Life In 19x19

I think this is an important point, but it applies mainly to strategy (fuseki) and not tactics (especially life and death).

I'm not quite sure this is true. It may apply to something rather different.

First let me quote from another excellent chess writer, Paul van der Sterren, commenting on the Berlin Wall variation which is featuring in the current Carlsen-Anand match:

"Opening manuals usually repeated the intimidating (but utterly meaningless) remark that White has a slight advantage. The problem is that it is very difficult to say what White should do in this position. And if you do not have a good plan, then the theoretical assessment that you are supposed to stand slightly better is just a source of frustration."

It is supposedly this frustration that gave rise to the name "Berlin Wall". I would posit that there may be a Berlin Wall phase (previously unidentified by name) in go, which is somewhere between strategy and tactics.

It is very difficult to point to an obvious plan in most go fusekis beyond a vague sketch such as the one I mentioned for Black 5 (high and consistently facing the influence of the nirensei). That is more of a description than a plan. As I said, as soon as the opponent plays a move that is reckoned to be sub-optimal it is very difficult to know how to punish it. In other words it is hard (I would say impossible) to find a plan at this stage. I don't think this is because I/we are weak. I think it may simply be that it is too early to be thinking in terms of strategy and plans. Instead we may need to recognise that there is actually a sort of meta-tactical/meta-joseki or sub-strategy phase (by all means suggest a name, but Berlin Wall will do for now) in which you have to seek out a strategy by using tactics, but not tactics in the usual contact-fight sense. Rather it is skirmishing tactics or probing tactics. As in real life, the BW phase may go on for a long while, though eventually it has to crumble.

In support of my suggestion, I would point to the fact that the well-known probe on the heel of the knight's move shimari is actually a relatively recent creation (from Shuei's time), and that unusual probes are a now a distinctive feature of many modern openings.

I could further argue that the predominantly low fuseki play of classical times obscured the need to recognise a BW phase, which is why the probes came in only after the star point became common. But it would be too onerous to justify that point here, I'll leave it for discussion. What I would add here is that if you look at a Black 5 in the upper left and then view the best White replies to that (in the database) through the filter of regarding them as probes - Uberdude's suggestion of looking at Takemiya's josekis is perfectly aligned with that - it may be enlightening.

Perhaps it is useful to consider this from several extreme perspectives:

The beginner/novice: Most beginners can't "see" the board the way experienced players can. Much of their lack of knowledge about how to refute a move is due to their ranking, and occurs in strategy as well as tactics. This is clear when you review games with them. When you ask them "why did you play this move?" they give a response that an experienced player can easily show to be suboptimal. Their logic may be incorrect. Or they may be thinking correctly (urgent before big, use thickness to attack, etc.) but just don't play as precisely as they could.

Professionals: The pros I have talked to say that the point of the opening is to not fall behind going into the middle game. Some pros are known for their opening prowess of course. And they all have their favorite openings. But that doesn't mean they believe everything they are not playing is bad.

The point on probes in the opening is useful - thanks for developing that example John. I am still struggling with the semantics a little though.

John Fairbairn wrote:For example, learning the KBN vs K endgame may seem a waste of time because it's so rare, but look at it another way and you realise it teaches you valuable enclosure tactics that apply in other parts of the game. This is one area where a coach or mentor can help.

Similar to studying josekis, or "relatively rare" joseki variations,
to learn about all kinds of useful shapes, tesujis, and fighting skills.

John Fairbairn wrote:For example, learning the KBN vs K endgame may seem a waste of time because it's so rare, but look at it another way and you realise it teaches you valuable enclosure tactics that apply in other parts of the game. This is one area where a coach or mentor can help.

EdLee wrote: Similar to studying josekis, or "relatively rare" joseki variations,
to learn about all kinds of useful shapes, tesujis, and fighting skills.

Of the first two joseki books that I bought (when I was 4 kyu), one was about joseki errors. From it I learned something about shape and tesuji. I also learned about why some moves are inferior, something that John alludes to in his original note. OC, joseki errors are not rare, but quite common.

The other book was about how to play after joseki. It addresses the what next question that John brings up in a note #16 ( http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 63#p176763 ). From it I learned something about the strategic significance of different joseki, which helped me decide which joseki to play.

