To Robert, your suggestions remind me that go is a game for two players Of course, Black will not just suffer White`s strategy willingly.
In your first diagram, I feel White 6 is too heavy. Black 5 negates its effect to the East, and there`s nothing for the group in the North. I would play elsewhere with 6. Exactly where I cannot decide for now. The best choices seem to be playing a shimari in the lower right, challenging Black to follow up on his 5, or to take a big point elsewhere, perhaps sanrensei or a shimari at F17.
In the next two diagrams, Black 1 looks interesting. Again, I`d leave the three White soldiers alone; possibly I`d opt for the shimari in the lower right, because otherwise an approach by O3 looks too good in size and shape to allow. White 2 in the second diagram also seems reasonable and consistent.
White 2 in the first diagram appears to be trying too hard. I don`t believe White can forcibly gain a sphere of influence. A "zone" is not so much "influence" as merely a "area with a useful friendly presence", but that`s only my tentative interpretation and could quite possibly be garbage.
I don`t like White`s 4 in the last diagram. It looks like switching to shinogi strategy after opening with large-scale intentions. It feels inconsistent.
It seems to me that it`s important to be willing to discard the three White stones, and not to try too hard to get influence out of them either. They are like the outermost skin of an onion, easily shed. The problem Black may have is knowing when to stop playing around them - does Black kill `em dead? How willing is Black to tolerate their effects?
Of course, I`m only trying my best to understand what White is really up to. It`s the kind of strategy that could easily go horribly wrong in amateur hands, but it`s extremely interesting to think about.
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
Tami wrote:Could this be a real epiphany? ... it`s skill you need, more than knowledge.
It might be. I had similar thoughts a couple of years ago. The word that keeps popping to my mind now is "conditioning." There are aspects of Go that are very sport-like. I can work at reading better, but if my reading starts to fail near the end of a game, I could lose a won game easily. Depending on the length of the game, there is an aspect of pacing oneself that is completely aside from knowledge.
I think a lot of go strength is present in what we can see instantly. This includes knowledge that is readily available, but also correct reflexes and quick reading/evaluation of common shapes. Those source material for that stuff may come from books or teachers, but constant repeated, correct use is required to make it automatic. That's conditioning.
Tami wrote:So many books to read. I have received "Zone Press Park" in Japanese, but I`d quite like to get it in English too, as I`m very intrigued by O Meien`s ideas (which I have been reading about on NewinGo and elsewhere), and I`m particularly anxious to understand them aright.
That book is almost deliberately inscrutable in English. I wonder if it's any better in Japanese. Much of it is lost on me because it relates to humor regarding Japanese cuisine.
O Meien definitely has a different way of looking at the game. He is like the anti-Jasiek, stubbornly refusing to clearly define anything and resisting all attempts to make clear judgments regarding whether some play is good or bad.
Still, there are ideas in O Meien's book I haven't seen anywhere else. He really seems to dislike games that can be reduced to calculation. But I haven't seen anywhere else where a go author even attempts to take on the thinking behind what one can do when it is not possible to read, and that's the part I find the most fascinating.
Some quotes:
I'm telling you this for the hundredth time, but the starting point of the zone press is "I don't understand."
In regards to reading, the correctness of something like Diagram 8 is guaranteed. It's clear that the result is that the "variations in go are finite." On the contrary, for someone who can't read, the meaning is that to the extent that one can't read, the "variations become numerous" and "one can believe more in the possibilities."
It's to be expected that one is weaker regarding things that can't be read out than at the things that can be read out, but when one is put into the standpoint of "not choosing," one's strength is replaced by that weakness and one is saved.
When a lamb is perplexed by the incomprehensible paths, the winding path where a little bit ahead can be seen is the path of reading. However, being able to see ahead is the lamb's delusion and there is perhaps a pitfall, a trap lurking just one step away. For the weak lamb, to the extent that the lamb is week, this path is full of pitfalls. But in regards to the path of the mist, to the extent that the lamb is weak, the mist is dense and it protects the lamb. If the lamb possess the spirit of belief in the zone, it mutters, "Catch me if you can," and without hesitation, can plunge into the mist.
It was hard going getting through the first chapter of Zone Press Park. Now I know a lot more about Chinese food, and I wonder that Mr O is not a great big porker, considering how much he likes to eat. Or is he only teasing?
Well, my impression is that the first chapter might be a kind of ploy to prevent people from picking up the book at the bookstore and skimming the main points, without actually handing over any money. It`s quite easy to do that with, say, the MyCom books because the main points are printed in bold type or presented in highlighted boxes. Indeed, halfway through the opening chapter O actually says "if you`ve got this far, you`ve probably bought the book".
I got my Japanese colleague to read the first chapter, and she said that it was fun to read. Her opinion was that it was an attempt to set up a good feeling between writer and reader, and to make a "cool" effect. Ordinary go books are very dry, but this one is amusing and fun, said she. However, she felt that the conceit goes on a little bit too long - she too found herself wanting O just to get on with it.
However, even in the first chapter the main ideas are stated clearly here and there:
* A zone is a wide area * A press is pressing into (oshikomu - "push in") * Go is a perfect information game, so must be limited * But for humans it is effectively infinite * You can play in a limited way - for territory, counting points, etc., but * You can also play in an unlimited way, and for this you need to recognise that "you don`t know" and that feeling is key
As the second chapter unfolds, and O starts giving examples, it becomes clearer
* A zone is like stance - it's taking position like a baseball batter at the plate * A zone is an area for favourable fighting * If you enter the opponent`s zone, the thicker it is, the less profit you can expect
And piecing together from other sources:
* Play from the wider side - make an enormous "zone" * A zone is not the same thing as either a sphere of influence or territory - it`s too big for that.
