Life In 19x19

Joelnelsonb wrote:

Uberdude wrote: ...you could come across as being rather rude, some cultural sensitivity is required.

This actually appears to be a serious issue. Among the more serious Go playing communities, there seems to be a lot of unspoken rules such accepting a handicap or passing instead of making a desperate invasion.

Well, you should not have to be told that playing 100 or more moves in an even game against a much weaker opponent can be boring.

OTOH, anybody who objects to a player who is behind making a desperate invasion is himself being rude.

So tell me this, If I'm playing white against someone with a four stone handicap, what should my opening goal be?

Four stones is on the edge between playing a pure teaching game and letting Black generate his own unforced errors, and playing to win. Unfortunately, pros do not give handicaps to pros anymore, so we do not have those high level handicap games. Here are some four stone games by three of the top players in history, presumably playing to win. I have added some comments on the openings.







Note that all three game started out with fairly normal play. This continued the longest in the Shusaku game. Note also that none of the White players played defensively. IMO, that is the most important lesson for White in a handicap game. You may not start off playing thinly, but you have to accept thinness and hope that Black cannot capitalize on it. (A good bet, IMX. ) Note also how both Jowa and Shusaku built frameworks. That is a pattern that I have seen in pro play when giving handicaps, from Dosaku to Yoda Norimoto, but I do not see so often when amateurs give handicaps. It can be surprisingly effective in turning thinness into territory.

Goodness! that post was worth it's weight in gold... Thanks again!

Joelnelsonb wrote:

Uberdude wrote: ...you could come across as being rather rude, some cultural sensitivity is required.

This actually appears to be a serious issue. Among the more serious Go playing communities, there seems to be a lot of unspoken rules such accepting a handicap or passing instead of making a desperate invasion.

A tip, if you're going to make a desperate invasion don't wait until all the boundaries have been formed and bits of aji fixed and your opponent passes, invade well before playing all those moves that help your opponent fix their problems. It'll be more likely to work then and more interesting.

Boidhre wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:

Uberdude wrote: ...you could come across as being rather rude, some cultural sensitivity is required.

This actually appears to be a serious issue. Among the more serious Go playing communities, there seems to be a lot of unspoken rules such accepting a handicap or passing instead of making a desperate invasion.

A tip, if you're going to make a desperate invasion don't wait until all the boundaries have been formed and bits of aji fixed and your opponent passes, invade well before playing all those moves that help your opponent fix their problems. It'll be more likely to work then and more interesting.

Well, yes, if you have passed and your opponent invades, you may well feel insulted. OTOH, chances to take advantage of damezumari (shortage of liberties) might not arise until the dame are filled. I remember when, as a 5 kyu, I began studying pro games and discovered, to my dismay, that I could not always confirm the final score by filling the dame. More recently Eric van der Werf has done some research that indicates that around 2% of 5 kyu games are misscored. That means that even 5 kyus sometimes overlook protective plays. How much more often do DDKs do that?!

That is one reason why I tell DDKs to always fill the dame and never resign.

Bill Spight wrote:Well, yes, if you have passed and your opponent invades, you may well feel insulted. OTOH, chances to take advantage of damezumari (shortage of liberties) might not arise until the dame are filled. I remember when, as a 5 kyu, I began studying pro games and discovered, to my dismay, that I could not always confirm the final score by filling the dame. More recently Eric van der Werf has done some research that indicates that around 2% of 5 kyu games are misscored. That means that even 5 kyus sometimes overlook protective plays. How much more often do DDKs do that?!

That is one reason why I tell DDKs to always fill the dame and never resign.

I don't think of such as desperate invasions though as you'll only play the sequence if you think it works whereas desperate invasions implies a certain speculative nature to your move. I should have added "this doesn't mean never invade" though alright.

I like playing games where I take large handicaps.

I was able to visit the local club a few times over the summer, and a few dan level players were kind enough to play with me. I was two or three stones weaker than my current rating at that point, so I played an AGA 2-dan with a nine stone handicap.

Not only was the game fun for both sides, I learned a lot by playing an opponent who would punish my poor moves. I learned to trust my reading. I learned to play thickly and watch out for any shortage of liberty situations. I learned to be resilient and keep playing when I made a mistake that cost me a group of stones. These lessons all arose in the middle game fighting, and I don't think I would have been able to experience any really meaningful fights without the handicap.

That said, I certainly wouldn't like to only play handicap games. They are a different type of game from beginning with an open board. As long as you can accept that from the beginning, I think they are an important instructional tool.

I also don't like to play handicap games and rarely end up playing them. If I'm teaching someone weaker, I'll give some if they want it. Online it's really easy to find someone your own level to play against.

oren wrote:I also don't like to play handicap games and rarely end up playing them. If I'm teaching someone weaker, I'll give some if they want it. Online it's really easy to find someone your own level to play against.

But is is easy to find someone your own level to learn against?

DrStraw wrote:But is is easy to find someone your own level to learn against?

Yes, every game.

I play lots of handicap games, in fact about 40% of my games on KGS are handicap games, so I don't see what's so bad about them, both in giving and taking handicap stones.

I've played even games against beginning players, too, and it gets old fast if they keep being resoundingly beaten every single time. Not for me (I'm mean like that) but for them it's not much fun if I'm clearly just enjoying myself during the time in which they fail to resign. It's really a symptom of me being quite bored with a 100+ lead.

