there hasn't been enough heated discussion on this board in awhile
so let's stoke the fires

the reason i'm mostly doing this is to put forth information i've heard over the years that might either be misinformation, poorly understood, or just something people don't spend enough time talking about

today i'll talk about joseki

so a lot of differing opinions exist over joseki, but lets just go with the two basic camps

"you need to learn joseki"

and

"you don't need to learn joseki"

-------------------------------------------------
You don't need to learn joseki

Ryo Maeda 6d from Kansai Kiin has continuously told me many times not to bother with joseki. This has been over many shots of scotch, and also sober as well.

One of his first reasons is that joseki is considered the "perfect" move. if you accidentally stray from the path of the perfect move, it can easily get in a bad situation very quickly. its much better to play out something that you understand instead of blindly going into a joseki where you don't understand the possible variations.

Additionally he thinks people put too much emphasis on joseki when the game (in the amateur level) is decided mostly in the middle game. your ability to fight and eke out a win is much more important than your ability to play the proper joseki. To go along with this point, a professional (i think it was Liang Wei Tang 9p) told me once that "A 10 point loss in a joseki/the opening might as well not exist at all for amateur games". To really be able to properly utilize whatever advantage a joseki brings is diffcult. And even if you might be slightly ahead after a joseki result, it doesn't mean you're going to properly maintain that "lead" going into the middle game.

Which brings me to the next point, it is sometimes very difficult to know what you've "gotten" out of a joseki (thickness, territory, etc). To blindly play these joseki w/o thinking of how you're using it can naturally get you into a lot of trouble. Better to keep it simple with something you know rather than stray into a variation that ends with result that you don't even know how to handle.

There are some more points but lets keep it simple with three.

---------------------------------------
You need to learn joseki

So learning/memorizing joseki can be important for some pretty important reasons as well. There are some joseki out there than once invoked, must be played correctly to the end (think of some joseki variations with a high approach to a 3/4 point with the low pincer). What that means is, you -must- memorize these joseki, because there is no other method of play that will get you out alright. in this way, learning joseki is very important.

While it might not apply to all of the people on this board, Guo Juan once told me "you're young! you have the brain power, go memorize a bunch of joseki". Which is to say, if you have the time and ability to, it also can't hurt to spend some time memorizing joseki. It's better to have something and to figure out how to use it later rather than not get the thing at all. In that way, yes, learning/memorizing josekis can be important.

finally, all joseki is, is good shape. and understanding how shapes work together and getting the mental muscle memory of knowing what a shape SHOULD look like is important. So one of the easier way to experience this is just by looking through a bunch of joseki.

------------------------------
important points as well

Another very important thing about joseki is how people choose to learn joseki. Liang Wei Tang Chinese 9p once told me to just learn the ones that you can easily learn. What that meant was that if you couldn't memorize a 20 move variation to a joseki, don't bother. Memorize the variations that are easily memorizable. That meant to start with maybe a 5 move variation and then slowly build up to the 7 or 10 move variations and so on. It was pointless to try and tackle the hard ones if you weren't going to easily remember them

Also, another important idea that people don't do is study josekis AFTER the game. A consistent trope i get from reviewing other peoples games is this:

"So you played this joseki, do you know this joseki?"
"No"
"So... did you look it up afterwards?"
"No"
"... ok"

It is important that after you encounter something you don't know, to look it up! In that way, learning josekis can be useful and important. If only for it to show you what you might've approached wrong.

Also, learning josekis is not just learning one thread in a "variation". It is more learning all the possible variations that stem out of an approach and response. In that way, people thinking learning one thread within the variation is all they need. Actually learning a joseki is much more involved.


So in conclusion, whats the final verdict with josekis?

I personally think blindly studying joseki is pointless. That said, it is useful to at least know how a joseki should be played after the game is said and done. If it's through your teacher, then make it through your teacher. If you don't have a teacher, then look it up in a dictionary to see what else you could've done.

But the thing is with a lot of the variations, is that if playing that variation never occured to you, it might never will even if you know that variation exists. (We all play the move we want to anyways). Still, it is helpful to know what is out there.

I would say there is a third option, one which I have advocated for a long time: You need to forget joseki.

