Life In 19x19

Helel wrote:If I may be even more controversial, consider playing games where you only concentrate on feeling the board, and simply ask the stones where they want to be played. Again of course with a thorough review afterwards.

My stones don't talk to me.

(By the way, you don't have to type in carriage returns; the board software automatically wraps the lines.)

topazg wrote:

Jedo wrote:I don't really agree with this. It doesn't matter how well you can read if you don't know what you're trying to read out. It's a sense of strategy and direction of plays that tells what you're looking for.

I agree with you 100% Jedo. Strategy is utterly vital. Fighting is necessary, and will always happen when you're ahead because your opponent should start fights, so you need to read too, but strategy is key... why do you think "Direction of Play" and "Attack and Defense" are such highly regarded books?

It was always my thinking that once you learn to read(see how stones flow in an accurate and fast manner), then things such as direction would come naturally. I think limiting the term reading to mean only fights(and to be used only when you are fighting) is lacking. I use it to describe all parts of the game.

Kirby wrote:

Magicwand wrote:i find you problem to be a lack of experience.
only way you can improve is to play many games as possible with stronger players ONLY.
if you desire i can play you game after game so you can have more experience.

Awesome! I might take you up on this.

many people think i only use my sense to play which is not true..

i dont have to read each and every move to know the answer because my reading is stronger.
my first look is probably more accurate than weaker player trying few minutes.

also my planning stage is deeper than others. i see many more weaknesses and strong points that weaker players can miss.

i believe it is because i can eliminate many useless reading i can concentrate on things that are more relivent.
it is a product of experience and practices. no other way.

Fedya wrote:My stones don't talk to me.

You need to play more. And don't even think about eating or sleeping until they do.

ketchup wrote:

topazg wrote:

Jedo wrote:I don't really agree with this. It doesn't matter how well you can read if you don't know what you're trying to read out. It's a sense of strategy and direction of plays that tells what you're looking for.

I agree with you 100% Jedo. Strategy is utterly vital. Fighting is necessary, and will always happen when you're ahead because your opponent should start fights, so you need to read too, but strategy is key... why do you think "Direction of Play" and "Attack and Defense" are such highly regarded books?

It was always my thinking that once you learn to read(see how stones flow in an accurate and fast manner), then things such as direction would come naturally. I think limiting the term reading to mean only fights(and to be used only when you are fighting) is lacking. I use it to describe all parts of the game.

I think that definition is too broad to be useful. Reading is seeing sequences of moves. Good reading only looks at the interesting sequences.

To me strategy is being able to create good positions on the board. Ones that even if you can't read fully, you have an advantage in playing near.

Phelan wrote:

ketchup wrote:It was always my thinking that once you learn to read(see how stones flow in an accurate and fast manner), then things such as direction would come naturally. I think limiting the term reading to mean only fights(and to be used only when you are fighting) is lacking. I use it to describe all parts of the game.

I think that definition is too broad to be useful. Reading is seeing sequences of moves. Good reading only looks at the interesting sequences.

To me strategy is being able to create good positions on the board. Ones that even if you can't read fully, you have an advantage in playing near.

My point is exactly this: I feel that if you can read better than your opponent, your overall stone flow/shape/whatever you want to call it, will ALWAYS be better. So the statement that "I couldn't read it fully" wouldn't exist. I feel good reading is one where you look at ALL the moves possible and pick the best one. Good reading does not throw out moves, it will read them through and eliminate them in this manner. Thus, the strategic aspect will come naturally in progression. Reading first -> strategy will flow out.

I also have one more thing to add regarding my original statement(strategy is for 9d.. is it an exaggeration? I'm not too sure it is..). Learning strategy early on, is a detriment. Strategy can be called a shortcut at a weaker level. I'm sure there are no 100% of those if-> then ideas in Go. Early on, there are definitely ways to play the game that makes you easily associate the wrong things together: Examples are most "bad" shapes you can think of. You are almost drilled into your head that these shapes are bad. When most people see these in game, they automatically associate the bad shape, with bad play, and instead of reading, they choose a "better" shape. But, honestly, it is not a guarantee that the "better" move is the "best" move. This is why I'd like to think of reading taking precedent over strategy.

