Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:25 am

Inkwolf wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:I would be very surprised if you got that advice from a dan player.

At my level, I don't play many dans. ^^

At your level, I played a 5 kyu (about 3 games per week) and a 2 dan (about 6 games per week), and occasionally another 2 dan.

BTW, the 5 kyu gave me 4 stones and the 2 dan gave me 7 stones. I invested in loss, as the Taoists say.

perceval · Post by **perceval** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:50 am

on your last game:
a good move i think is :b24:

@H6 :it is one those fabled dual purpose move where you both attack the 2 white stones at C6/F6 and build your bottom on a big scale.
for W :w27:

@N15 is nice too: it flattens your top and increase the right side for White considerably.
notice also :b19:

@N7 this move is not a big distance form the other W stones but it has a big effect on the delimitation between B and W
if you jump at then end of the game you ll notice that the frontier between black and white did not move around those points.

contrast this with 66@L17 : that one didnt gain much in itself
try to look for this kind of spots in your games : move that increase your territory while attacking, or while reducing your opponent framework.

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:02 am

One can quibble with some of the moves in your second game (e.g., you spend two or three moves killing an already dead group in the upper right, and fail to save three stones at 46), but it looks a lot more like go to me. Much better to play a game like that one and lose it than play a game like the first and win it.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:04 am

daniel_the_smith wrote:Much better to play a game like that one and lose it than play a game like the first and win it.

Hear, hear!

Mef · Post by **Mef** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am

Bill Spight wrote:Well, you have a major bad habit that I doubt that you have learned from the computer. You seem to think that go is a game of making territory and then adding to it incrementally. I had the same bad habit when I started out. That way of playing is too slow, so that you quickly start to fall behind.

I just wanted to say I really enjoyed how after move 10 Bill was able to do the entire review using only the word "Another" (=

jts · Post by **jts** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:30 am

Hm I thought I posted this, so a double-post may appear.

Inkwolf wrote:Playing the computer allows for more experimentation, because I can back up and try alternate moves whenever I like.

If you give yourself a mulligan whenever you misread, you'll never get burned for misreading; if you're never burned for misreading, why would you bother reading out a sequence? And the only way to get better at reading is to read out a lot of sequences. Of all the bad habits you could pick up, "I'll just play this to see what happens" is probably the worst.

Inkwolf wrote:(It's also less stressful than playing real games.)

Tension is your body's way of telling you that you're pushing your limits. Pushing limits is how you get better. A thousand leisurely walks will never get you closer to running a marathon. (Not to knock go-as-relaxation. But if you only want to play go to relax, then don't worry about bad habits.)

jimmain · Post by **jimmain** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:20 am

Bill Spight wrote:Well, you have a major bad habit that I doubt that you have learned from the computer. You seem to think that go is a game of making territory and then adding to it incrementally. I had the same bad habit when I started out. That way of playing is too slow, so that you quickly start to fall behind.

Bill, I am just learning to play and tend to do exactly this. I mark out territory and then try and add to it incrementally. I also try and decrease my opponents territory more or less incrementally.

Could you suggest a better style or approach if you think that this approach is slow or incorrect?

I would be keen to hear your opinion.

Cheers
Jim.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:38 am

jimmain wrote:Could you suggest a better style or approach if you think that this approach is slow or incorrect?

Jim, one way is for you to play better players and learn from their moves;
another way is to have your games reviewed by better players so they can point out better moves than yours --
this forum and KGS are both good venues for this.

If you are just beginning and have much fewer than 100 games,
I strongly recommend you finish 100 games as quickly as possible.

Inkwolf · Post by **Inkwolf** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:47 am

EdLee wrote:
jimmain wrote:Could you suggest a better style or approach if you think that this approach is slow or incorrect?
Jim, one way is for you to play better players and learn from their moves;
another way is to have your games reviewed by better players so they can point out better moves than yours --
this forum and KGS are both good venues for this.

Yes, and as aggravating as it is to ALWAYS find out you're playing horribly, these guys give great advice. :salute:

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:45 am

jimmain wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:Well, you have a major bad habit that I doubt that you have learned from the computer. You seem to think that go is a game of making territory and then adding to it incrementally. I had the same bad habit when I started out. That way of playing is too slow, so that you quickly start to fall behind.

Bill, I am just learning to play and tend to do exactly this. I mark out territory and then try and add to it incrementally. I also try and decrease my opponents territory more or less incrementally.

