Depth of reading correlates with rank - and other insights

[John Fairbairn]

I'll add a little more. The purpose of this addition is to highlight a point that is sometimes overlooked: western players often interpret Japanese proverbs/concepts in an idiosyncratic way. It's conceivable that it's a better way sometimes, but it's usually wise to have take heed of how the native speakers view the proverbs/concepts. We had a debate elsewhere on L19 recently about the proverb "urgent points before big points". I was rather startled at some of the assertions made.

Anyway, Koshida provides some insight into how one native mind thinks on this. He divides a position up into five phases: extreme urgency; urgency; soba; big points; boundary plays (yose). Moves are to be chosen according to this ranking.

Moves of extreme urgency are moves to do with life and death of a whole group. You cannot play elsewhere.

Urgent moves are moves where opposing groups are in contact and if you choose to play elsewhere you lose some stones.

Soba moves he simply describes as moves where you cannot play away from this area. The further sense is built into the word itself, so I'll add that it's a kind of fighting where you are simply striving to achieve par. You are not giving ground, but nor are you expecting to gain it. It's difficult to leave this area prematurely lest you end up on the backfoot, but it's a phase of play where application of enough tactical skill may at least give you sente.

Big points are played in a phase where you feel you can play elsewhere and you have a free choice for your next move. He gives some pointers to identify specific urgent moves and big points which I'll omit here, but he does stress that neglect of urgent moves is not just a matter of stones being captured but of changing the relationship between the two sides (a group becomes vulnerable, so it can be attacked or bullied later). I.e. the bills have to be paid later.

Boundary plays are plays made when there is no fighting to be done or big points to be occupied.

You can decide for yourself whether this implies significant differences from the views elsewhere on L19 (I think it does), but soba is probably a new element in the mix for many. Soba go is rather like par golf. You can try for birdies (e.g. get sente), but if you try too hard you can card a bogie. Some players tend to play par go all the time and rely on an impetuous opponent to land in the water. Some players, like Yi Se-tol, play like Ballesteros and try for birdies from impossible-looking positions, but have enough skill to succeed often enough to win the titles ahead of the par-golf plodders.

Nevertheless, even Yi Se-tol and Tiger Woods realise that on some holes you need to rein back and be satisfied with par. How many amateurs genuinely think that way during a game and actually show such patience? In golf, if you are an amateur, you have a measure - you need ten strokes on a hole rated 4 and you know you're a little way off being a pro. On the go board we lack these par numbers and so it's easy to forget just how far from par we really are. Actually I'm aiming that remark at amateur high-dans more than DDKs.

[RobertJasiek]

Moves of extreme urgency are moves to do with life and death of a whole group. You cannot play elsewhere.

Of course, one can play elsewhere, e.g., if elsewhere a bigger group is also unsettled.

Urgent moves are moves where opposing groups are in contact and if you choose to play elsewhere you lose some stones.

It is a special case example of an urgent move rather than what should be considered urgent of a second highest degree in general.

he does stress that neglect of urgent moves is not just a matter of stones being captured but of changing the relationship between the two sides [...]
Boundary plays are plays made when there is no fighting to be done or big points to be occupied.

This is becoming more reasonable.

On the go board we lack these par numbers and so it's easy to forget just how far from par we really are. Actually I'm aiming that remark at amateur high-dans more than DDKs.

Eh? We have positional judgement with its numbers for territories, influence and thickness. Amateur high dans do use (at least some of) them. So why would you be saying they are far from "par"? It is more the DDKs that are.

[TMark]

Reminds me of the comment by Go Seigen, that someone was a very weak player - around 5dan amateur.

Best wishes.

[RobertJasiek]

What was a Japanese 5d when Go made the comment?

[John Fairbairn]

Before any high-dan amateurs become tempted to start bragging about how deep they can read, it occurs to me that it might be worth stressing that "depth of reading" here applies to amateurs. Amateurs in general have to think move by move because they haven't put the 10,000 hours in. In essence, they have to re-invent the wheel every time they play, which is hard, and it's no surprise that the process of "if he goes there, I go there" often ends up with square wheels.

As Yoda Norimoto points out in his book on how pros think, pros just don't think in that fashion. What they do is, to use his words, "pile up the images". In other words they have done the 10,000 hours of playing over games - in his case he claims to have countless images in his head from playing over the games of Shusaku and Go Seigen. He just superimposes these on the current position and, in that sense, he says he could claim to see 100,000 moves ahead - except the numbers are irrelevant. What is relevant is knowing what you want to achieve and finding images from your databank that help you focus on ways to achieve that.