Implicit in this statement is the fact that you cannot forget something unless you have learned it first. I advocate learning joseki so that you have a feel for good moves and then forgetting them for many of the reasons you cite in the post.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Hmm, I think I agree?

I endlessly go over variations of this on dailyjoseki;

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . 3 . 8 2 7 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 5 6 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Some of the time I understand, occasionally it's been helpful (often in knowing what my opponent has diverged from).

Edit: As DrStraw says, the moves played in these sequences are fundamentally sensible and rediscoverable, but there's a fair bit to keep track of.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

I totally agree with the sentiment here, but I'd take it one further. Go is so big that it has room to explore and to be creative. And a key to being creative is the (egotistical) belief that you can do things better. It's not so much that you have to forget joseki, as much as that you have to believe that you are capable of an even better (Or at the very least, more locally applicable) result.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

To learn or not to learn... this is the question... heh.
Or is it?

I think it is a narrow interpretation.

In my opinion, to say that joseki are always examples of "perfect" play is debatable on the fact of the fact that some sequences which used to be considered joseki are no longer considered so, and the same fate will probably befall some of the sequences currently "josekified".

Still, from our, rather amateurish point of view, joseki are certainly examples of *good* play. Which means - good responses to good moves. Many of the variations are good responses to bad moves. I would say that has value in itself to look into. Once you forget that its a "joseki" and just think about it as examples of good answers to moves.

And I think this is where the narrowness of the whole paradign of "learning" vs "not learning" comes out the most. People think of joseki as something which they have to learn or they don't have to learn. But that depends on the definition of "learn". I say a better word is "study", and then the confusion is lifted: in view of what I said before, of joseki being examples of good answers to moves, they certainly warrant effort and time invested into study.

So don't "learn" joseki, and don't "not learn" joseki. Study joseki. If you remember whole sequences, no harm done... but if you don't, that's ok too - you will gain some understanding and some skill into how to answer moves and how to think. I think it is worth it. For those who wish to gain more insight.

Its sort-of like playing over and trying to analyze pro games - same principle. You don't need to "memorize" the games, don't even need to "learn" them. Just "study" then and try to pick up some ideas and principles, some shapes and some moves. This will benefit you a lot. Whoever you are.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Hi Bantari, what's your definition and understanding of "learn" ? Versus "study" ?

For your convenience, quick google reference:( Overlapping and circular portions highlighted in blue --
they all seem to be very circularly defined and cross-referenced.
And yes, I know: a dictionary by definition and necessity must circularly define words. )

Since one cannot reinvent all surprising moves during a game, knowledge of representative sequences helps.

However, the most important thing of studying josekis is acquiring a deep and broad understanding of go theory. It is essential for every aspect of the game and in particular for josekis. One can use a study of josekis to improve one's understanding of go theory or one can improve it first without studying josekis in detail and then apply it also to josekis.

Josekis coexist with non-joseki variations and one chooses either to best fit the global context. Therefore, unlearning josekis is not the point, but flexibility to choose or not to choose a joseki is the point.



He should learn to assess thickness, territory etc. by my methods. Then he will understand that assessment of thickness and territory are not difficult but assessement of complex fights can be difficult when what starts as a joseki creates a large middle game fight.

I don't think learning joseki itself is a bad thing. It's not the fact, that we amateurs spend time to learn and study joseki which is a mistake - the mistake is how we apply that during the game.

Joseki are not perfect play and certainly not the perfect move. For one thing there is the reason bantari said, that joseki change over time and what was once considered joseki 50 years ago isn't so today (because the pros found a good response etc..).
I think the big problem is that we amateurs glorify joseki. It's joseki, so i can play it. This totally disregards the whole board situation and direction of play. Just because a sequence is joseki doesn't mean it is always playable. Pretty often joseki include an exchange of territory for influence, and the value of that influence can change a lot depending on how the rest of the board looks.
So choosing the right joseki is the important concept to learn. And as far as i know, that is why Guo juan tells her students to study joseki, because you can't choose if you don't know several joseki.

