Life In 19x19

Thunkd wrote:When I play a lot of games quickly I begin to see recurring patterns where certain moves lead to bad outcomes. In correspondence games, the game takes so long I lose track of the history of the game and can't see patterns of play between different games.

That's interesting. I think the recurring patterns should relate more to the shapes rathen than the sequence developing them.

I understand what you are saying as the following: When you get a bad (or good) result from a fight, you want to remember which sequence has led to that result, as a learning process. Since the offline games take too long, when the fight is finished you have alredy forgotten the moves that initiated it. This approach is concentrating on sequences (as opposed to static shapes).

I am not sure but I have doubts it's the correct way of learning. As a learning process, I would tend to rely more on shapes and rather than sequences. Once you know the shapes, you can decide on each move regardless of the immediately previous move(s) because you will know which shape you want to reach. Otherwise, you will tend to repeat the sequences in an automatized manner, which will lead to three bad consequences:
1-playing overplay or underplay moves (in a given board position) just because they are part of the standard sequence
2-confusion if the order of moves slightly change
3-losing the game

This is my understanding but I believe it is very much discussable.

entropi wrote:I would tend to rely more on shapes

So I'll notice from one game to the next that I died in a similar way. And then I'll look at the position and say why did I die? And a lot of the times the answer is because I had a bad shape. So I'll try and see why it is a bad shape and what a better shape would be. It's not so much about sequences as it is positions.

Thunkd wrote:

entropi wrote:I would tend to rely more on shapes

So I'll notice from one game to the next that I died in a similar way. And then I'll look at the position and say why did I die? And a lot of the times the answer is because I had a bad shape. So I'll try and see why it is a bad shape and what a better shape would be. It's not so much about sequences as it is positions.

I believe that's a better approach, but I am no expert. It would be nice if an experienced teacher could elaborate on that.

Also, on DGS at least you can setup your account so the last dozen (any number you want) moves are numbered, so it's as easy to see sequences as reading a Go book.

I just do not have the patience for turn based games. I feel a little bit sorry about that, because I think you can get a lot out of turn based games due to the possibilies that are not there in real time games, like looking up positions in databases and trying out variations on the board.

On a sidenote: What I did observe is that tenuki-ing seems to occur more often, which I find a bit strange. But maybe this was just me and my opponent.

I prefer real-time or at least 'blitz' turn based games which will not take longer than a week. I completely agree with the reasons DrStraw gave in his posting.

Since I started playing again in March this year I improved about 4 stones by playing and finishing more than 200 games and studying books and lectures. Had I only played (medium/slow) turn-based games I would just be finishing the second (maybe still first?) set of games right now. I don't think that would have done me good.

I enjoy the way you can try stuff in real time games to see how it turns out. I tell myself not to be afraid of moves which I know should be played but will lead to difficult situations (or unfamiliar situations rather). Afterwards I review the games, study the Joseki and the positions in question and immediatly can start a new game applying the newly gained knowledge.
In turn-based games I do not think that possible. I would not make such moves because I'd be afraid to suffer from mistakes for too long. Of course you could try the variations beforehand, I don't mind if my opponent does because then he does it for all games and his rank has been chosen regarding that, but personally I prefer to rely on reading and I believe trying out variations on a board beforehand will make you lazy.

Maybe its all just personal preference but I think it's useful/fun to play both. I'm playing 7 games on DGS right now but also playing blitz on KGS. Blitz seems good for playing many games, DGS seems good for having the time to read out the sequences properly (I don't try out sequences a game but do consult Joseki dictionary to learn), and trying new things I'm not comfortable I can read out in real time. In turn based Go you can think "hmm I should invade", go away and read a book/chapter on the subject then try out the invasion.

As for suffering from your mistakes, well they do say you should play your best even when losing (and you can always resign).

Turn based Go is also good when you have recently been blessed with an extension to your family.. (would insert a tired smiley if there was one)

Playing Turn-Based games is not the best way to improve, but it is better than nothing. Is it a 'good' way? That depends on the individual. Games played is a strong indicator of development.

I am stronger now that when I started over a decade ago and I have played by far more Turn-Based games than Real-Time games. Now, I've only advanced into the teens kyu, but I have learned from those games.