Since 99% of amateurs haven't got much of an image databank, they can't use that method much, so have to revert to being Fred Flintstone.

Although Yoda doesn't expand on his use of the word "image", it does seem suggestive of his thought process when he was studying. It's as if he got to a position where he suddenly realised that there was a useful technique exemplified there, and a shutter in his brain went "click". I believe this is rather similar to what we all do when we see a new face. We don't consciously make a list of a person's features or count how many eyes/warts/freckles he has - our brains just go click and then other brain cells go to work in our subconscious, creating a databank.

Yoda gives another example which I like of just how far apart pro and amateur thinking are. It concerned a move 29 that he thought about for a long time. As soon as he played his choice - a big point on the side - he realised he had muffed it. The reason was (remember this was a big point) it was too focused on the endgame. We amateurs understand all the words he uses in describing this Zen-like moment of insight, but I venture to suggest we haven't really got a clue what he's talking about. I haven't either, but I'll hazard a guess that it meant he realised he'd been looking up too many images in the endgame section of his image databank.

[Alakazam]

I didn't mean to brag, though it sure looks like I did. I figured other 5d+ would agree... I did mistake the questions of "do" for "can" though, my bad. The comment about 37 move sequence: No, I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. 37 moves is not so impressive for pros. It was probably really impressive because of that reading in the particular position, as each position is harder or easier to read than another most of the time. They probably didn't have the same accuracy as him, nevermind depth. Perhas they didn't thin of one or two of his moves.

If I hd to prove it to you, I could show you fast-ish online games in which i read 30-40 movs on a particular part before playing the next move. Though it's true I rarely read that far, especially online. That reading is almost always when I was planning a deep invasion or, less often, trying to capture a group (I'm not talking about a full sequence of just taking liberties, obviously we can read far for that).

I also meant to point out that my reading is not especially good at all for a 5d, as I'm not good at high-dan tsumego yet.

Don't make me dig for those games, by the way, as I don't care if anyone here takes me seriously or believes me. I'm just offering my point of view.

Te original rank:moves scale I guess was pretty decent, though I still think the gap between 3d and 5d is shown as too small. There's no way the dfference between 3 and 5d wouldnt be a lot more than a certain kyu to another kyu a few above it.

[Kirby]

I'd say it's kind of hard to count how many moves you can read, because when people read, at some point, they do some sort of evaluation. Maybe you read to the point where something cannot get two eyes. Maybe you read every combination of valid moves until no valid moves exist in the local area.

The latter would take a lot more time, because the breadth of your search takes a long time to exhaust.

I think shape knowledge comes into play here. Certain shapes you may know by sight, without having to calculate further. If you know that shape, then it will help you prune your search tree, and you can read further down into it.

So I would say that strong players can use shape knowledge to their advantage to be able to read further down the tree. This "reading" does not necessarily imply that they have viewed every move in every branch of the game tree - they have pruned the ones that they know they can prune.

So it doesn't seem likely that you can have a consistent system for counting every move that you can read. A pro may have read a 50 move sequence, but he may have been able to eliminate some of the search space by pattern knowledge. It doesn't necessarily mean that he read out all combinations of all legal moves on the board, 50 moves deep.

[illluck]

I guess that there may be personal variation in how deep we usually choose to read - personally I rarely read more than 5 moves when making decisions, though that of course changes when there are immediate tactical situations (I tend to blitz, though, so it might just be me). In general I prefer to try to look at more variations than deeper, though I don't excel at that either XD

[RobertJasiek]

Amateurs in general have to think move by move because they haven't put the 10,000 hours in. In essence, they have to re-invent the wheel every time they play, which is hard, and it's no surprise that the process of "if he goes there, I go there" often ends up with square wheels. [...] they have done the 10,000 hours of playing over games

While it is probably right that only few amateurs have spent 10,000h on going through pro games (e.g., I might have spent maybe 4,000h), your implication about having to reinvent the wheel at every move is wrong becaus there are also other (and even much more efficient) means to avoid reinventing wheels: application of generalized knowledge such as expressed in principles or concepts.

Yet another way is done by current programs: a tremendous number of dull sample test games simulated until a scoring position (Monte Carlo). This is less efficient on a per game count but takes advantage of CPU strength of dull fast calculations.

[ez4u]

I do not think that I routinely read to a certain depth. Different situations call for different approaches to analysis. Personally I think that the main point with amateurs is that we read the wrong plays! As we get stronger we do this to a lesser degree.

