Life In 19x19

illluck wrote:I think it's a bit pointless to be upset over how your opponent plays and whether a strategy is "polite".

hyperpape wrote:

illluck wrote:I think it's a bit pointless to be upset over how your opponent plays and whether a strategy is "polite".

Sure, but I think that this comment is then meta-pointless, and now my comment...

topazg wrote:Quite a few professionals have played 20 or so moves into a game as complete mirror go, relying on their judgement of when to break the mirror or how to exploit their opponent's break of the mirror. I don't recall any more than mild grumbles about it from other professionals.

Sensei's library wrote:... Fujisawa [Hosai] was notorious for often using mirror go, and was disdained for it by many of his contemporaries. ...

Falcord wrote:I've recently discovered Battousai's lecture series, and I'm having a blast with them. I really like his open Q&A teaching style, and feel like I'm learning a lot at my current level (kgs 6k).

I just watched this video by him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1HJcmn3V-E

In it, an amateur player plays against a pro, and tries to pull off the interesting strategy of playing tengen and then invading every single corner, then going ahead and doing his best to live in the center.

I found it an extremely interesting game to watch, and I must admit I fell a little in love with the idea behind that particular strategy.

However, Bat's comments were along the line of how annoying that strategy was, how little he would like to play against it, and how he didn't enforce to use it.

My understanding of Go is still very small. I remember when I didn't consider rejecting handicap and playing lost games to the end breaches of etiquette. Only through playing I got to appreciate how those, plus things like prospective invasions, are bad things to do. However, I'm having a hard time to see how the strategy showcased in this particular video should be considered unpolite or breaching etiquette. Granted, it relies heavily on the opponent making mistakes, but that on itself shouldn't be a problem per se, shouldn't it? If I were to face a strategy like this and realize my opponent shows a style of play in which I'm being pressured and tested, in a form of psychological warfare, I wouldn't get annoyed by that player, but accept the challenge.

Maybe I am missing something? Is it really unpolite to play like this? Are Bat's comments like "many players would resign after move three and just go and play another game" correct? I would like to play this strategy some day, if only to see what I can learn from it, but not if it's a blatant breach of etiquette.

Thanks in advance for your insight.

ez4u wrote:Although I have enjoyed many of Bat's videos, I think he is far off base here. He reports (but seems to see no significance in the fact) that the pro and amateur in question played nine games in a row! It does not seem that the pro was offended, regardless of how Bat's sensibilities were damaged. I say if you want to try an interesting (to you) strategy, strap on those Nikes and "Just do it!"

Zombie wrote:I have a hard time understanding all the fuss about the politeness of play. I come from cultures where that is kind of meaningless. If it wins, it is legit. There ARE games of Magic is just quit, granted, but at that point we're talking decks with cards that just screw with the very basic rules of the game in a major way such that nothing makes any bloody sense anymore, not just some offbeat strategy that attacks with the usual rules but at an unusual angle. In other words, stuff that is frankly impossible in Go.

Tami wrote:If you play a hamete then you are not being rude...

Falcord wrote:Correctly spotting hamete is another science on itself however. I mean, I hope stronger players don't consider me mean or impolite when I play obvious (to them) hamete, because to me it might seem like a valid move. Maybe I'm not seeing the obvious answer, maybe I think the resulting position after the correct answer is somehow beneficial to me.

Hamete, to me, sounds like a subjective term. I understand playing hamete as playing something that YOU know the answer for, knowing that after such answer you'd be worse off than if you hadn't played it to. However, this happens entirely in one's mind and your opponent may never know whether you're playing suboptimally on purpose or not. Therefore, any assumptions about politeness concerning hamete are flawed, I think.

Falcord wrote:

Zombie wrote:I have a hard time understanding all the fuss about the politeness of play. I come from cultures where that is kind of meaningless. If it wins, it is legit. There ARE games of Magic is just quit, granted, but at that point we're talking decks with cards that just screw with the very basic rules of the game in a major way such that nothing makes any bloody sense anymore, not just some offbeat strategy that attacks with the usual rules but at an unusual angle. In other words, stuff that is frankly impossible in Go.

If you guys don't mind me derailing the thread for a moment, I'm curious about what decks you are talking about. Combo decks often get annoying, but the ones that mess with the game integrity too much often get hit with the banhammer in their respective formats. I remember when you could play recursive Shahrazads...