For me, if I weren't playing Turn-Based games, I wouldn't be playing at all. Finding the time to play Real-Time or Over the Board can be very difficult at times. I've been playing a string of games with my wife for almost as long as itsyourturn.com has existed. On DGS, there is a player there that I've been playing almost constantly since that server was created (over ten years). This has included 4 military deployments where we can't always connect to a Real-Time server or have more than 30 minutes at a time on the computer. Being able to drop a move in when the opportunity is there is great. It also allows me to play those with incompatible timezones. (The player I mentioned on DGS is in New Zealand and I have played my wife from Kyrgyzstan.)

For me it's a very organic way to sink my teeth into each aspect of the game a little deeper. Most of my improvement came from fanatically studying books and problems a few years ago (I played a ton too). But I don't have the time or inclination to pursue go in that fashion right now, so by having 8-10 Dragon games going, and consulting references, my knowledge increases, my awareness increases, and if i play a few quick games a week i can keep my intuition onboard.

Honestly I don't know if it'll help me gain a stone or more. But for now I like it. I'm never going to be a really strong go player. That's not selling myself short - I just have no desire to fixate on go to that degree. So Dragon is a leisurely way to get fairly deep into the workings of the game. For me it focuses less on the competitive aspect of the game and more on the aesthetic and reasoning aspects. For me. For the time being, that suits me.

In short: I think turn-based go can help your game. But it's probably not the most efficient way to use your go time if you're hell-bent on rank improvement. If you have the patience or the temperment, it can open up new levels of appreciation for the game. If you desperately need to improve, well, it's time to crack the cover of that tsumego encyclopedia...

I haven't played turn-based go games in a while (used to, a couple years back), but I'm thinking about getting into it again.

For one thing, it's very work-friendly. I often sit around and wait for something to happen, e.g. a call, an email, a colleague needing something, the sh*t hitting the fan, etc. I don't know when my attention is needed. This can easily conflict with a real-time game online. Sure, some people don't mind "brb, back in five minutes", but it feels as if you're wasting someone else's time, and besides, sometimes those five minutes can turn into half an hour.

Another thing is that turn-based matches are just really very different from real-time games. Especially if you play a number of them simultaneously, each move becomes a whole board problem. You can look up josekis or fusekis, you can play out variants, etc, so the way you play is very different from what you do OTB or in a real-time game. The way you improve is therefore also different. It's somewhat related to replaying pro games and doing problems, I guess, and you also don't fall as easily in the "click" mode where you play too fast.

Whether someone improves probably boils down to how someone learns. It's not the same for everyone. If you don't know if it'll help you, you could mix it up with real-time games and see how (and if) it works for you.

Harleqin wrote:... I believe that doing it right involves treating each move as a whole-board problem for itself.

Mivo wrote:Another thing is that turn-based matches are just really very different from real-time games. Especially if you play a number of them simultaneously, each move becomes a whole board problem.

Shouldn't we view every move in every game as a whole-board problem?

You make an interesting point that turn-based games tend to encourage 'stepping back' and viewing the whole board dispassionately, especially if you've been playing other games in between and have to reassess the board each time.

In a real-time game it seems easier to get caught up in the emotion of a local skirmish, although ideally that's something we should aim to overcome.

DrStraw wrote:Of course, if you use DGS like I do and have very short time limits then it is a completely different matter. But most people don't.

Can you elaborate what a short time limit is? I never heard of people playing games that do not take months.

Michael

CnP wrote:Also, on DGS at least you can setup your account so the last dozen (any number you want) moves are numbered, so it's as easy to see sequences as reading a Go book.

Thanks CnP, was not aware of this feature. Pretty cool.

Interesting thread. For some reason I'm reminded of Hikaru's conversation with his mom on their way to the Japanese Go Institute for his Insei examination where she's asking him what was wrong with the go class he went to before and he says "That place is where a bunch of old ladies who don't improve go to play for fun." Anyway, I've had the feeling that turn based play could have a legitimate place for improving one's play. After reading some of the idea's expressed here that feeling's become almost cathartic. Never been a huge fan, but I usually keep a few games of both go and chess going, always at or near the longest time settings so that I don't feel tied down to them if, for example, there happens to be several days where I have very limited time for the game and I want to spend it doing a few tsumego or something, or just doing something else . I agree with the seemingly prevailing sentiment that beginners should play quicker time controls, it keeps things fun and allows for many positions to be experienced over a short period of time, but maybe taking the extra time (which TBP allows) to look a little deeper into positions, having that time to apply things one is learning through game reviews and reading books ect would seem to add a nice element of balance.

Should I necro this thread with my thoughts?....

Well, it looks like you've already done the necroing part . Now you might as well share your thoughts.