A vague treatise on influence

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:05 pm

topazg wrote:
Indeed, but where and how?

$$Bcm17
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . O . O X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . 1 . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . 5 . . . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm17 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . O . O X . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . 1 . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . 3 . . . . . 5 . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This black 19 is already showing the effect of the white influence. When someone approaches a 4-4 and you already have the 4-10 in place, it is de rigeur to kick to make heavy, prevent slide to corner, and cause overconcentration due to the 4-10 stone in the way of a good extension. That you didn't play this presumably reflects your feeling that in this position although in one respect it makes f17 heavy, it also weakens and reduces connectedness to the k16 stone. (Maybe 24 could be one to the right).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm17 Make white heavy or stronger? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . . O . O X . . | $$ | . . . X . 4 . 6 . 1 . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . 5 . . . . . 7 . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In fact I think the above is better for black than one point jump to 19 as that allows white to slide to corner (and of course if black doesn't 3-3 white is content to play there). This way white's group has more eyespace so is practically alive locally, black is simply running on dame and weak, and white can aim at a.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm17 Plus slide $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . 5 . . 2 . . . . . . . O . O X . . | $$ | . . . X . . . 6 . 1 . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . 3 . . . . . 7 . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Another idea would be to simply invade at h17/h16/g16 directly, maybe as below?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm17 Jumpy jumpy $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O X . . | $$ | . . . X . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . 4 . 3 . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 6 . 5 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . 7 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Then again, maybe you don't play on the top yet at all and just get on with playing some fuseki. Leave black to worry about k16 getting attacked later. If he plays submissive moves out of fear for an impending attack your thickness is working without you even trying. Once you have got some stones on the left side it is likely to make the invasion on the top even more powerful.

A rather similar position came up in a game I played with Matthew Macfadyen. He invaded in the wrong place (h17 on this board), so it's not an easy question if our 6d 25-time British Champion can get it wrong

. h17 was wrong because the cap at h15 was a good answer that helped d16 and k16 link together. That's why a 4th line invasion is better, it directly severs that connection.

A similar shape also came up in the recent Meijin title match. http://gogameguru.com/yamashita-keigo-wins-36th-meijin/. In that game Iyama made a rather strange choice to build a gote wall which Yamashita then reduced with k16 (not holding back at f17/g17), but then black's wall in that game is not as thick as white's in topazg's example so k16 seems more reasonable. Iyama invaded at h17, the mistake move in my game, but in his game white does not have the ladder which is required to play the f15 cover after black f16 (see my Macfadyen game for the ladder variation), so white is forced to play the not-so-nice g16. (And in topaz's game white has the ladder to black can't f15 so h17 is back on the menu). In the comments on that game David Ormerod said he expected a black invasion on the 4th line. Maybe the lack of the ladder is why he did it, I would be interested to see a pro commentary!

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:23 pm

topazg,

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:15 am

@Andrew: You're quite right on the kicking issue, though I'm not entirely sure the final result is that unhappy for Black. However, the 4th line invasion point sequences are very compelling, and make a lot of sense. In the final position, it is fairly clear that White's wall has far more potential to hurt Black than Black's wall to hurt White. It's also reasonable to assume that Black playing contact plays to settle when White invades is similarly problematic, for much the same reasons. It's funny, I have a bit of a blind spot for H16.

@Ed:

EdLee wrote:topazg,
topazg wrote:How is White supposed to punish...?
(pro) That may not be the best way to think about things.
Here's an alternative: my opponent has made (at our levels) a sub-optimal move.
I will continue to strive to make (at our levels) the best moves.
All else being equal, I will come out at least equal or even ahead.

I'm not sure that answered any of the question I was asking. There are instances where there is no need to punish, particularly when the opponent plays a slow or overconcentrated move, where insufficient points are gained for the stones invested regardless of the opponent response. In which case, you can rather perversely assume you have some profit simply by it being your move again.

