Violence's Corner: A Rant, and a Proposal

[Violence]

Strong player: I want everyone to select where he or she would play in this position.

*Various people select*

Strong player: Hah, you're all wrong, the correct move is here!

*Stares of awe and amazement*

Strong player: Now don't you all want to purchase lessons from me so that you can play a move like this too?




Have you ever seen this before? It's a pretty common thing whether or not people use it to advertise, or to teach. It is one of the most ineffective teaching methods I've ever seen, personally, and it irks me how people continue to do it.

Whenever a sequence is inevitable, or there is only one move in a certain situation, such a thing is so uncommon that it's worth noting in pro commentary of pro games.

And yet, I see things like, "Guess the next move," or "Prokovich" games. With respect to those who started these threads, I don't think this is an effective practice tool at all.

What is the difference between a strong player playing over a professional game and a weaker player playing over a professional game?

The strong player has a knowledge of the standard, normal plays and various options that can occur in a game. He sees an unusual move and does reading and analysis to come up with why the professional played it. If it was a good move, then he has understood a bit more. If it wasn't, then he understands what to do against it.

The weaker players don't have this foundation of knowledge, and in a lot of board positions, I know that I found myself lost in what seemed like an ocean of uncertainty. If I saw a pro's move, I thought that the move was THE move to play for the situation, that clearly, the way of thinking and play sequence in this game was the most optimal.

But this is a clear fallacy. Take any opening/midgame situation between two pros, and change out the players for those with different styles, and you will have a different game.

In effect, by appreciating professional moves, you have learned nothing and gained nothing, because you can only build on the knowledge that you already have, using your own level of scrutiny. Reviewing professional games by yourself simply projects your reasoning onto moves that were not made by your reasoning, and yet people seem satisfied to do this.

I've noticed a lot of threads with things like, Play like a pro, Play like a dan player, Think like a pro/dan player, implying the need to change your way of thinking, your way of playing. This is not necessarily true! The fundamental thing about pro/dan players is that their underlying thought processes may not be so different from that of kyu players, despite everything you've ever heard. All they do is reject things that are bad according to their own reading and judgment, and then with their own personal preferences, choose from the options that remain. There is this misguided urge, I feel, to constantly change yourself, and call it improvement, when really, a change of style comes as a result of a change in knowledge and judgment, not the other way around.



If you've ever thought to yourself, "Man, I wish I could play like a dan player," or "If I could only think like x does, I'd be able to do y," then I made this thread with you in mind.

First off, I think one thing very much overlooked by people is that when people come up with a move, it is rarely the only one they think about. They often write off other moves that they don't think are as good, and then select from the remaining the one they like best.

What I want to do here is have people post an opening/middlegame situation, and I will discuss the options that I see, taking care to highlight what I perceive to be the pluses and minuses of each move, and then say what I personally believe is the best option, and why.

The goal here is not to instruct people on what to play, but to increase the scope of moves that they can see. I feel like that's a very big step toward improvement.

[BaghwanB]

Cool! Great concept and thanks ahead of time.

I couldn't find a quick & easy way (lazy me...) to put up just a mid-game diagram so I posted the whole SGF here. Sorry if this isn't what you were looking for or complicates things. My question would be what could I have done after move 148. As you can see, things didn't go my way and I ended up losing by a small margin and that looks like a point where a better choice of strategic direction could have firmed things up for me.

Bruce "Should I stay or should I go now?" Young

[sgf-full]http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=647[/sgf-full]

[Li Kao]

I think going through games of strong players can be very useful even if you don't understand them at all. It makes your subconsciousness learn patterns and shape. Most of our playing strength does come from improved intuition.
And discussing a pro game and trying to find out why he played a certain move is valuable too. Even if you never figure it out. And I think that's the essence of prokovitch. And if in the guess-the-moves games the other players give their reason for why they choose their move, that's very interesting too.
Personally I don't do that because I don't enjoy that kind of study. I revel in fighting and play more than I study. But that's only a personal choice, and probably not the fastest way to improve.

[Magicwand]

i hate people posting their game and asking to review.
although i try to review them much as possible but i dont think it will help them learn and it takes toomuch time and effort to review.

Cool! Great concept and thanks ahead of time.

for your question.. you played it pretty much ok in my opinion but your ending game was weak in few places.
i think you were ahead but you lost few points here there everywhere and lost the game. i am sure you know few places already where you lost points.

personally i believe players should pick one places were they have question.
it will be easier on us and more beneficial on them also.

[hyperpape]

Violence, it seems like you're saying a lot of differnet things in that post. Is your main complaint the idea that when we review games, we look for "the right move" as if it's the only one possible? And your solution is to just try and give multiple moves that have potential, showing how a stronger player thinks about them?

[BaghwanB]

personally i believe players should pick one places were they have question.
it will be easier on us and more beneficial on them also.

And thanks to you too. In light of the topic of the OP and your point above is why I meant this just to be a question about better ways to continue the game after move 148. That seemed to be a real turning point that I messed up on.

Thanks again to all

Bruce "Riddler" Young

[daniel_the_smith]

I was a little worried this post would be about how bad certain 2d's play in some forum games...

[serapis]

I hope you don't mind if i comment on a few of the interesting points you raised.

Strong player: I want everyone to select where he or she would play in this position.
Strong player: Hah, you're all wrong, the correct move is here!
Strong player: Now don't you all want to purchase lessons from me so that you can play a move like this too?

Have you ever seen this before? It's a pretty common thing whether or not people use it to advertise, or to teach. It is one of the most ineffective teaching methods I've ever seen, personally, and it irks me how people continue to do it.