I also take the Don't learn joseki arguments as an argument against learning the joseki the wrong way. If you want to learn joseki do it properly or not at all. Just memorizing the sequence is not learning the joseki, one has to understand the moves, why they are played, what can happen if the sequence is played differently and why the result is considered locally equal.
Of course it is impossible to learn all that just from a book so you have to practice the joseki and play it lots and lots of time. This way you will encounter many different reactions, some might follow the joseki some don't, but you can learn from all of them.

Also i don't like the a joseki mistake makes no difference in an amateur game argument, because it sounds like the opening doesn't matter at all in amateur games. But what strength is meant here by amateur? For a 20k or DDK game it may indeed be true, but what about SDK or dan-players? If i don't know any joseki and make a 10-point mistake in each corner of it, i'm 40 points behind going into the middle game and my opponent is leading by 40 points and this doesn't affect the outcome of the game at all? Actually i find that quite insulting.
Besides not knowing any joseki can easily lead you to situations were you don't make a 10 points mistake in the joseki but a 40 or 50-points because you combined it with some other (small) mistake like a reading error. Like the situation where your opponent approaches your corner and ends up with killing the corner and gaining thickness in both directions (he gets all, you get nothing - yeah doesn't matter at all).
The opening may not matter that much like it does in pro-games, but then i would say that is true for all parts of the game.

The last thing i would like to say about joseki is, they also give you a valuable tool for judging other variations. Especially in the opening when there is so much open space on the board it can be hard to properly judge who got the better outcome of one possible variation, but if you know some josekis for the starting position you have something to compare the (played) variation too. I think nothing is worse than playing a variation that is really bad for you and thinking you came out ahead.

_________________
Magics way up the hill (personal study journal)

MagicMagor, here is the opening of a game I played against a fellow 2d at the recent South African Champs.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 0 . 7 . . . , . . . . 1 . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 7 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 3 X O . X . . . , . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . 2 O X 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It's fair to say my opponent utterly messed up this joseki. Not only is the corner dead, I have very good outside influence (note that those black stones in atari are dead - even if he connects them, they will be caught in a net). I lost this game.

@quantumf: Oddly enough you may find both people blaming this result on studying joseki or on not studying joseki.

And what does that prove? That being ahead in the opening doesn't mean you win the game? I never doubted that, but it does have an effect on the game. I'm sure black had a hard time after that opening to come back. We all make many mistakes over the course of the game but just because we lost due to our last (or biggest) mistake doesn't mean all the other mistakes doesn't matter.
The course of the game shifts depending on who is currently ahead and therefore the game can drasticly changed depending on wether one player made a big joseki mistake or not. To say wether you go into the middle game with a big lead or being greatly behind doesn't matter at all is insulting, because it made it sound like the game is decided by random chance. All I am saying is, going into the middle game with a big lead does increase your winning chance a lot - not to 100% but shifting from 50% to 70% for example does mean it matters.

If I make a big joseki-mistake and are behind during the middle game but then miss the chance where my opponent made a mistake allowing me to come back and lose the game. Did I lose because I made the later mistake or did I lose because I made a joseki mistake? On which mistake should I focus my study? I prefer to focus on the first, but according to Ryu maeda the first mistake didn't matter at all and thats where I disagree.
And I could give plenty of game examples for this.

_________________
Magics way up the hill (personal study journal)

MM, don't be insulted by this idea. It isn't addressed at you personally.

It just relates to the idea that the player who makes the last big mistake usually loses. By definition, joseki generally occur early in the game, leaving us plenty of time to make or exploit another blunder.

I'm not saying that studying the opening or joseki is worthless. Perhaps it's worth four stones to a kyu. But once you gain those four stones, you face folks who can out-read and out-fight you, and your superior opening gives way to the final-mistake axiom.

As my teacher likes to joke, China is full of strong players who would smile and tell me, "You have good knowledge and a sound grasp on go theory. Now I kill you."

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

( edits in Blue )

Good question. Possible scenarios ( among an infinite continuum ):

• If you can figure out by yourself that you really lost the game because of (1) and/or (2), great;
  otherwise, a good teacher can help.
• If most of your mistakes across all your games are like (1), and only a few are like (2), then (1) seems a good candidate to work on. ^(*)
• If most of your mistakes in general are like (2), and only a few are like (1), then (2) seems good to study. ^(*)
• Maybe neither (1) nor (2) lost you the game; rather, it was another mistake (3);
  there may be other, even bigger mistakes you are not aware of. ^(*)
• Maybe the underlying reason for (1) and (2) is the same -- in your reading, or your fighting skills. ^(*)
  Then, both are good for you to study.