However, there are equally cases where this is not the case. Particularly where someone has played too close to thickness or played too thinly, ignoring it can often allow players to turn a bad move into an unreasonably good move, and profit accordingly. In this particular instance, additional moves by Black will make his position strong enough that the original move was perfectly ok, therefore it isn't unreasonable to guess that, at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity.

EdLee wrote:See John's post #3 at this thread: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =12&t=1578

I don't see the relevance :S Would you prefer it if I phrased the question "How does White make sure that he profits from Black's suboptimal move?" even though the difference is basically semantics? His post was primarily one of attitudes towards opponents and the game, whereas my question was hoping for an objective analysis of the weakness of Black's move.

EdLee wrote:If you're asking what to play for , you'll probably a different reply depending on the kyu persons, dan persons, or even the different pros you ask.

That's not the question. The question is "how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?"

EdLee wrote:In other words, there is a subtle but significant difference in mentality between:
(a) is ridiculous! How dare him! I'm not going to let him get away with it! I must punish him!
(b) What is the best move for (and , , ... etc.)?

My feeling (without any statistical evidence) is (a) is very common among amateurs,
perhaps especially in kyu levels -- the key feeling here is punish, a very basic human emotional response;
whereas the closer to pro or pro-like training, the more often (b) happens -- a much more non-emotional, objective response.

I'm not sure where this is aimed? I have countless professional examples of moves, sequences, and responses that would fit the western understanding of the word punish (terminology which is rarely used in most of the literature I have on the topic, but the spirit of the word is still evident). Using the word punish doesn't mean that the individual has the attitude of "a" at all, just that the player is seeking the move locally that would lead to the best result for him at the expense of the opponent (the key requisite, over the course of a game, of scoring more points). I think by focusing on the word punish you've rather missed the point of my post.

Example of "punishing" in "Reducing Territorial Frameworks" (Shuko):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 Good for White $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . W . 2 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . 8 . 1 3 . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . 4 X 9 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 0 5 6 7 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

"Making the hane underneath at gives White a good sequence from . In the result to , Black has been made to play much more submissively than in Joseki 2"

In this instance, it is reasonable to assume that common Western terminology would see

as leading to a punishment of the slack

, even though that word itself isn't used once in the book.

daal · Post by **daal** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:14 am

topazg wrote:I thought I'd offer some comments on my opinion of influence, for those that want to agree, disagree, discuss, or verbally abuse me about

Since nobody else wants to, I'll go for verbal abuse.

My main problem is that you title the thread "A vague treatise on influence," but then go on to ask "what is influence?" and not answer the question, then you say you will define your terms and don't define influence, and then you say that you make a strong distinction between thickness and influence and go on to discuss thickness for the next ten diagrams and then when you finally do get around to the topic at hand, you fizzle out with an addled brain after a measly two diagrams. (Aren't you glad to be back?)

Seriously Topazg, it's great to read your voice again.

But back to my mad ravings: If I understand you correctly, in order to play a game in which an influence-based strategy makes sense, you need "a basic understanding of how to turn that investment into points."

You sum up how to do this with the following:

So, the other aspect to think about with influential moves is what to do to develop them, and I think this is probably the point that most kyu players struggle with. Essentially, there is no way out of learning the variations that are possible for each side, as that determines what aji is in a position.

Are you serious? At least I know why I struggle with it. Would you suggest studying the san ren sei, or what variations are you referring to?

At the very end, you offer one juicy tidbit of general advice:

From learning that, a good time to develop the position further is when you can change a local miai situation (very common with 4-4 stones) into a local win-win situation (albeit at the cost of allowing your opponent a move elsewhere). The rest is simply timing

So, what I'm hearing is: Influence moves (4th line + moves in the opening?) need to be developed in such a way as to yield an advantage somewhere, no matter what the opponent does. Right?

I just want to remind you (and the other illustrious commentators in this thread) that it's kyu players you're dealing with, and indeed we all too often see our proud high stones become useless. Thickness is one thing, but I'd like to see more of this developing influence business.