Living in Tokyo and going to the Nihon Kiin each week, I play teaching games with pros often - I have averaged a game a week for years. (It has not helped much because I do not study on my own and do not have the necessary raw talent ) Yes, pros read much more deeply. However, the big point in my eyes is that they read more widely. They see much more potential in the immediate position on the board than amateurs do. Maybe it is all part of the same thing, but to me the breadth is more imposing than the depth. It is a running joke with one of my teachers that he just plays on a wider go board than I do.

I have also taken some lessons from Rob van Zeijst. He can read more deeply than I can in most situations. However, again the distinguishing feature between us is that he imagines a wider range of possibilities than I do. He is the only European 7D that I have played, but I imagine that he is more the rule than the exception in terms of his ability versus myself.

Who knows, perhaps I am just especially narrow minded. After all I am an accountant by trade.

[p2501]

Sounds to me like some are talking about the count and some about the depth of moves one is reading. 15 moves deep is huge.

[snorri]

Sounds to me like some are talking about the count and some about the depth of moves one is reading. 15 moves deep is huge.

There are many dan-level tsumego problems that require this depth. Not all of them do, of course. For some the right line is shallower but the search tree is bushier, or the solution requires multiple blindspot moves (e.g., moves that are typically ignored because they are using bad shape or normally ineffective.)

I am so sorry.

[snorri]

As Yoda Norimoto points out in his book on how pros think, pros just don't think in that fashion. What they do is, to use his words, "pile up the images". In other words they have done the 10,000 hours of playing over games - in his case he claims to have countless images in his head from playing over the games of Shusaku and Go Seigen. He just superimposes these on the current position and, in that sense, he says he could claim to see 100,000 moves ahead - except the numbers are irrelevant. What is relevant is knowing what you want to achieve and finding images from your databank that help you focus on ways to achieve that.

First of all, Yoda is a kind of genius and may be weird.

But this brings up an interesting point. When we (amateurs) normally talk about reading, usually we are imagining some restricted context like life & death problems or highly tactical situations in games. This may be a different type of reading than what is needed in open, whole board situations where you have to think "what is my plan here?" I think Bill Spight has called it "lines of play." For the latter kind of reading, I can imagine something like Yoda's "databank" could be very useful. But I'm not sure all amateurs, missing that invaluable resource, try to substitute with some kind of Monte Carlo reading in such situations. A lot of it may be guessing based on a much smaller and lower quality databank, or using rules of thumb and principles. Or just unsophisticated gut. At least until something constrained enough to read out appears.

And maybe even Yoda does systematic reading in some situations?

[tapir]

I didn't mean to brag, though it sure looks like I did. ... 37 moves is not so impressive for pros. ... They probably didn't have the same accuracy as him, nevermind depth.

You probably use different concepts of reading. A certain accuracy is certainly precondition to call it reading, no? I mean, even I sometimes "read" fancy long sequences that simply do not work, if my opponents plays sth. unimagined at move 6.

In any case you should settle this with Herman over the board. Long-ish time limits at a set date at KGS for the crowd to watch. In the review you could both explain how long and what you read. If you can build hard evidence into your gameplay (preparatory moves that help or decide a fight long after), even better.

If it doesn't happen, I would be happy if someone strong can comment one of his games w/ regard to the reading depth. (preparatory moves, realisation that a certain sequence doesn't work anymore in depth x...) Or if sth. like this exists in the Malkovich files, I would be happy if someone can point it out.

[Alakazam]

If I ever get around to it, I'll look through a few recent games for one with a position or two in which I read more than 20 moves, and not something linear like a ladder... I don't really care much to prove anything, I am only mildy tempted because it intrigues me I guess, but even if I played with someone, there's far from any guarantee that I would have an opportunity to read far. My reading is nothing awesome anyway. It's just that I've thought about the question of "# of moves" myself a few times and took note of it in certain games. There were games wherein I was proud of myself for having sensed some very subtle Aji, read our moves for a few minutes, then executed (most of these were sequences to live inside my opponent's clean-ish-but-apparently-not-so-clean Moyo). I also don't really want to include Semeai-type situations, because even though certain factors can make them hard to read, they're still more linear than general situations I guess.

To be honest, I agree it is totally ambiguous what "how many moves" even means. Obviously we read several variations whenever we read...