Could you suggest a better style or approach if you think that this approach is slow or incorrect?

I would be keen to hear your opinion.

Cheers
Jim.

It's too slow to *just* make territory. Your moves have to carry an additional threat, such as an invasion, or sometimes it's enough to threaten to make a *lot* of territory with another move. But the idea is that your moves have to have follow-ups; the true value of a move includes the value of the follow-ups. Finding dual-purpose moves is something that takes practice and experience, but you can attempt it at any level.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:31 am

jimmain wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:Well, you have a major bad habit that I doubt that you have learned from the computer. You seem to think that go is a game of making territory and then adding to it incrementally. I had the same bad habit when I started out. That way of playing is too slow, so that you quickly start to fall behind.

Bill, I am just learning to play and tend to do exactly this. I mark out territory and then try and add to it incrementally. I also try and decrease my opponents territory more or less incrementally.

Could you suggest a better style or approach if you think that this approach is slow or incorrect?

I would be keen to hear your opinion.

Cheers
Jim.

It would be easy to say, develop more rapidly, but I think that you want more than that. And that is a tall order.

OK, here goes. This is my opinion, but it is informed opinion.

Assuming correct komi, if you place your stones more effectively than your opponent does, you will win. You want your stones to work together efficiently. At the same time, you do not want them to be overcrowded, so that they duplicate each other's effects. (One word for the effect of a stone is its influence, but influence has other, related meanings.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Corner vs. Center $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It is sometimes said that we start in the corners because it is easiest to make territory in the corner. That is not the best way to think about it. The corner stone is, IMO, more effective than the center stone. (During the New Fuseki era pros experimented with opening in the center, and there are still some players who can do so effectively, but the stats are against it. White wins about 2/3 of the time.)

We can estimate the influence of the corner stone at around 14 points. My guess is that the influence of the center stone is around 9 points (with less certainty). Why is that?

The corner stone is stronger than the center stone. Why is that?

The corner stone has greater eye potential. In fact, we can pretty much regard it as having an eye, because, even though Black has not formed an eye yet, if White approaches Black can easily do so. By contrast, the stone in the center has nothing resembling an eye.

Yes, it is easier to form territory in the corner, but the point is that the corner stone is stronger, and therefore more effective.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Corner vs. Center, II $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . X , X . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This diamond shape is strong, and is sometimes said to be worth 30 points. (Actually, I think that it has more influence than that.) My estimate is that the diamond shape in the corner has an influence of around 35 points, while the diamond shape in the center has an influence of more than 40 points. The corner shape is a little bit stronger, but it is overconcentrated. Its influence extends only a few spaces to the top and right edges. (Note that the center shape, although strong, is still worth less than four stones, one in each corner.)

You can see how, once you have made territory, your group is strong, and so you do not want to play to close to it, to avoid overconcentration.

More later. Maybe not today.

emeraldemon · Post by **emeraldemon** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:05 am

As EdLee said, I think it helps a lot to see how stronger players play. Playing against them is good of course, I'm also a fan of playing over pro games. I really like getting the feeling of "Wow, I never would have looked at that move, but now that it's on the board it seems so good!"

Koroviev · Post by **Koroviev** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:28 am

jimmain wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:Well, you have a major bad habit that I doubt that you have learned from the computer. You seem to think that go is a game of making territory and then adding to it incrementally. I had the same bad habit when I started out. That way of playing is too slow, so that you quickly start to fall behind.

Bill, I am just learning to play and tend to do exactly this. I mark out territory and then try and add to it incrementally. I also try and decrease my opponents territory more or less incrementally.

Could you suggest a better style or approach if you think that this approach is slow or incorrect?

I would be keen to hear your opinion.

Cheers
Jim.

A stronger player reviewed one of my games when I was about 18kyu and said: "You're biggest problem is that you play moves that have no effect on your opponent."

That's probably the best advice I've had in Go. Instead of playing moves that increase your territory a little, play moves that affect your opponent. Each time you consider a move, ask yourself: "Does this move cause my opponent a problem, or at least ask her a question?"

Of course, sometimes you have to spend time answering your opponent's questions instead of asking your own - but as soon as you get a chance, play a move that affects him in some way. Attack his group, take away a base, limit a framework, cut, occupy key points.

Those moves aren't always right, of course, but as a beginner, you will learn more playing in an active way. You might win more, too, but that's another matter. ;-)

Life In 19x19

Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re:

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?

Re: Is the computer teaching me bad habits?