_____
^(*) A good teacher can help.

Side-question: Are we not using the voting system any more? At the very least often has raised an interesting topic, which, if we each play our part, could yield an interesting conversation.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Ah, the Open access poll system.This is quite unclear to me. ( Emphasis added. )
General, sweeping statements like this one -- no data, no statistics to back up -- are just an impression.

It may appear this way because we tend to remember the pain of losing a "won" game due to a stupid blunder near the end.
But the reality could be much more complex than this "gut" impression.

We need a ton of hard evidence to support or refute this impression.

Surely I'm not the only who gets wary when my opponent plays a crappy opening? I give a slight squint at the board and think, "Hmmm, despite seeming to know nothing, this person is my rank. Best to be careful."

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

In that case, I usually worry for the rest of the game -- surely I'll make even bigger mistakes!

It is sort-of connected to what I was trying to say in the "Understanding" thread. Let me try to explain:

You "learn" things to "know" things.
This often, almost always, involves memorization. You might know many things without really understanding them. A test would be that you are able to answer the question "what have you learned" by repeating/writing the material you have learned. In terms of Go/joseki - you will be able to replay the sequences you have "learned". You might not necessarily be able to correctly play other, similar sequences, or to react to non-joseki moves in appropriate way. In short - learn is only slightly more involved than "memorize", and "memorize" is always an important element of "learn".

A good example of when "learning" is appropriate is learning to be an electrical engineer - you need to learn a whole lot of "standards" which logically make or not make any sense, but which you still need to "know" and apply when you rewire your house. Some of them you might understand, others you only memorize - but you need to "know" them all.

You "study" things to "understand" things.
It usually (and hopefully) involves gaining some level of understanding of the principles behind the things you have studied. You often, but not always, do not really remember the exact sequence you studied, and the exact sequence is not really important in that sense - what is important is the way and the reason this sequence was the way it was, this is what you concentrate on. A good test would be that you are able to apply the same underlying principles you have studied to other, similar situations, or be able to come up with good responses to other moves. It might even be that you can re-create the sequence you have studied - but not because you have learned/memorized it, but because you can derive the moves from the underlying principles and ideas.

A good example of when "studying" is appropriate would be studying to be a math teacher. You do not necessary need to remember every single formula you run across, but you definitely need to have an in-depth understanding of the underlying principles to be able to understand, apply, and explain any formula you might run across.

Of course, "study" and "learn" (or "know" and "understand") are not mutually exclusive, and most of the time you do both at the same time, at least to some degree. However, for me personally, the emphasis in Go is always on "study/understand" rather than on "learn/know", and this is where I put my efforts when I teach or when I study.

This distinction, just like the other ones in the "Understanding" thread, are the way I myself see things, and not sure if this corresponds to any given dictionary or definition. It might be that as a non-native english speaker I am associating concepts and words in an incorrect way, but this is how I understand the difference between "learning" something and "studying" something. I am pretty confident that the distinction and the concepts themselves are valid, but it might be that I associate them with words which are not quite appropriate. Not really trying to confuse anybody here, just explaining how this is organized in my own head.

PS>
In terms of joski, there are actually 3 tiers:
1. learn joseki
2. understand joseki -> learn underlying principles
3. understand joseki -> understand underlying principles

The deeper you go, the better, I think.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

That's true in Japan and Korea, as well. There are plenty of players in those countries who learned by the seat of their pants and got quite strong. Not so many in the West, I think, but that is changing, as we get a larger pool of strong amateurs to play against, as well as strong opponents in the East.

OC, it's a joke. Just because there are players who learned by the seat of their pants does not mean that we should.

I think of Muhammad Ali. He was not a slugger or street fighter, now-I-kill-you type: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." But he was The Greatest.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Studying joseki by memorizing standard sequences is like studying icebergs by photographing what is above the water.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.