Overall, I'm not too sure I am explaining things correctly. I might even be looking at an ideal situation, but this is my thinking.

Kirby, something you might want to consider: get a review buddy. Someone within a few stones of your rank who has a different style than yours, and different strengths and weaknesses. Review all of each other's games, or at least one a week. A fresh pair of eyes may help, especially if you ask them to focus on strategic-level errors and alternatives.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

-Sun Tzu

ketchup wrote:Overall, I'm not too sure I am explaining things correctly. I might even be looking at an ideal situation, but this is my thinking.

I think I understand you, but I agree with Sun Tzu above.

I might be biased in that I play more instinctively, by using my intuition and pattern recognition for shape instead of reading everything out. In fact, I only read more than 3 moves when the situation looks complicated. I've had some success with that, despite playing people who I know read better than me.

But one of them, focused on fights and reading, has advanced much more rapidly than me, and can now give me 6 stones regularly, so it might be better to focus on reading first, like you say.

I just find that not that fun, and prefer focusing on my intuition. That's what I like about Go.

I must agree with Helel : Go is interesting to me because of the strategic part of the game. Tsumego bore me to death and I find it very hard to do them outside of a game (I know it is bad)

Maybe we need to define strategy vs. tactic : for me it is very related to the scale you look at the game.
I force myself to look at the entire board as often as possible.

In my games (I am only 7k kgs) I seldom have to rely on reading very deep. I get more winning (at my level again, it probably change later) if I keep my groups strong, wich make my opponent do weaks groups if he/she wants to attack and go the "lets see who can read the deepest", wich is good for me.

I find I improve most while playing one game with enough time to play my best go and review the game myself : the errors I see in the game and play a few variations. (I wish I could have a review from someone else for every game I play !!! )
I don't like the idea of playing many blitz games instead.

Cheers !

I read a lot of strategy books on my way (currently about 1k), but I've realized that by and large their main benefit was to sustain my interest in go.

Sure, I can sound authoritative in game reviews, wittering about closeness to thickness, and making fists before striking, and using walls for attack, and not pushing from behind, etc, and while those observations are usually correct in themselves, the number of times a superior strategic position has turned into a loss has made me realize that strategy without tactics is ridiculous.

I only read tsumego books now.

ketchup wrote:

Phelan wrote:

ketchup wrote:It was always my thinking that once you learn to read(see how stones flow in an accurate and fast manner), then things such as direction would come naturally. I think limiting the term reading to mean only fights(and to be used only when you are fighting) is lacking. I use it to describe all parts of the game.

I think that definition is too broad to be useful. Reading is seeing sequences of moves. Good reading only looks at the interesting sequences.

To me strategy is being able to create good positions on the board. Ones that even if you can't read fully, you have an advantage in playing near.

My point is exactly this: I feel that if you can read better than your opponent, your overall stone flow/shape/whatever you want to call it, will ALWAYS be better.

That is not my experience, as far as amateurs go. It is not uncommon for strong amateur dan players to make bad shape, but to make up for it by superior reading skill.

I feel good reading is one where you look at ALL the moves possible and pick the best one. Good reading does not throw out moves, it will read them through and eliminate them in this manner.

Even in chess, which is more tactical than go, this is not the case. (See Think Like a Grandmaster, by Kotov, for example.) Part of good reading is eliminating bad candidates.

Thus, the strategic aspect will come naturally in progression. Reading first -> strategy will flow out.

There is a simple algorithm for playing go. Read out the game tree. Indeed, strategy will follow. But you gotta wait a while.

I am not really saying that strategy is useless. That's just wrong, but I am going by the original thread topic. The original discussion was about "studying strategy". I feel in most of the cases(me included), we will benefit more from spending more time on learning to read(and to read further), rather than studying strategy. I find "strategy is for 9ds" a good hyperbole for this thread, and I enjoy the discussion such a statement causes .