The difficulty in discussing it though is that the "central" issue seems to lie in the center. Influence stones allow the opponent to get a territorial lead that needs to be made up in the middle and end game. Their role involves: a) reducing the opponent's safe territory or supporting invasions, b) giving one an advantage when fighting breaks out in the center, and c) otherwise creating territory. These sorts of developments are as individual as snowflakes.

The discussion surrounding

is how these things tend to wind up. Not that it's uninteresting, it's just that a vague treatise on influence shouldn't get so darn specific.

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:16 am

daal wrote:Giant fat snip....

Many thanks daal, that's _exactly_ the sort of feedback I was hoping for. I'll come back to you properly on your points soon, and update the original post when I do so, and adjust a couple of moves to please the

haters

EDIT: Actually, I'll make a new post and link to it from the top of the first post. I agree with the frustration on the move 17 discussion. On one hand, it is relevant, as I don't want to give the impression of recommending bad moves. On the other hand, the purpose of the thread was precisely not to discuss specific moves other than contextual examples for the generation of ideas and plans that "make sense" regarding the rest of the stones on the board. Part of the reason my brain was addled was the realisation about how poorly I'd answered my own original question, and the dauntingness of starting over

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:01 am

topazg,

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:05 am

EdLee wrote:
topazg wrote:I'm not sure that answered any of the question I was asking.
How do you know? Say we ask the question, "What is the best move for ?"
In the current discussion, you are asking about (and W's follow-ups) --
how do you know these two questions are not on the same level of vagueness and difficulty to answer?

For some reason (re: daal's post), a vague answer seems quite appropriate given the title of the thread.

I don't know, that's why I said I wasn't sure

(PS Actually, I wasn't asking about

, I was asking about how White eventually addresses the area)

EdLee wrote:(pro) That MAY not be the best way to think about things....

I added the emphasis on MAY.
Perhaps you're right -- your way could be a very valid way to think about Go. Who knows?

Another thing I noted recently in another thread: at kyu levels, we can replace the word "influence"
with "magic" with almost zero loss of infomation.
(And Bill's nice observance that many people would like to be "magicians" anyway. So, YMMV. )

Hahaha, indeed, this is very true. Isn't Go fun

daal · Post by **daal** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:03 am

topazg wrote:How is White supposed to punish the too close-ness?
EdLee wrote:(pro) That may not be the best way to think about things.
Here's an alternative: my opponent has made (at our levels) a sub-optimal move.
I will continue to strive to make (at our levels) the best moves.
All else being equal, I will come out at least equal or even ahead.

See John's post #3 at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1578

If you're asking what to play for , you'll probably a different reply
depending on the kyu persons, dan persons, or even the different pros you ask.

In other words, there is a subtle but significant difference in mentality between:
(a) is ridiculous! How dare him! I'm not going to let him get away with it! I must punish him!
(b) What is the best move for (and , , ... etc.)?

My feeling (without any statistical evidence) is (a) is very common among amateurs,
perhaps especially in kyu levels -- the key feeling here is punish, a very basic human emotional response;
whereas the closer to pro or pro-like training, the more often (b) happens -- a much more non-emotional, objective response.
topazg wrote:"...I'm not sure that answered any of the question I was asking...""...at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity..."...(which is not the same as:)......"how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?"

Perhaps you should re-read John's second post. I believe that Ed's point (and John's) is that kyu failure is often simply an attitude problem. In our zeal to "punish," we tend not to be like Shuko, satisfied with making an opponents moves sub-optimal, but rather we tend to over-react to the overplay thus doing ourselves harm. The semantics indeed play a role insofar as they can indicate the difference between a raging bull and a man with a sword.

