Life In 19x19

daal wrote:You left out the option I would have checked: "I don't know any trick moves."

daal wrote:But to know a hamete and not play it because it is disrespectful seems odd. Unless your opponent is a pro, why should you assume that he knows the same hamete as you do, and why did you learn it in the first place?

Well, maybe disrespectful is not the correct word here. Ok, I indeed find it a bit disrespectful but that's probably not the exact reason why I dislike trick moves.

Probably the reasoning of topazg explains better how I feel as well. It's more about how you treat the game. Do you just play it for winning or do you want to it to be a good game.

topazg wrote:It's interesting that entropi picked a hobby as an analogy, and you picked a professional sport where winning and performance influence people's livelihoods I think situationally that makes quite a difference too.

Interesting, didn't notice that. Maybe that highlights some specific philosophical differences we have about the game

Maybe I'm too weak to know but to me a trick play is basically anything "tricky" that could go bad for either side. If by "trick play" you purely mean "This move is clearly bad but I hope my opponent is too stupid to see it" then I agree and would probably not play it.

This reminds me of a proverb my mentor used to say: "If you have an awesome variation that requires two moves in a row to work, then your variation sucks"

topazg wrote:I quite liked the analogy, it certainly feels fairly similar to me, albeit an exaggeration

Using "trick moves" doesn't go against the "intended gameplay", that is, putting stones down on the board while taking turns. The moves may be bad or relay on the opponent making a mistake, but it is perfectly within the intended gameplay and the rules. Taking apart a Rubik's Cube and then putting it together is not the intended way of going about solving the puzzle. The analogy seems pretty off to me.

The poll is missing the option I would have selected. I use trick moves (well, all 1 that I know) in games against people I've never played before as sort of a query about their level.

But then someone fell for it (http://dailyjoseki.com/browse/bxkwvubtj ... fbuywugbvs - is wrong because black has that hard-to-see ladder) in a tournament game and I felt kinda bad about that...


In handicap games I play things that I know shouldn't work as tests. Sometimes I warn black that it's a test, sometimes I don't and just mention it in the review. If I know black's level pretty well I'll try and target the trickiness to where they have a chance of figuring it out.

Mivo wrote:

topazg wrote:I quite liked the analogy, it certainly feels fairly similar to me, albeit an exaggeration

Using "trick moves" doesn't go against the "intended gameplay", that is, putting stones down on the board while taking turns. The moves may be bad or relay on the opponent making a mistake, but it is perfectly within the intended gameplay and the rules. Taking apart a Rubik's Cube and then putting it together is not the intended way of going about solving the puzzle. The analogy seems pretty off to me.

It depends on how you interpret "intended gameplay".
We are not talking about violating the mechanical rules of the game (like for example putting two stones at once etc).

But we are talking about the "elegancy rules" (such term may not exist but you understand what I mean).

I interpret the "intended gameplay" in a broader sense, which excludes delibaretly making bad moves. Since trick moves are technically bad moves, making them intentionally is in that sense not the "intended gameplay".

Ok, Rubik cube example goes even further to the extent of violating even the mechanical rules of the game. That's why it is an exaggeration. But I don't think it very relevant to the discussion at hand.

daniel_the_smith wrote:The poll is missing the option I would have selected. I use trick moves (well, all 1 that I know) in games against people I've never played before as sort of a query about their level.

Interesting point. Didn't think about this use of trick moves, but I don't know how to change the poll options.

Mivo wrote:

topazg wrote:I quite liked the analogy, it certainly feels fairly similar to me, albeit an exaggeration

Using "trick moves" doesn't go against the "intended gameplay", that is, putting stones down on the board while taking turns. The moves may be bad or relay on the opponent making a mistake, but it is perfectly within the intended gameplay and the rules. Taking apart a Rubik's Cube and then putting it together is not the intended way of going about solving the puzzle. The analogy seems pretty off to me.

As entropi said, that depends on your interpretation of the "intented gameplay". If for Go it is "to win the game", you can happily argue for trick moves. If it is "to play the best game possible", they are always wrong. If for a Rubik's cube it is "have a solved cube", you can happily argue for taking it apart and putting it back together. If it is "solve only in the same way as Rubik's original test for his students" then taking it apart is always wrong.

The goal is "winning within the boundaries of the rules". If it was just winning, you could spike your opponent's drink, re-arrange some stones when he's not looking or bribe him with a box of cookies. Those, to me, would be analogies to the disassembling of the cube. Trick moves don't stray from the rules or the way go is played.

But anyway, I'm not actually using hamete in my games. For one, I don't know any (haven't read up on them), and second, my goal is to make "good moves" (within the limit of my ability). As you put it (very well, by the way!), the opponent in my games is myself, not the other player. But I don't see anything wrong with people using trick play. If I encountered it commonly in my games, or if it irritated me, I'd try and learn hamete. Pretty much like I approach other aspects of the game too (e.g. looking into high/low Chinese when I first saw it recurring and not having a good idea how to deal with it).

If nothing else, it's a great excuse to buy yet another book.

Mivo wrote:If it was just winning, you could spike your opponent's drink, re-arrange some stones when he's not looking or bribe him with a box of cookies.

