moyoaji wrote: One of John Nash's associates was only a kyu-level player, but was able to beat profession 9 dans in yose ...
moyoaji wrote:Boidhre wrote:How can you have pro-level fuseki and endgame (just to pick two) without pro level reading in those areas?
Actually, yose is strictly calculation based.
What is his name? Just curious. Not going to touch the debate with a 10-foot pole...moyoaji wrote:One of John Nash's associates was only a kyu-level player, but was able to beat profession 9 dans in yose because of his understanding of game theory.
moyoaji wrote:As for fuseki, it is easy to work out where your first 10 moves should be.
moyoaji wrote:My reading doesn't need to be that deep for me to make a move that a professional might play during the fuseki. There's a chance that if you took one of my games and put it next to a professional game, both after only 15 moves, that you couldn't tell a difference in skill.
moyoaji wrote:I once impressed a KGS 5 dan with my opening ability (if I remember right he said it was "spot on"), only to have him be very disappointed by my mid-game reading.
lemmata wrote:What is his name? Just curious. Not going to touch the debate with a 10-foot pole...moyoaji wrote:One of John Nash's associates was only a kyu-level player, but was able to beat profession 9 dans in yose because of his understanding of game theory.
lemmata wrote:What is his name? Just curious. Not going to touch the debate with a 10-foot pole...
ez4u wrote:Better yet, what were their names (the 9p's that he beat)? Of course you mean that he beat them over the board, right? If he simply found a better result in analysis, well we already have Bill for that!
jts wrote:Watch a professional game and see how, say, Japanese pros use their time during a title match.
(Once I was trying to review with DDK player. He was frustrated because he had been playing for a while, a high volume of games actually, and wasn't improving. I checked the times on his games and spotted the problem, so I went through a tournament game between two ~4d players with him. Just the first twenty moves, to see how many minutes it took them to play out a main line of the Low Chinese. "What were they thinking about?" he asked, shocked.)
We actually did this experiment once on the forum. I was about 8k at the time and, if I posted my guesses, I embarrassed myself; but the dan players nailed it. Not just nailed it, but within a few stones of each other's guesses, iirc.
In general, when someone who can give you 12 stones praises you, you should be proud that you exceeded his expectations and have no bleeding wound to suture in that part of your game, but don't assume you played what he would have played. Teaching always involve a certain amount of triage.
We're not challenging you just to be argumentative. You can get whiplash when you pride yourself on being strong at some aspects of the game and then you improve a few stones and realize your perspective was limited. If you think what you're doing is "studying the opening", this might actually block out the possibility that other players are doing something quite different when they study the opening. Or, once you've told people you play a pro-level opening, you might get a bit shy about posting games for review, which would be a shame.
If you're happy with your opening and concentrating on other aspects of your game, I think that's probably for the best. Just be open to the idea that the opening is more connected to reading and positional judgment than you currently understand it to be.
moyoaji wrote:One is one of my games and the other is a random pro game between two Chinese professionals that I grabbed off Go4Go. See if you can tell which is mine and which player I am.
).moyoaji wrote:As far as my studies go, currently I am looking at The Second Book of Go and Life and Death from the Elementary Go Series. The most important thing I need to work on right now is reading - especially in life and death situations, but I still believe that good knowledge of theory can make up for my lack of reading skills in the opening.
).
)
) is that P17 M16 D5 P16 Q17 R17 R12 Q16 R9 would create that position. golem7 wrote:actually it is quite easy to recognize the non-professional game because the marked move is one that no pro would probably ever play in this situation: it is a very vulgar-goteish-aji-keshi type of move. and I suppose from a pro perspective we will be able to find definite mistakes and flaws for 99.999% of your openings. note that this is not about style but real mistakes. If you try to mimic pro play you'll be at a loss once your opponent plays a move you don't know because you don't really know why pros play this way.
I have to agree strongly with herman and some others: reading is the most important skill for every part of the game, no doubt about it. I'm actually surprised that noskill as an apparent dan-level player is seriously ignoring this. you cannot play "correctly" unless you read it beforehand. kgs 7d in 8 months? I'm looking forward to seeing the excuses
my advice: with actual continuous tsumego training it may be possible to gain at most 1-2 stones at your level in this time period, try that instead.
moyoaji wrote:Here is the pro game - http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/31608
oren wrote:That is an amateur game. Strong players, but it is an important distinction when talking about games.