The funny thing is, if I were to go through and find, say, 6 games of mine as examples from KGS or Tygem, I'll bet at least 2 would be Blitz. I'm not much of a Blitz'er, but I must admit that my reading is faster in Blitz. Playing with a clock is a good idea in my opinion. Even if you set lenient time settings, some kind of pressure is important. A prize or something also helps, helps me anyway. This is the only thing I can think of to stop myself from relaxing too much against weaker players and epic-failing, or from taking my sweet time in general and reading things slowly.

Perhaps reading can be divided into depth, speed and clarity. Clarity would regard not only how clearly you see the moves the deeper you go, but also whether the moves you are reading are the right moves to read. Then, I might like to say here that 'reading speed' is something most of us probably neglect to practice. For those of us here who play mostly Blitz, it may be something else then that is neglected, like clarity, depth. Or, you know, thinking at all.

I think 'reading ability' is quite a complex thing, actually. For example, I might argue that because of my experiences from playing with my own style, my reading when it comes to invasion, reduction and/or endgame sequencing is better than my reading in, I don't know, fighting at the central pin-wheel situation or any kind of center fight, or in trying to kill my opponent in the center. I honestly think there are notable differences, which is why our (my) reading ability can fluctuate pretty wildly, even at mid-high Dan level (and even after factoring in moods/health/condition/whatever.)

Go, like life, is just complicated.

This is pretty off-topic, but I have a pretty strong 6d friend who used to always talk about the 'natural flow' in Go, and he is someone many friends and I have learned a lot from. However, although my idea might change later on, right now I believe that there is definitely not one single 'natural flow', especially not for amateurs. He always spoke of Go as something synonymous to life, but since everyone ('s life) is different, then in Go, with all it's countless possibilities, why would they all share the same natural flow in Go? Even if we say that natural flow refers to the general way that the stones should flow from each area to the next most important area, yada yada, I think there is something wrong with the term. Perhaps I am the one misunderstanding it. I believe that each person's unique way of playing can work even if it is far from 'honte' or something totally orthodox. No, let me rephrase. I don't believe everyone's unique style can be strong, but I do believe there are unique, possibly even theory-defiant styles that can be strong.

Everyone should find their own style. Our styles may constantly change, especially for those of us in the Kyu levels, but I believe that once we have reached a point where we don't think we will improve quickly anymore, are settled/satisfied with our strength, both, or have otherwise reached a high level of strength, we should identify our style and Go beliefs and mold our style to them. This is what I've worked hard on recently, and it has made many things easier for me. I can remember my moves more easily and play more consistently in recurring positions, and I can strategize according to my simplified beliefs.

My style can almost be explained this briefly:

I like territory and stay true to the elementary ideas of taking corners. I believe side and center territories are vulnerable, and I have mathemetical/strategic ideas that allow me to clearly and calmly think about and deal with Moyos and other kinds of territorial threats. I have no talent for fighting, so even after working hard on it as my weakness, it is just par at best, therefore my goal against a worthy opponent is to get through middlegame without losing much. My aim is to avoid situations in which it becomes too natural for me to have to take Moyo. I aim to do fine in opening and get cash. I keep some balance in order to have potential and be able to "do what i gotta' do" later on (hehehe...). Middlegame I just survive, and Endgame I use my power (if any) to win. Since I believe that I am a weak fighter, but strong at positional judgement* and endgame, endgame is where I am to bring the game. I am pretty good at invading territories, so this helps me with my type of style. I am not much of a killer, so sometimes I need this kind of skill to stage an upset when I'm behind. In fact, even my opening fails pretty often in recent months. To my luck, it seems most players my level and weaker who are strong fighters tend to fail at endgame.
From the first move of the game, I am already thinking about endgame. I'm the type of player who is sensitive to territory, and stays aware of how each shape will continue and end up by the end of the game. As my KGS and Tygem games would vouch for, I win a very large percentage of the games that I play against San-ren-sei, Kobayashi and other such Moyo styles, because in games like those, if it remains relatively peaceful, it comes down to who is better at judging the position and playing endgame.
If I could describe my Go in one word, it would be calm. That is, if I wanted a positive word ^^'
But alas, I must admit that I tend to pretty much fail all throughout the middlegame. I cannot call myself a strong player yet.
In the past, I would always get an edge in the opening and win if I can just survive middlegame, but these days even my opening is not great. For some reason, I am often able to turn the game around at a late stage these days, which is at least something I never had before. Most of it is POWER-INVADE! hehe.

I must say though, my blitz is quite different. One word: Attach! ^^