This does irk me, as well. I remember seeing a fellow high dan on igs awhile ago (who shall remain nameless) play a game with a lower ranked player and publicly stated, in his game while his opponent was still there, that if you didn't want to wind up like his opponent, then you should pay him for lessons. This was certainly one of the most distasteful acts I had ever seen and still harbor a firm dislike for this player to this day.

And yet, I see things like, "Guess the next move," or "Prokovich" games. With respect to those who started these threads, I don't think this is an effective practice tool at all.

Now, i could be mistaken, but trying to equate the first sort of player with someone who starts a 'Guess the next move' thread, was certainly not your intention, was it? Because it almost sounds like these types of players are thinly separated in your mind.

The weaker players don't have this foundation of knowledge, and in a lot of board positions, I know that I found myself lost in what seemed like an ocean of uncertainty. If I saw a pro's move, I thought that the move was THE move to play for the situation, that clearly, the way of thinking and play sequence in this game was the most optimal.

But this is a clear fallacy. Take any opening/midgame situation between two pros, and change out the players for those with different styles, and you will have a different game.

Quite correct! One of the beauties of go is the sheer volume of possibilities that exist on a board. In fact, it's one of the great difficulties we teachers face. We attempt to help our students while at the same time keep careful eye on accidentally portraying the notion there is only one correct way of playing.
That said, it sounds like you have more of a problem with one particular way of approaching the study of professional games, than the study of professional games, in and of themselves. In other words, if you view studying professional games as a universal cheat sheet for some sort of test you're taking, you're probably doing it wrong. However if you're viewing professional games as a source of possibilities you hadn't considered before, surely you see its benefits.
Now, a weaker player by themselves may have difficulties fully appreciating the meaning and dangers behind such possibilities. If you go over a game with a stronger player, with the intent of exploring the pluses and minuses of each move, as opposed to the 'only one playable', this would have a positive effect, would it not? It's even what you have suggested for this thread, no?

[Violence]

Violence, it seems like you're saying a lot of differnet things in that post. Is your main complaint the idea that when we review games, we look for "the right move" as if it's the only one possible? And your solution is to just try and give multiple moves that have potential, showing how a stronger player thinks about them?

Yes.

Now, i could be mistaken, but trying to equate the first sort of player with someone who starts a 'Guess the next move' thread, was certainly not your intention, was it? Because it almost sounds like these types of players are thinly separated in your mind.

I just mean that players who do the former encourage the kind of thinking in weaker players to approach the latter in the wrong way.

And yes, I understand that pro games themselves are a powerful study tool that can benefit players very much when studied well.

I just see that more often than not, there is a tendency to focus on the one move, the perceived solution, the almighty professional play. I feel that not enough heed is given to the side variations.

I plan on posting the response to BaghwanB tonight, I think 1 every other day is my target for this.

[logan]

Quite correct! One of the beauties of go is the sheer volume of possibilities that exist on a board. In fact, it's one of the great difficulties we teachers face. We attempt to help our students while at the same time keep careful eye on accidentally portraying the notion there is only one correct way of playing.

I had a student awhile back whose last teacher taught in the negative method that we are referring to. This built up a learning style in my student of needing/desiring me to give him one correct move or to tell him exactly where to go. It was a very hard habit to break, so much so that I worried whether he going to give up before understanding the longterm value of my teaching approach. A lot of things we have to teach our students are things found as often off the go board as on.

[daal]

And yet, I see things like, "Guess the next move," or "Prokovich" games. With respect to those who started these threads, I don't think this is an effective practice tool at all.

While the "correct" move, the one that the pro made, may certainly have been made for reasons inaccessible to amateurs, the exercise of considering the merits of various moves seems nonetheless valuable, no?

[judicata]

Interesting thread. Even when I was around 15kyu, the comment I most hated to hear while playing a game was "there is only one move." Granted, when this was said to me, it was usually by a much stronger player and it was very often true (e.g., life & death). Nevertheless, I've always loathed that comment--so much so, that my friends will often gratuitously say "there's only one move," just to get on my nerves.

That said, I really enjoy games where a pro game is studied and next moves are predicted. Not because the pro's move is always THE correct move, but because there is interesting discussion about why a player thinks a particular move is good or bad.

On a related note, I've always thought the title of Shuko's series "The Only Move" was irksome. Does anyone know if there is an alternative translation of the title?

[Magicwand]

personally i believe players should pick one places were they have question.
it will be easier on us and more beneficial on them also.

And thanks to you too. In light of the topic of the OP and your point above is why I meant this just to be a question about better ways to continue the game after move 148. That seemed to be a real turning point that I messed up on.

Thanks again to all

Bruce "Riddler" Young

my point is that it was not a turing point at all.
you did exactly what i would have done.
but..after that you made careless mistakes and lost the game.

i am you know your own mistake. example...last point you played dame and let your opponent play a point.
that would have made the game even closer.
many mistake i saw was pure carelessness in my opinion.
that was my point.

[Violence]

While the "correct" move, the one that the pro made, may certainly have been made for reasons inaccessible to amateurs, the exercise of considering the merits of various moves seems nonetheless valuable, no?

But why must it be done to professional games?

Considering the merits of various moves can be done on any game, any player.

I feel like doing it with professional games sort of implies that there is a "right" answer, when many times, this is not the case.

[judicata]

I feel like doing it with professional games sort of implies that there is a "right" answer, when many times, this is not the case.

Interesting - I've never felt that way. Maybe a possible solution is to make that clear.