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:24 am

daal wrote:Perhaps you should re-read John's second post. I believe that Ed's point (and John's) is that kyu failure is often simply an attitude problem. In our zeal to "punish," we tend not to be like Shuko, satisfied with making an opponents moves sub-optimal, but rather we tend to over-react to the overplay thus doing ourselves harm. The semantics indeed play a role insofar as they can indicate the difference between a raging bull and a man with a sword.

Interesting difference of interpretation of words - For me, "...at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity..." and "how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?" are synonymous. By making a profit at the end of the game, even due to subtle advantages borne out of a misplaced stone that bears fruition 150 moves later, Black's audacity has been punished. Is there a general vibe with the word "punish" that implies to people a sense of immediacy? If so, I'll have to stop using the word, as it's more likely than I'd realised to give the wrong impression of my intent with its usage.

daal · Post by **daal** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:29 am

topazg wrote: Interesting difference of interpretation of words - For me, "...at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity..." and "how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?" are synonymous.

Probably they are when you say it - but were they my words, they would mean entirely different things.

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:32 am

daal wrote:
topazg wrote: Interesting difference of interpretation of words - For me, "...at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity..." and "how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?" are synonymous.
Probably they are when you say it - but were they my words, they would mean entirely different things.

And, judging on the recent discussion, I would hazard a guess that I'm the one in the minority. I'll think about some better terminology for when I update the post

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:02 am

Some of the discussion here is similar to http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =15&t=5332. I wonder how long it will be until Robert Jasiek extols the virtues of n-Connection

.

About getting derailed by diagrams, yes I knew the text rather than diagrams were the focus, but it is easier to talk about moves than a difficult concept such as influence! Maybe I will do one of my fortnightly Shodan Challenge lectures on this topic...

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:20 am

I think that the appreciation of outside influence is fairly modern. The earliest example I have found is from 1628.

Here is the game with some sportscaster type comments.

jts · Post by **jts** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:04 pm

Some thoughts on the difference between overplay and underplay...

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:11 pm

jts wrote:Some thoughts on the difference between overplay and underplay...

When we talk about a line being refuted or punished, I take it that the key point is there are two different options that are *not* miai. That is, an overplay is not just a bad move, it's a bad move with a good follow-up (for either player).

So when we're looking at someone approaching thickness, it makes a difference whether we think it's an overplay or just dumb. Clearly the extreme case of approaching thickness - plastering a stone directly on a large wall - is just dumb. You don't ever need to do anything to respond to it, you just need to play moves that make points elsewhere.

Where it gets tricky is when a move that is merely suboptimal has the potential to become more complicated later in the game. For example, sometimes W doesn't care whether he gets an invasion, or B spends a move fixing it; or whether he makes a cut, or B spends a move fixing it; but what's irritating is when B has exposed herself to a weakness like this by suboptimal play, but then subsequently makes the cut/invasion/whatever meaningless while accomplishing something else.

Agree/disagree?

I agree. Actually, I think that's precisely the K16 issue (

), and that's one of the reasons I suspect the way White has to handle it comes prior to the end of the fuseki. I suspect that Black can make it a reasonable move without too much additional effort - I'm just not entirely sure, hence my questions about punishment

EDIT: Actually, this is one of the things I really like about chess, or more specifically chess notation, which often uses the following:

?? - An outright blunder
? - A mistake, possibly serious
?! - A questionable but unclear move, may even be good but likely to be a mistake
!? - An interesting move that is likely to give advantage, but often complicated or unclear
! - A good move
!! - An excellent move

I suspect a lot of overplays are of the ?! variety, and a whole number of opportunities can arise to come up with a good result without correct play by the opponent. I suspect this is the sort of overplay a professional employs when behind and finding ways to complicate, either to find a place to resign, or to claw back a bleak position.

Life In 19x19

A vague treatise on influence

Re: A vague treatise on influence

Re:

Re: A vague treatise on influence

Re: A vague treatise on influence

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: A vague treatise on influence

Re: A vague treatise on influence

Re: A vague treatise on influence

Re: A vague treatise on influence