses.

Regarding negotiating vs. playing strongly in an advantaged or disadvantaged situation... I don't think I consciously think of this much, which is maybe something I could work on. That is to say, from a given board position, I don't usually think, "I'm outnumbered here by 30%, so I should negotiate by giving up to X points". Rather, I'm usually thinking, "OK, with this board position, what is the best result I can get?".

So probably my view of what the best position is in such cases is skewed - or I'm not reading enough to see what the actual result is going to be.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:58 am

I've been playing go and doing problems, but not posting here much. Yesterday, though, a coworker challenged me. I started a slack channel about go and started a go problem competition. This guy has been participating a lot, and wanted to play.

He said he's around 10k, and his OGS rank is 12k. Admittedly, I might have played pretty quickly and aggressively without thinking much because of judging him like this, and I even misread a ladder. But anyway, he won and I didn't ever feel like I had a strong chance of winning.

Here's the game:

The parts around the end I knew didn't work, but I was trying to make up for my point deficit...

So I guess I'm DDK now

jlt · Post by **jlt** » Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:15 am

Your moves between

and

were pretty catastrophic, but I think your opponent is stronger than DDK.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:18 am

Yeah, 50 was pretty bad, too. And I thought nothing about the cut at N3. I think I probably should have been more focused. If we play again, I'm going to try harder. I should respect my opponent more, regardless of stated rank, I think.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:21 pm

Maybe since I was a little frustrated with my loss, I decided to look back on my go career a little bit. If I count the time I absolutely first heard about go, I think it was around 2003ish? Hikaru no Go timeframe...

Rank is kind of hard to get solid data on (tournament games vs. internet games, etc.). But if I try to make an honest reflection of my progression in rank, I think I get a graph that looks something like this:

The y-axis is basically "rank + 30", where 0 is 30k, then 30 is around 1d, and 35 is around 5d. Here, I'm being generous, too, because while I think I can play around 2d - maybe 3d if I am super focused, sometimes I also play worse than that, e.g., around 2k. So we can think of this as an optimistic graph of my rank over time. I remember being around 5k when I went to grad school around 2007, and I got to KGS 1d around 2010ish. I think I have the capability to play above 1d level now - it doesn't always happen, but anyway, progress has been slow since 2010, even in this generous version of the graph.

This brings to mind the question, "What do I want to achieve?" in terms of go skill. Becoming something like a pro is out of the question. I have already hit the 1d milestone. Do I want to win tournaments? I won the US Open 1d section before. Do I want to win for a higher level section? What would be meaningful? 5d?

Let's say I pick 5d as a goal. That would be around 35 on this graph. It looks like the current rank is kind of close - but again, that's an optimistic rank. And even if I take it at face value, I'm somewhat flatlined here. Even if I'm in the middle of 1d and 5d right now, I got to 1d about 10 years ago. That means that with the same amount of effort, it'd take at least 10 years to make it the rest of the way there. And that's optimistic. The curve is generally sloped, and with age, I hear that it gets harder to read. Given that I'm 36 now, I'm looking at not being that level until I'm at least around 50. More realistically, maybe 55 or 60. That's if I can keep up the pace without declining. But age might also work against me. It could very well be a target that I never hit.

---

So if achieving a better rank or skill at go is my goal, it seems somewhat difficult. Now, it's true that I have not studied seriously all that often in go. Maybe that's my problem. But I don't know what would be different to make me change my behavior on that front - unless I *really* cared about getting to an arbitrary rank like 5d. And even then, I'd feel bad compared to the 6d and 7d.

What if I take the rank variable out of the picture? What other aspects are there?
- Intellectual pursuit. It's fun to concentrate on things like go problems and games.
- Go friends. I can meet up with them by going to tournaments and go events.
..

I can't really think of anything else. But I'd say that if "getting good" is not my goal anymore, then I can achieve these other goals without any sort of study at all - do go problems occasionally like I might do a crossword puzzle. And go to tournaments now and then to socialize with people.

It's a little painful to look at it this way, but if I compare this type of rank curve to the curve I might get by learning something entirely new... It's tempting to pick up a new hobby or interest. At my current age, it'd be nice to have an area in my life where the rank curve seems trending upward, rather than flat, at least...

I think I have to think about it more. The one thing that keeps coming back to me is that I never really tried seriously enough up until now in studying... But am I really going to change with that? To bring about change, I'd have to really want it. And for what? To be 5d instead of a lower dan player?

Maybe I'm just salty since I've been losing lately...

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:59 pm

After all of the philosophical musings from my last post, I had a plan: quit go at least for a little while, and focus on learning something else. I wanted to feel the beginning of the learning curve, again. I'm getting older so I don't have that much time left, so I want to optimize. And trying to optimize for go is basically optimizing for a fraction of a slope in the improvement line.

Anyway, then I get a group email from Inseong about the upcoming AYD league. What? I explicitly decided not to pay for another season. So I went and checked the record to tell Inseong that he made a mistake of including me. And then I realized that I had paid for 2 seasons back in the spring, so I actually *am* still a part of the league.

Oh well. Doesn't mean I have to study go. So I just played this game, listening to music. My opponent here usually beats me, so I was expecting to get behind early on. I think I kind of did, but then things started turning around:

It was a little complicated, but while he was thinking during the game, I thought I might be in trouble after this:

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

Notably, maybe this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 6 . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 X O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O X O X O O O . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . O X X O X X O . | $$ | . . . , O . . . . , . X O O O X X X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . 7 O X X . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think the original marked move might have been a mistake. But he acquiesced and gave me some stones... Game proceeded, and I started just getting a good feeling.

I wasn't aiming to really try hard for winning this game. It was kind of just playing out of obligation, because I'm signed up. But I started to enjoy myself a little bit more.

And I remembered thinking to myself, "Dang it, this game is gonna get me back interested in go, again. And then I'll be in that quandary about what to study, again. I won't be able to say no to go."

Then things fizzled in byo-yomi when I played this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . X . . . X . | $$ | . . X O X . X . X X O O X . X X X O . | $$ | . . X O X . X X O X X O X X O O O O O | $$ | . . X O . X O O O O O X O O X X X O . | $$ | . X X O O X O O O X X X O . . . . O . | $$ | O X O O X O . O . X . X O X . . O . . | $$ | . O . O . . O O X . X O O O . . . . . | $$ | O . . O X X X O X . X X O X . . . O O | $$ | O O O O X O . O . X . X X O O O . O X | $$ | O X O O X O . O . , X . W O . X O O X | $$ | O X X X O X X O . . . . O X X X X X X | $$ | X X . O O . . O . O X X X O X O X . . | $$ | O . X O . O O . O . O . O O X O . X . | $$ | . X X O X X X O . . . O . O X O O O . | $$ | . . X X O O X O . X . O C . O X X O . | $$ | X X O , O X O O O X X X O O O X X X . | $$ | O X . O O X X X X X O O O X X . . X . | $$ | O O O . O O X . . X X X O X O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . X O O X . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

immediately, the marked move became visible, but it was too late. I lost the big group of stones and resigned. Before that, i think I might have been ahead...

So in the end it leaves me confused: kind of like go. Don't know if I should keep investing into it. Confused. Guess at least I'll play for AYD, again, next week. :-p

Life In 19x19

Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal