Life In 19x19

moyoaji wrote: One of John Nash's associates was only a kyu-level player, but was able to beat profession 9 dans in yose ...

So he laid out a bord position in which he didnt have to read much or has read all moves before. With these circumstances reading doesnt matter much (as all is read out), but only theory.

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.

Do some endgame problems, it'll be enlightening. You can only calculate what you can see.

Well, you seem to have caused some controversy.

I'll be interested to see how you do.

This whole thread has me scratching my head, but actually it's someone's journal.

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.

What is his name? Just curious. Not going to touch the debate with a 10-foot pole...

Good luck!

moyoaji wrote:As for fuseki, it is easy to work out where your first 10 moves should be.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

lemmata wrote:

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.

What is his name? Just curious. Not going to touch the debate with a 10-foot pole...

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!

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!

I believe it was Elwyn Berlekamp. And yes, these were "over the board" victories. They were in the very late endgame (only a few points to be won or lost) but he could beat professional players in these scenarios when it was traditionally believed that novice players couldn't do this. The reason is that, in the late endgame of go you are actually facing independent situations with values that can be determined. Playing a late game sequence in one area of the board doesn't impact the others so it is only a matter of knowing which move is the biggest and playing that first. As for which 9 dans he beat, I don't know. All I know is he traveled to the Nihon Ki-in to do it, so they were Japanese. (I first heard about this from Peter Shotwell's book Go: More than a Game which I lent to a friend so I can't reference it at the moment)

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.

I know professionals will sometimes spend 5-20 minutes reading out a position only to play a joseki move. This does not surprise me because I know the professional is trying to evaluate exactly what this move will do and if the joseki is good enough in his situation. Only amateurs assume that joseki moves are 100% good 100% of the time.

As far as playing what someone else would have played in the opening, I wouldn't dream of it. I have my own style of opening and I know what I want to get out of my opening. I typically take opening advice with a grain of salt knowing that you can be wrong in the opening, but that style plays a big part in where you play your first few moves. For example, Go Seigen and Fujisawa Hosai were the top pros of their day, but one used influence-based openings and the other was territorial. Was one of them wrong? No. They were playing differently. I like balanced openings that give me some territory but also leave me influence, so I prefer to play at least one 3-4 stone and basically never two hoshi stones.

And I definitely know that I always have more to learn in every part of the game. Even if I ever made it to 7d on the KGS I would be foolish to think I was an expert in anything go related. I do feel my opening is good for my rank, but that does not make it good in general. My point was that my opening mimics professional openings, nothing more. If I've seen a move used in the exact same situation in a pro game opening I will play it myself with confidence, meaning that the first 3-5 moves I play in a game look like pro moves if my opponent does not deviate from "normal" play. I'll give you the first 15 moves of two games. 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.


Answer:


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.

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.

guessing game:

Could you post the full sgf or a link to the pro game, it looks very interesting (unless of course you are playing a jedi mind-trick on us and both games are yours. ).

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.

I don't know about the elementary go series book but pay good attention to the capturing race stuff in The Second Book of Go. From the mid-sdk on you really want to be good at capturing races and as you go up the ranks, you will only feel bad if you can't tell who wins a given race (i do ).

(Contributing to the this is a 'discussion thread' atmosphere and not the 'cool journal' feel. )

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ pro level?
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . W X O , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

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.

The second game has two low extensions from Q16 - this was the first thing that I noticed. (Actually, the very first thing I noticed was that the side extensions from D4 look strange, but this is just a disorienting, lop-sided feeling.)

The first game looks very pretty, even though I'm not familiar with the opening. It's a very active position - if I weren't sure #2 was your game I'm not sure whether I would know that #1 was pro. I tried to play around with it - my best guess (starting with ) is that P17 M16 D5 P16 Q17 R17 R12 Q16 R9 would create that position.

With respect to Golem's point about the LR in your game, this is a helpful page: OneTwoThree

Here is the pro game - http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/31608

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.

Actually, I played this move because I saw it in a professional game. I know in this case that the situation was not exactly the same - many more stones were played before black cut white, but it was a move that I saw. I'll try to find that game.

I did learn from this mistake, though. I now would play the extension - which is the normal joseki. I believe the professional didn't continue with making a base but instead extended his stone again (which, yes, is pushing from behind) and then played elsewhere. If I remember right, he had a lot of potential on the left and the right wasn't as interesting so, while "vulgar" it forced his opponent to make his left side bigger.

moyoaji wrote:Here is the pro game - http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/31608

That is an amateur game. Strong players, but it is an important distinction when talking about games.

oren wrote:That is an amateur game. Strong players, but it is an important distinction when talking about games.

Wow. I actually typed in a random number on Go4Go and grabbed the game. I didn't even notice that they were amateur dans and I didn't realize Go4Go posted amateur tournament results...