People who are new to go are heavily resistant to handicap stones, though. I don't really know what to do, there. I feel a bit like a 300 pound boxer who has a newbie ask him to "fight me seriously". There is a world of hurt in that choice, and even light punches will be too harsh. Maybe even poking.

Since go isn't anywhere near as dangerous to your health, I tend to oblige them, but that always ends with them being discouraged. I think it has to do with lacking humility, but I also think it's a shame I couldn't convince them to play regularly.

After the first few games, I do try to get them to accept handicap stones again, since I feel I've demonstrated a certain imbalance. Almost always, they continue to refuse. They don't like having a visible sign of their inferiority on the board, but it will materialize anyway.

I don't really understand how to "be gentle" while also satisfying an opponent's need to feel like it's a serious competition. It really feels like they're trying to gain some sort of social advantage instead of trying to play competitively. "Stop being difficult and let me win!" or "It's MY turn to win now!". I really dislike that attitude, but I'd rather cure someone of it, than see them wander off to look for someone more compliant.

I really don't see any point in playing even games against someone who's still a bit unclear on the technicalities and who has almost no experience of studying the game. They learn very little, and gain absolutely no confidence in their own ability. What keeps happening over and over is that I play a move they do not understand and then destroy something.

9x9 with 5 handicap stones really kills off a lot of potential shenanigans, which simplifies the game enormously. If there are fewer things that could happen, there are fewer things which could confuse a new player. Even better, 5 stones on that small board soon becomes too many, so a sense of progress can be given when one of those handicap stones goes away.

If it's NOT a beginner, though, it's very different. For one, they will recognize when it's past time to give up. Secondly, they won't think they have an honest, serious chance to win. They wouldn't expect anything other than a fairly harsh learning experience. That means there's a constructive attitude on both sides, with a clear purpose. The stronger player will endeavour to crush them like a bug, and the weaker player will try to survive for as long as possible.

I just don't know if that is as educational as playing with handicap stones. I suspect it's a much less efficient learning method, since it's far harder to discover correct moves in an even game.

I disagree that learning is fastest when the two players are of equal strength. I think that they simply exchange mistakes of that strength level and it is only by chance that one or the other discovers the path forward.

OK, handicap limits learning to specific parts of the game, but these are important parts of the game.

For the weaker player:
How to stay connected.
How to prevent the opponent from connecting.
How to make stones already on the board useful if yours or not if the opponents stones.


For the stronger player:
How to connect when that is difficult.
How/when to invade.
How to use aji.

Left for later (or separate study)are the joseki and fuseki of even games. Those you don't get from high handicap games. But note that in three stone games, you will (or should be) studying even game joseki as they may well apply.

Mike Novack wrote:I disagree that learning is fastest when the two players are of equal strength. I think that they simply exchange mistakes of that strength level and it is only by chance that one or the other discovers the path forward.

Beginners, by which I mean people who have played less than a year, learn a lot very quickly, mostly by picking things up from their opponents. So a beginner who wishes to advance quickly should not play DDKs, except socially. Why pick up bad habits?

tentano wrote:People who are new to go are heavily resistant to handicap stones, though. I don't really know what to do, there.

I have a friend who is almost a complete novice, who sometimes wants to play go with me, but adamantly resists taking a handicap. I refused for a long time, but finally tried the Capture Game with him. It turns out that we are pretty evenly matched in the Capture Game on a 7x7. With him taking Black, OC.

Joelnelsonb wrote: I feel like the system in Go is just the same as starting a pawn or rook down or whatever. It changes the nature of the game.

Really? Some slow moves together can already boil down to the loss of a stone. Even at my level I can witness or even play a pass move. Does the nature of the game change after that?

At high handicaps there is indeed no fuseki anymore. I think high handicap games are really for teaching purposes and teach technique & tactics in middle and end game. A fuseki oriented teaching game can start with handicap zero and stop when it breaks into fighting, to discuss the opening.

Low handicaps don't change the nature of the game. The better player faces some restrictions and the weaker player can expand more freely and learn how to maintain an initial advantage.

The comparison with chess is not valid for me but I'm not an expert on Chess. I've always felt that removing a piece changes the game in an ugly way. There's something amiss that can't have been removed in a natural way. An extra stone in Go doesn't appear to be wrong in the same ugly way.

A matter of taste, I guess.

Bill Spight wrote:

tentano wrote:People who are new to go are heavily resistant to handicap stones, though. I don't really know what to do, there.

I have a friend who is almost a complete novice, who sometimes wants to play go with me, but adamantly resists taking a handicap. I refused for a long time, but finally tried the Capture Game with him. It turns out that we are pretty evenly matched in the Capture Game on a 7x7. With him taking Black, OC.

Small board go (capture game or real game) also removes the opening stage with respect to full board go. In my opinion handicap stones basically do the same. But small board go has the additional advantage of ending the game much sooner, allowing for fast iterations and learning of the basics. I applaud small board go (with stone counting ) as the major initial teaching device. Handicap games on large boards will tend to lure the teacher into winning mode, using trickery of sorts, leaving the pupil more upset and clueless about what happened and moreover somewhat humiliated by the advantage he could not exploit. Of course a good teacher won't do that. On small boards, the difference is made by who masters the basics better. No pro can beat a novice at 5x5 if the novice already gets the idea of liberties and eyes.