Probably not the best move on the board - the bottom does seem bigger. I still personally prefer jumping in the original position.Gérard TAILLE wrote: I do not understand why the exchange of the two marked stones is good white. After this exchange the black group has been really reinforced. It is now difficult to attack these stones because black can also play at a.
A small base is worse than no base
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9552
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
be immersed
-
gennan
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:08 am
- Rank: EGF 3d
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: gennan
- Location: Netherlands
- Has thanked: 273 times
- Been thanked: 147 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
From a heangma/shape perspective, to me that exchange feels a bit like "squeezing out the toothpaste".
It's a bit more widely spaced in OP position, but still it feels like a similarly self-damaging exchange for black.
So if I were to play a move with black in the upper right quadrant, I'd be much more interested in playing a shoulder hit, and hane if white pushes up (considering black's stone at Q16 as a light stone):
It's a bit more widely spaced in OP position, but still it feels like a similarly self-damaging exchange for black.
So if I were to play a move with black in the upper right quadrant, I'd be much more interested in playing a shoulder hit, and hane if white pushes up (considering black's stone at Q16 as a light stone):
-
Gérard TAILLE
- Gosei
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
- Rank: 1d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
Basically black has three options to deal with her marked stone.
1) Running immediatly in the center
2) Building first a base
3) Play tenuki or outside move and consider the black stone as a potentiel sacrified stone.
Because finding the best option is quite difficult what about a kind of yosu-miru in order to decide the best strategy?
Can this
can an interesting move to see first the intentions of white in this area?
1) Running immediatly in the center
2) Building first a base
3) Play tenuki or outside move and consider the black stone as a potentiel sacrified stone.
Because finding the best option is quite difficult what about a kind of yosu-miru in order to decide the best strategy?
Can this
can an interesting move to see first the intentions of white in this area?-
gennan
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:08 am
- Rank: EGF 3d
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: gennan
- Location: Netherlands
- Has thanked: 273 times
- Been thanked: 147 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
Either way, I think the lower side is much more important than the upper side.
I'm just watching the video of InSeong Hwang titled "How to find the right question", about the issue of asking the right question instead of looking for the right answer to the wrong question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6HDLQh_CRo&t=1730s
I liked his example at 28:50 - 30:00, and it made me think about the question asked about the above position.
I'm just watching the video of InSeong Hwang titled "How to find the right question", about the issue of asking the right question instead of looking for the right answer to the wrong question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6HDLQh_CRo&t=1730s
I liked his example at 28:50 - 30:00, and it made me think about the question asked about the above position.
-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
I think it is something much more fundamental and simpler than it looks.dfan wrote:The first event in this journey was at a strong-kyu game review by Mateusz Surma at the US Go Congress last year, where someone's running group was making eye shape near the side, and Mateusz said (paraphrased) "if you're running to connect, just run, don't make eyes". That was new to me, but in retrospect it made total sense; you're going to end up alive anyway when you connect, so why make extra eyes you're not going to end up needing? So I filed it away as a special rule.
Let me paraphrase:
This is about efficiency and purposefulness.If you are going to do A, then just do A, don't do B and then A.
Living on the side or running into the center is a good example. It is clearer when the cases is that one is going to live on the side. If you first make effort to move into the center, only to return to where you started and make live, then that clearly means effort was spent on something unnecessary. The reverse is similar, if less obvious, if you first try to live, only to then have to move into the center, then that means that the attempt at living was likely to be superfluous.
It is similar with many other decisions. Should you invade or reduce? Should you attack for profit or to kill? Should you play endgame or try to shake the game? Should you start an early middle game or play a long fuseki?
All these decision require different way of thinking and that different moves be played. Sometimes the decision can go either way, other times one way is preferred, nevertheless, it is a general principle to be mindful that you don't waste effort and try to make the right decision to start with. If I recall correctly there is even one of those proverbs that says you lose certain amount of points by changing plans, maybe it was 7 point? I don't recall how many points it was supposed to be.
Basically, you want to avoid a belt and suspenders approach. It is wasteful to do two things if one will do.
As for the first position shown. The main thing to me is that the white groups on the top side are strong and it won't have a big impact on the game to make a strong black group between them. There also isn't enough space to make a comfortable group that will have territory. That is to say, the group won't be strong and it won't make territory, but all importantly white is strong here.
White could potentially attack black, that means it should be OK to help this stone. I had the following idea, might not be the right idea. It feels like it could be too early to run before white makes a move.
Still, I think the more general principle is what is more interesting than the specific position.
-
Knotwilg
- Oza
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:53 am
- Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Artevelde
- OGS: Knotwilg
- Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 1021 times
- Contact:
Re: A small base is worse than no base
I would never make such a small base at the top, but studying with KG has revived the idea of a 1 space extension in strategically sound cases. This is not one of them. The top is neither big nor urgent.
I want to play on the border of two moyos and attack the marked stones on a large scale. But A or B might be better locally. I'll check with KG
I want to play on the border of two moyos and attack the marked stones on a large scale. But A or B might be better locally. I'll check with KG
-
dfan
- Gosei
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:49 am
- Rank: AGA 2k Fox 3d
- GD Posts: 61
- KGS: dfan
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 534 times
- Contact:
Re: A small base is worse than no base
Indeed! The rest of my post was an attempt to chronicle my journey towards understanding that at its core it was really about efficiency.kvasir wrote:I think it is something much more fundamental and simpler than it looks. [...] This is about efficiency and purposefulness.
(There was one other related concept in the "don't waste time making eyes" advice, which is that you are probably giving your opponent something in exchange for making those eyes. If you avoid making those needless-in-retrospect exchanges, you can probably do something more productive in the original area later on.)
-
John Fairbairn
- Oza
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 4672 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
Although it would seem to be taking the discussion away from the concept of bases, I think we can widen the discussion in a way that sheds some light on that concept. And we can use known proverbs or heuristics.I want to play on the border of two moyos and attack the marked stones on a large scale.
First, I think we can probably agree that, in this position, talking about a base at the top is premature anyway. We can get to that conclusion my applying a standard proverb: "Play in the widest area". This seems to be a good proverb to apply because AI seems to follow it whenever strategic considerations override tactical ones. The important thing to note is that (yet again) words can traduce. "Wide" is not limited to gaps on the third and fourth lines, although it does include those. The real meaning is "spacious" and so includes the centre. That is enough (with no tactics to worry about) to tell us that our focus should be around 'a'.
Having grown up in go in the Age of Takagawa, my first instinct would be to look at the cap at 'a'. There is no proverb I can think of that justifies that (as a cap). There is a proverb that speaks against it ("Answer a cap with a knight's move", i.e. 'b' here). In addition, I learnt from bitter experience that a cap may feel like a sente move, but it can instantly turn into a gote liability (as with 'b' in answer to Black 'a' here, stranding the capping stone).
But the known proverb about playing at the pivot point between two moyos (e.g. 'c') also seems questionable here. There is a risk of letting White turn his moyo into territory instantly without being reduced in any significant way. But more pertinent is that Black doesn't really have a moyo yet in the centre of the lower-right quadrant, as it is populated by some white stones. I'll come back to that in a moment.
My sense of what AI (or, more accurately for me, of what AI-inspired pros) would play is the much more assertive (Chinese jin 紧) shoulder hit at 'd'. The thinking behind this "path of the devil" (I would imagine) would be that if White answers at 'e', that would be too submissive and he would end up being reduced far more than by the cap. But if White pushes up at 'f', that would be giving Black momentum (choshi) to move smoothly into the centre. So again, existing human knowledge can be used to justify that (always assuming it turns out to be correct).
More importantly, in my eyes, that would make the centre of the lower-right quadrant bigger (in the sense of 'more at stake').
We can look at even this through human eyes. In the days of the first London Go Centre (so some 50 years ago) there was a big buzz one day when somebody revealed a Russian proverb (I think someone had picked it up at a European Congress). It was along the lines of "if an area is worth 15 points or less, you can tenuki". David Mitchell, who then worked in the LGC, compiled a book or proverbs and included that one - anyone less lazy than me might care to look up the precise form of it. There were the usual "numbers guy" arguments about whether it should be 14 or 16 points, and later arguments about whether it really was the Russians who first discovered it. But, as far as I know, it had not previously surfaced in the Far East, so we can reasonably call it a European proverb, I think.