These actions are frowned upon ??

topazg wrote:These actions are frowned upon ??

I yield! You win. :p (Without spiking, bribing and cheating! Darn, you're good!)

Tsuyoku wrote:When I see a trick play, I feel like a cat when it sees a mouse.

Knowing this, I don't like using them against someone of equal or higher rank, because then I'd be the mouse.

I know this feeling! I like being the cat.

Now to touch on the original topic - if you get clobbered at a tournament because you used a 'trick move' and your opponent refuted it, no complaining.

On the other hand, getting taken in by a trick move necessitates that you study that trick move and make sure it doesn't happen again.

There was a time when many of these trick moves might have been considered normal moves. It was only when they were solved and shown to be bad for one side if refuted that they became hamete.

Some of us like to live in the past, so...

Here we're using a narrow definition of trick play: a move that you know is bad, but is difficult to refute, and you have a continuation prepared. But what about more generally "tricky" play?

Let's say I spend a lot of time studying joseki that aren't too well known, like 3-5 openings. I learn the more complex variations, and how to force 3-5 openings into trickier lines (like Taisha, say). I play 3-5 points every game, and when the opponent enters I try to force the most difficult variations.

From a professional's perspective, a lot of my joseki choices will be bad: I'm choosing sequences that are difficult, not sequences that are good in the local position, etc. If someone knows the joseki as well as I do, I'll probably come out a little behind. But I'm forcing my opponent into situations where I hope I'm more comfortable than they are. Someone who doesn't know the joseki will probably come out a lot worse.

Am I being dishonest? If I were playing myself, as topazg suggests, there would be no point to playing this way, because of course I know all the joseki that I know! But I think many players don't have a problem with this type of playing.

In my view, the acceptability of trick moves depends on your aim when playing.

I distinguish three aims:

1) to create a beautiful game
2) to create an interesting game
3) to win

Optimal moves are characteristic of a beautiful game, complicating and new moves of interesting games and psychological moves (based on an evaluation of the opponent' skills), such as trick moves, of games where winning is the sole aim.

When I play, I have all three aims and they are all legitimate ones, I think. However, at least to me, the most noble aim is to create a beautiful game (the least noble is to win). So, usually, I start out preferring optimal beautiful moves. However, when I have made the first serious blunders and a beautiful even game is out of reach, I often prefer complicating moves to optimal moves, to make sure that I at least get an interesting game. I also gradually start considering trick moves to get back into the game. If at the end of a game I think a trick move might turn a loss into a win, I will usually play it.

Aeneas wrote:In my view, the acceptability of trick moves depends on your aim when playing.

I distinguish three aims:

1) to create a beautiful game
2) to create an interesting game
3) to win

Optimal moves are characteristic of a beautiful game, complicating and new moves of interesting games and psychological moves (based on an evaluation of the opponent' skills), such as trick moves, of games where winning is the sole aim.

When I play, I have all three aims and they are all legitimate ones, I think. However, at least to me, the most noble aim is to create a beautiful game (the least noble is to win). So, usually, I start out preferring optimal beautiful moves. However, when I have made the first serious blunders and a beautiful even game is out of reach, I often prefer complicating moves to optimal moves, to make sure that I at least get an interesting game. I also gradually start considering trick moves to get back into the game. If at the end of a game I think a trick move might turn a loss into a win, I will usually play it.

In the course of reading this post one more time (in an effort to delete the portions I had not intended to respond to) I changed what I wanted to say and left the quote intact.

I thought, and still think, that the priorities listed above are in the wrong order, certainly winning must come first.

This is a game, with a goal, and any judgment of beauty or interest can only be made based on a moves ability to attain that goal. We can make good shape to our heart's content, but if the move does not serve to lead us down a winning path, there is no beauty, or interest, there is only misplaced artifice.

On second reading, I realized that the poster arleady knows this, even without realizing it, or admitting it. Though he claims winning is the least noble aim, he admits he jettisons beauty and interest for the down and dirty when the situation demands it. His philosophy may be flawed (in my view) but his actions speak the truth - I want to win pretty, I want to win fun, but ultimately - I want to win.

As for trick plays, they are completly legit - but I would advise caution. If you understand all the ramifications, and you are a good fighter for your level, then by all means, take advantage, or fight your way back from any modest disadvantage. But do not think half understanding a trick play is a substitute for fighting strength - if you are not a fighter, then they are crutches of the wrong length with missing bolts.

I met and played someone who was intent on creating a beautiful game once. He was an artist from my hometown.

He seemed to be a little crazy. He was about 20kyu, and start rambling about how my white stones stretched across the board looked like a beautiful river running through a field of cows.

Beautiful has got to be the wrong word to describe that.

Horibe wrote:
I thought, and still think, that the priorities listed above are in the wrong order, certainly winning must come first.

This is a game, with a goal, and any judgment of beauty or interest can only be made based on a moves ability to attain that goal. We can make good shape to our heart's content, but if the move does not serve to lead us down a winning path, there is no beauty, or interest, there is only misplaced artifice.

If you follow this line of argument, you must also claim that a beautiful or interesting game does not exist, because someone lost it.