Styles in Go

[gowan]

I scored "flexible" on that online test. It is generally thought that Cho Chikun's go is very territorial but when asaked what he thought of his own go, Cho said his go is flexible he didn't think he could characterize it in only a few words. I think it is necessary to be flexible because you aren't the only one controlling the way the game goes, but when you have the choice you may prefer to play for influence, territory, or some other way.

[jts]

I don't recall where, but I once read the professional opinion that amateur moves are too dominated by reading mistakes to have anything reminiscent of a "style".

Nonetheless people talk about the different styles of different go servers, so there must be something to it.

- Strengths and weaknesses make that style. Somebody who knows plethora of different enclosure invasions has quite a different style compared to someone who has comparative advantage in yose skill, if both players are same rank. At professional level there are players who are known to be masters of shinogi, "killers" and strong attackers.

A direct response:

Hmm. A style is more than a feature, I think. If you asked me to describe Gaughin's style and I said "He was a painter" or "He frequently portrays Polynesian women", those would both be accurate descriptions of his oeuvre, but you would still think I was stupid.

So in that sense someone who knows a lot of enclosure invasions may play games that feature a lot of enclosure invasions, but that isn't in itself sufficient for a style. Or, there are certain high-dan blitzers on KGS who like a particular complex pincer joseki and play it at every opportunity: those games will all look similar for that reason, but that doesn't constitute a style.

What I was getting at is that at least at my level - the only levels which I know are the ones I've passed through, of course - I don't know enough about Go to have a style. A professional can have an attacking style, or a thick style, or a territorial style because he knows how to attack, how to play thick, how to be territorial. I do not. Moves that I think are attacks are not, moves that I think are thick are heavy, moves that I think are territorial end up bringing influence... and so on. Rarely do six months go by without me realizing that my previous conceptions of Go were completely mixed-up.

I shouldn't speak for everyone, but when I read the comment that amateurs can't read well enough to have a style, I immediately saw the truth of it in my own play.

More general thoughts on style:

I take it that what distinguishes style from substance is not what one does, but how (or when, or under what circumstances, or for what purpose) one does it. So lots of artists have drawn horses, but there's a neo-classical style of horse and an impressionist style of horse and a cubist style of horse. Likewise, all strong go players attack and invade, reduce and sacrifice, take influence and territory... the question about their style is in some sense how, not what.

A style makes someones products unique - T. Mark has observed that he can accurately identify the era (if not the author?) of a game just by playing through it - but it isn't merely a signature. Some unusual tic, or affectation, or marked proclivity may serve as a signature, without being a style. If you walk into a room and see a painting of a Polynesian woman, you can guess it's a Gaughin without necessarily recognizing his style. I think I would suggest that a signature can be both precious (a conscious attempt to be different for it's own sake) or coincidental (when in Rome, you have to paint Romans, when in Polynesia...). A style is more tightly bound up with the work as a whole and with the intentions of its creator than a mere signature.