Is it reliable? It seemed to have dropped out of mainstream use fairly early, but I for one have never forgotten it, and I recall it every time I see a (to me) startling sacrifice in AI-type play. And I usually come to the conclusion that the proverb would be praised by AI if only it could talk. The area in the lower-right centre does seem to be worth around 15 points and so, following this proverb, that area should be left alone. I am therefore guessing that if Black played at 'g' to make the white group there heavier and so attackable, White would ignore it, although I suspect in real play many of us would just grit our teeth and connect.
But if Black starts with the shoulder hit 'd' and White does push him upwards via 'f', any play in the lower-right centre becomes bigger and more urgent. If we then envision any sort of attack on the white group, there would be twin Black forces moving towards the upper centre and converging somewhere around 'h'. In that case, any black stones in that area would be lighthouse stones (zhaoying) for the lone black stone at the top.
In that case, Black would not really have to contemplate making a base with 'i'. And by a similar line of reasoning probes at either 'j' or 'k' in that area are premature.
The best probe to play, therefore, I would suggest, is Black 'd'. My sense of AI play is that this is the sort of whole-board strategic play they adopt almost all the time (though I do think they prioritise moves in the widest areas).
I suspect it also marries with the pro style of play, though in their case they, unlike the bots, are at the limits of their whole-board vision and so are likely to make mistakes. I say this in the light of an experiment in the mid-1970s when Rin Kaiho (I think) and others tried playing on a 21x21 board. They came to the conclusion that it was too big for humans. The game just descended into a series of small tactical skirmishes with no obvious (to the pros) connections between them. They decided 19x19 created the best balance between tactics and strategy that left enough scope for differences in human skill to emerge reliably.
Of course, I could be all at sea here. My sense of AI play is almost 100% derived from looking at games by humans who appear to try to play like the bots. Maybe even that's too big an assumption on may part.
-
Knotwilg
- Oza
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:53 am
- Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Artevelde
- OGS: Knotwilg
- Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 1021 times
- Contact:
Re: A small base is worse than no base
Your move is the best John!
Interestingly, many moves seem to be good in this position. The whole area above and around the white stone at the bottom is within 1 point of move suggested by our own sAI, John fAIrbAIrn. Next to that, attachments at A or B also get approval and so does the thrust at C. The position is very close btw, B+2 with 6.5 komi.
Myself I had my eyes on a leaning attack, but upon seeing John's move, I could find nothing against it. Like he said, giving White easy territory for an uncertain attack on the central/right stones, is risky.
Interestingly, many moves seem to be good in this position. The whole area above and around the white stone at the bottom is within 1 point of move suggested by our own sAI, John fAIrbAIrn. Next to that, attachments at A or B also get approval and so does the thrust at C. The position is very close btw, B+2 with 6.5 komi.
Myself I had my eyes on a leaning attack, but upon seeing John's move, I could find nothing against it. Like he said, giving White easy territory for an uncertain attack on the central/right stones, is risky.
-
Gérard TAILLE
- Gosei
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
- Rank: 1d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
It seems to me that the choice of the initial black move is a matter of style.
OC we have to learn from AI suggestion but finally we have also to play moves you understand and you like to play.
Assume you are quite strong (or confident?) with solid territory and a more or less big moyo for your opponent. Then why not taking a lot of points on the bottom in sente followed by a move in the upper right corner?
Who is able to know if white as enough compensation with her bigger and stronger moyo in the bottom center?
Note that white stone marked with a circled if not (yet) connected to white
and note that the peep at "a" may cause trouble for white. That means that white moyo is maybe not that big.
If you like large scale attack then you can OC choose the shoulder hit proposed by Knotwilg and maintain the white groups separated.
OC we have to learn from AI suggestion but finally we have also to play moves you understand and you like to play.
Assume you are quite strong (or confident?) with solid territory and a more or less big moyo for your opponent. Then why not taking a lot of points on the bottom in sente followed by a move in the upper right corner?
Who is able to know if white as enough compensation with her bigger and stronger moyo in the bottom center?
Note that white stone marked with a circled if not (yet) connected to white
and note that the peep at "a" may cause trouble for white. That means that white moyo is maybe not that big.If you like large scale attack then you can OC choose the shoulder hit proposed by Knotwilg and maintain the white groups separated.
-
John Fairbairn
- Oza
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 4672 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
This is true, and quite a few pros say they prefer to play moves they understand and are happy with. Indeed, the kind of move you showed is in the human armoury with a name: Honinbo's ikken-tobi. It's from Edo times, when there was no komi, and a safe move like this was a way of guaranteeing a win.It seems to me that the choice of the initial black move is a matter of style.
