Page 2 of 2
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:21 am
by Laman
i will join others with opinion that you should play style that fits you, not what *should be* easier. i remember when i did the test at style.baduk.org and it said me that i was influence oriented and recommended studying territorial players. i took it like some weakness of my game and started trying to switch to more territory oriented play, but even if i was winning some games (not sure about the ratio), it felt wrong and my games were ugly. so i returned to my influence - attacking style, forgot territorial players and chose Kato Masao and even if it is not the easiest way to go, i enjoy it thoroughly
fighting is hard, but attacking is easy
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:21 am
by Phelan
I mostly play influence because that's the way I enjoy it, but I think I would understand my own games better if I played more territorially. My last two games in the L19 tournament I apparently was ahead and didn't know it.
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:37 am
by Magicwand
IMHO,
1. you start learning point oriented game. playing point oriented game.
2. later you will meet someone who loves to play solid thick moyo oriented game and get embarassed many games.
3. then you will learn and feel why influence game is good.. and applied them on your game.
4. later you will meet someone who emarrass you again with point oriented game. distroying your influence so easily.
5. you will learn why point oriented game is valuable and reapply them to your game.
6. after few cycle of that you will be flexable and appreciate both influence and points. then you are strong.
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:24 am
by karaklis
Maybe it's a stupid question, but what means "point oriented"?
point = territory? point = vital point?
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:27 am
by amnal
karaklis wrote:Maybe it's a stupid question, but what means "point oriented"?
point = territory? point = vital point?
It refers to taking territory (immediate cash) in preference to thickness/strength, which you must work to later turn into cash.
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:27 am
by Bill Spight
gowan wrote:In my opinion Yang was talking about what is easiest to play well. I've noticed a lot of players in the ddk to weaker sdk range like to play san ren sei, a moyo/fighting oriented approach, but they don't understand how to convert their moyo into points. They often win but usually because their opponent doesn't understand how to handle the moyo either. This is not the way to get stronger., and might be one reason people get stuck at certain levels. As for fighting, these players fight when their groups are weak or thin and, usually, it's a crap shoot who wins. Again not a way to get stronger.
Now, this is where Yang's talk about style makes sense to me. A player may like to play sanrensei, but when push comes to shove, plays territorially. Since that is inconsistent with his early play, it does not work out too well. Better to recognize that one's instincts are territorial, and play a territorial opening, or learn how to play a moyo style, consistent with sanrensei.
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:28 am
by topazg
point = territory
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:20 am
by daniel_the_smith
"Amateurs don't have styles, they just are prone to a consistent set of mistakes."
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:29 am
by Magicwand
daniel_the_smith wrote:"Amateurs don't have styles, they just are prone to a consistent set of mistakes."
i like this quote
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:16 am
by Violence
Usually whenever a pro says, "We like (something)," he means that pros in general prefer it.
Pros in general like points over thickness.
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:20 am
by Magicwand
Violence wrote:Usually whenever a pro says, "We like (something)," he means that pros in general prefer it.
Pros in general like points over thickness.
i dont know about that statement..
pro in general likes points and thickness.
opposite of territory would be influence not thickness.
thickness has different meaning...
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:26 am
by Bill Spight
Violence wrote:Usually whenever a pro says, "We like (something)," he means that pros in general prefer it.
Pros in general like points over thickness.
Times change, but I remember a New Year's issue of
Kido in the 1970s in which each Nihon Ki-in pro gave a word of advice to amateurs. The most frequent advice was, "Play thickly."
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:44 am
by ethanb
Magicwand wrote:Violence wrote:Usually whenever a pro says, "We like (something)," he means that pros in general prefer it.
Pros in general like points over thickness.
i dont know about that statement..
pro in general likes points and thickness.
opposite of territory would be influence not thickness.
thickness has different meaning...
A++
From what I gather (I also took lessons from Mr. Yang for about a year and a half - I'd like to again, but I work way too much right now), pros like thick better than thin, and in general territory is better than "vague empty space, maybe 30 points later, maybe 10, maybe zero."
The difficulty for amateurs comes in when what we think of as "thick points" starts to look like "overconcentrated" to pro eyes.
Thick means solid with no defects, nothing to do with outside/inside.
Re: Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:49 am
by ethanb
amnal wrote:runaway wrote:When someone high approaches your komoku (and you want to play there and there aren't any special cases), you probably would attach under if you were territorial. If you were moyo, then an above attach or a loose pincer might be good. If you were fighting then you would do a close pincer.
I'm sure what Yilun Yang says is useful and worthwhile, but it does sound like it comes with many hidden traps. I believe it is very easy to misinterpret what the professional means by 'territorial style' or 'influence style'.
For instance, attaching under 'if you were territorial' is a very bad reason to do anything! You should attach under becuase it is a good move, not because you're trying to stick to a predetermined style. If there are *multiple* good moves, then you may gain an advantage by sticking to those which work togther as a 'style', and this may be the easiest way for amateurs to play.
Even here, it remains true that it is far from the only way; in almost any given situation, even fairly early in the opening, professionals quickly choose different moves. I'm sure some of these will be of conflicting styles in the eyes of one professional or the other, but that doesn't make them wrong.
It feels like taking Yilun Yang's quoted advice at purely face value is dangerous, not that it doesn't make sense, but nothing in Go is that simple
I think the quote here is applied backwards - not to put words in Mr. Yang's mouth, but he probably meant "to attach underneath is territorial, to attach on top is influence-oriented, and to pincer starts a local fight." Rather than "if *you* are territorial, you should attach underneath..." Knowing the likely outcomes (or at least directions) of these moves, you can decide on which one to play by using a strategy consistent with your previous moves.