tetron wrote:I suspect that you are moving much deeper into game analysis than you realise.
What you might have meant to discuss for learning purposes is experience versus analysis. However, I am going to answer the more interesting question you pose with regards to intuition.
I am a very strong games all-rounder because of my ability to play intuitively. I am what is known as a shape player. This is an entirely different skill set to counting positions and analysing.
Thinking ahead can still be done intuititively, have you seen Gary Kasparov's eyes flitting over the board when he was playing deep blue.
You always have an image of a position in your mind, when you can see an actual position a stronger image is formed. This is why blindfold play is weaker than normal play. So a level of thought is needed to safeguard against mistakes.
To progress to the very top of any game requires that you add extra information to your skill sets to gain the extra edge. However, most of the time this is a waste of time as your instinctive move remains unaltered but sometimes it will decide the game.
Shape recognition represents the strongest of all game skills and is in effect a measure of someone's natural ability. The top go players in the world must be strong at shape recognition. However, you can't just increase your shape recognition by playing games. You can improve rapidly as you find patterns that your opponent uses but this is a subtley different skill. Similarly analysis can be improved by practise.
So back to the original question. if you are the most natural go player ever born you could become a professional dan player without ever studying any analysis but you will never reach the top of the game on intuition alone.
The strongest natural games player ever, I saw draw with a top chess GM rated over 700 points higher than himself with black and he used less than 5 minutes on his own clock. He is the only human player I have ever met who I will lose to if I try to keep tempo with him. However, the players which beat him (at any game) had to not only have natural ability but the discipline to think too.
Nicely said. I suppose it's not the best method. And that point was proven when I tried to kill an opponent's group with....dead stones. Only realized they were dead after it was too late and I lost the game as a result. I think I could have won had I evaluated the situation more. So yes, I can see why so many people say intuitive play isn't the best.
At the same time, it's hard for me to really concentrate on games like this because I have ADHD. (Lame excuse) But, really, it's easier for me to play point and play style rather than trying to focus on a game like Go for too long. I figure my normal attentiveness for a game will last about.....10 minutes. Then I gradually lose focus. It's also why I usually only play 1 or 2 games in a row, and then stop for awhile.
Again, I can't necessarily blame my methodology on the fact that I have ADHD, but like I said, it's just easier to play the way I do. I suppose I could look into some mental training and see if I can ease the strain of remaining concentrated over long periods of time.
I meant I usually don't play games with blitz settings.