But I'd take issue with this a bit. There's a difference between a moyo (a loose framework) and a jimoyo (a framework that is almost already territory). That very solidity makes the jimoyo 'bigger' in the senses of stronger or more important. It's rather like the difference between a simple wall (attackable and so not really thickness) and true thickness (not attackable). Such considerations have to be factored into the evaluation. I'm not entirely sure how you do that, but one aspect of having a jimoyo as opposed to a moyo is that the opponent will not have many forcing or endgame moves against it. In this position, I'd hazard a guess that making White stronger by giving him a jimoyo below would make the lone black stone at the top much weaker, and that would have knock-on effects all over the board as its scrambles for safety. Rob van Zeijst said a weak, eyeless group is to be evaluated as around -20 points.That means that white moyo is maybe not that big.
-
Gérard TAILLE
- Gosei
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
- Rank: 1d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
In addition, when I was a beginner, I was told to play tenuki if I am not happy with a local move. Do you apply such advice?John Fairbairn wrote:This is true, and quite a few pros say they prefer to play moves they understand and are happy with. Indeed, the kind of move you showed is in the human armoury with a name: Honinbo's ikken-tobi. It's from Edo times, when there was no komi, and a safe move like this was a way of guaranteeing a win.It seems to me that the choice of the initial black move is a matter of style.
As far as I am concern I continue really to apply such advice but after the game I can easily change my view.
-
John Fairbairn
- Oza
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 4672 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
I don't really don't know how to answer that out of context. But given that you are talking about the time when you were a beginner, I suppose that then any such advice would be better than nothing. After all, most beginners complain about the size of the board and ANY advice is seized upon.In addition, when I was a beginner, I was told to play tenuki if I am not happy with a local move. Do you apply such advice?
But for dan or high kyu players, which I think is the audience here, I'd be disappointed if they were still taking that advice literally.
The point is, tenuki does NOT just mean playing elsewhere. To be sure, you will find it defined that way (i.e. "playing elsewhere without answering the opponent's move") even in Japanese books. But the Japanese reader knows how the word is formed (skipping a move: te wo nuku) and so will automatically add an important nuance.
When you are skipping a move (at dan level), you are deliberately leaving something undone. That deliberateness implies knowing what you are doing. You have made a careful calculation. That is the very opposite of a beginners' level tenuki where they are playing elsewhere because basically they DON'T know what they are doing.
Indeed, we can say that a (proper) tenuki is a high-level tactic/strategy. It is tactical in that, by playing elsewhere, you may hope to influence the situation so that you may be able to go back and play again in the area where you omitted a move, to add to any gain you may have made by playing elsewhere - and, into, the bargain, making a better choice of whatever moves were initially available in that area!
In practice, it may all seem to come to the same thing, but I think it's important to acknowledge the extra nuance if you wish to improve. I think even pros have been startled by how rich and frequent tenukis (proper ones) have proved in AI play. However, while I believe it is partly this extra nuance that is capturing their attention, it also seems that a combination of timing and multiple (proper) tenukis are perhaps even more major elements for them. These are elements I can't begin to grasp, though, so I say all this with the appropriate caveats.
-
xela
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:46 am
- Rank: Australian 3 dan
- GD Posts: 200
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
- Has thanked: 219 times
- Been thanked: 281 times
Re: A small base is worse than no base
Thanks John, I can add this one to my collection! In my other recent example of an AI-recommended tenuki that surprised me, Gérard helpfully calculated the miai value as 14 points, so this is consistent (although for most middlegame positions, I can't count accurately enough to get hung up over the exact number: "more than 10 and less than 20" is probably good enough for jazz).John Fairbairn wrote:In the days of the first London Go Centre (so some 50 years ago) there was a big buzz one day when somebody revealed a Russian proverb (I think someone had picked it up at a European Congress). It was along the lines of "if an area is worth 15 points or less, you can tenuki". David Mitchell, who then worked in the LGC, compiled a book or proverbs and included that one - anyone less lazy than me might care to look up the precise form of it. There were the usual "numbers guy" arguments about whether it should be 14 or 16 points, and later arguments about whether it really was the Russians who first discovered it. But, as far as I know, it had not previously surfaced in the Far East, so we can reasonably call it a European proverb, I think.