When I began my serious joseki study as a 2 dan, I started with the large knight's response to the small knight's approach to the 4-4, a joseki that nobody played in those days. (It has since made something of a comeback.) That's one reason that I chose it, so that I would not be tempted to memorize it. The other reason is as Ed suggests. It has a large number of highly tactical variations, which helped me learn how to fight in the corner.

John Fairbairn wrote:"Opening manuals usually repeated the intimidating (but utterly meaningless) remark that White has a slight advantage. The problem is that it is very difficult to say what White should do in this position. And if you do not have a good plan, then the theoretical assessment that you are supposed to stand slightly better is just a source of frustration."

Exactly. I recall looking at a supposedly good opening variation for White in the Caro-Kann Defence with some strong players in Tucson--Ken Larsen (then 2400+), Robby Adamson (2300 or so and a top 10 national junior), and maybe Tal Shaked (long before he became a grandmaster, perhaps 1800 then)--and no one could give a reasonable plan for White. Some positions are easier to play because the strategic plan is clear--whether it's a minority attack, a pawn storm in opposite castles, play against an isolated pawn, or whatever.

Chess since the Soviet era has been about exchanging some positional weakness in order to get and maintain the initiative, thereby putting pressure on the opponent and hoping to eventually reap something tangible. (As opposed to the Romantic mid-19th century era of gambits--giving up material--to gain the initiative.)

This is part of what makes Go seem so much harder to me than chess. I know that I am missing many nuances, and more obvious things, too! But I don't see game-long plans in Go, and the initiative seems to swing back-and-forth much more than chess. Of course, I'm a Go patzer and haven't really even begun to study pro Go games. However, I have noticed occasional references to some Go players who seem to play prophylactically. Even last night, reading Invincible, I noticed a reference to Shuwa "completely stifling Gennan's aggressive style." I was never a Petrosian-style chess player (Alekhine was my favorite chess player), but I wish I could learn something of this defensive technique in Go. I suspect that it has a lot to do with making good shape!

Last night I chanced across a book by Takabe Dohei 7 dan in 1943 about the application of joseki, at http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1037311 . Here is a fuseki that he discusses on a couple of pages. He definitely addresses why certain plays are not good, and gives plans about how to take advantage of some of them. He does discuss development, but mostly in verbal terms and not in detail. I have based the comments on the text.

@ Aidoneus. There is a good example of prophylactic play, - in the main line of the variation at move 12.
Edit: We could even say that Black executes a plan.



Of interest also, I think, are some plays that received not comment, and some plays that were not made.

Although have another reason for posting this, first here is an example of the now pervasive modern style of probing and skirmishing I referred to above. White 20 is the characteristic move. It's too fluffy to be called an erasure. Taking Soltis's advice to treat every diagram as an opportunity, stop at White 20 and try to work out a plan for Black. The move in the game was a mistake according the author. Then open the box.


Now to the real reason for posting. WE are in the rather depressing age of the teenybopper three-day wonders, who mostly can't manage nine days like in my day, and of course their Mickey Mouse time limits. But eighteen-year-old Koyama (who has an enviable go pedigree - grandson of Koyama Shizuo 9-dan, son of Koyama Ryugo 6-dan and of Koyama Teruo 6-dan, plus his maternal grandmother runs a go club) just qualified for the final preliminary of the Meijin. He was overjoyed, but not so much because he reached the lucrative stages of a major event. It was because he thus got his first chance to play a 5-hour game. My heart went right out to him.

Gee, John, does not seem particularly modern to me. OC, we have a modern set-up for it.

@ Bill and John:

Interesting instruction gentlemen, thank you!

While one of my classes was taking a test yesterday, I was reading Chapter 3 (Probing Moves) in The Basics of Go Strategy. It had what I thought was a quite interesting example of whole-board (or at least broader-board) thinking. In this example, it was pointed out that whether White connected directly or with a hanging connection, followed by a third line extension, Black could make an ideal checking extension. However, if White first makes a probe, she can decide on hanging/direct depending on whether Black plays a small/large knights extension. (I already reported the misnumbered stones in Diagram 4. I think that including the image is fair use. If anyone disagrees, I'll remove it.)