OK, this is only my interpretation and I would advise not to quote this as either O`s words or opinions - my Japanese is mediocre, and I might have confused certain things.
I`ve been trying to apply this thinking to my games, and it is both fun and effective.
But this takes me to the next idea that I`m running with:
Skill is much more important than Knowledge
I don`t deny that knowledge is very useful, but even so, I am coming to believe skill - learned ability - is the most decisive factor in your go strength.
Suppose you managed to catch a pro in a trick play. Unlikely, for sure, but imagine you did. Do you think you`d win the game? Think of games which you lost "because" of not knowing a joseki or not knowing a particular shape? In fact, do you think more than a small percentage were really decided by that hole in your knowledge.
I learned a nice little trick move from badukmovies.com and managed to get quite a haul with it. But on reflection, I suspect I would have beaten those opponents anyway, even without tricking them. Conversely, there have been occasions where I pulled off the same stunt twice, and lost by a large margin. The difference, in the end, was in relative skill, not knowledge.
Take the old chestnut about "memorise joseki to become 2 stones weaker, study to become 2 stones stronger". In my opinion, the key issue is not that knowing the reasons for the moves helps your remember them, and not even that knowing the meaning of joseki helps you to apply it appropriately, but above that knowing the reasons for the moves helps you to choose good moves in that and similar situations, even when those moves are not joseki. In other words, study develops your reasoning ability.
Again, I have memorised a lot of information, but never used it directly. The only thing that ever does come in handy regularly is remembering the method, not the moves.
If skill is the key, then you have to identify and train the relevant skills.
GO SKILLS * Reading * Positional judgement - knowing what is going on (who is leading? where are you weak/strong?) * Strategising (i.e., thinking up plans suitable to the position, using principles as guides) * Applied knowledge (there are things that you need to know, but it`s how you use them that counts for most) * Meta-skills - time management, controlling your emotions, reading your opponent`s emotions, keeping fit, concentrating, maintaining a positive attitude, learning from mistakes
To end this post, one reason I like the MyCom books so much is that they seem to recognise the precedence of skill over knowledge implicitly. A typical MyCom book contains relatively few principles, and so does not attempt to be an All in One, but is very generous with realistic exercises to develop your ability to apply those principles properly - in other words, they train your skills, rather than your memory. Further, in the best volumes, the mistakes often arise from misapplication of principles - therefore you have to think carefully and practice judgement, because blindly applying maxims is not the same as using them.
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
Skill without knowledge is nothing and knowledge without skill is nothing - therefore skill and knowledge are equally important.
This and similar statements you regularly make about intuition etc obviously satisfy you, but I have to alert you to the fact that they do not appear to correspond to the latest thinking in the cognitive sciences as applied to chess. I only discovered the new thinking myself in the past few months, so I'm not criticising you for (apparently) not knowing about it. But I do think you should take time out to appraise yourself of the latest related research (as any good researcher would do). I think you would find it useful as well as interesting. In this regard the differences between go and chess are irrelevant.
Tami: Judging by your comments you may not have picked up on the fact that zone press is a Japlishism relating to soccer. A team can mark man to man or it can mark zones. Rather than 'press' I think we would usually say 'close down' in English. I seem to recall you are from Durham. If so, you will know that, coming from Newcastle, I was born with black and white blood. BTW, as I've said before, I find O Meien a painful writer. I think his wife is a journalist and so he enjoys trying to play at being a popular writer, but I rank him only as an SDK in that area: tries too hard.
Tami wrote:To end this post, one reason I like the MyCom books so much is that they seem to recognise the precedence of skill over knowledge implicitly.
My current book is Mycom's "Small Chinese Fuseki". It's pretty well done as all Mycom books are, but ends up being a very detailed fuseki dictionary on one type. So I would say just this one ends up more on the knowledge than skill side. I like the Mycom book on shape though. There it tends to be in the other direction.
John Fairbairn wrote:Judging by your comments you may not have picked up on the fact that zone press is a Japlishism relating to soccer. A team can mark man to man or it can mark zones. Rather than 'press' I think we would usually say 'close down' in English. I seem to recall you are from Durham. If so, you will know that, coming from Newcastle, I was born with black and white blood. BTW, as I've said before, I find O Meien a painful writer. I think his wife is a journalist and so he enjoys trying to play at being a popular writer, but I rank him only as an SDK in that area: tries too hard.
I share your pain. I`m a Magpie too. But originally I`m from Burton-upon-Trent. I was drafted into the Toon Army as an undergrad at Newcastle University in the early 90s. Supporting the Lads has been excellent training in enduring disappointments, but whenever I feel sad I recall listening on the radio to the October 1996 match versus the evil ones from Manchester while on the channel train. That was pure bliss (or "blip" as a certain Scotsman had it).
Of course I knew the term "zone press" was from football. It`s hard not to see the picture of the footballers on the goban in the gowizardry link I simply didn`t see much point in mentioning it here, as it`s easy to find out from elsewhere.
Do you think O actually writes this stuff himself? I wondered if it was the work of his wife, acting as ghost. It`s hard enough for me to understand the Japanese, let alone discern whether the writing is of high literary standard. As my colleague said, he goes on just a bit too long about food. She said he was trying to be cool. (First law of cool, there is no try.)
To Robert:
I like to compare principles and knowledge to stabilisers on a kid`s bike (training wheels). They`re useful to get you thinking in a balanced way, but you need to rely on them less and less as you progress. (This is not my original idea - but I cannot say it comes from Rowson until my copy of his book arrives and I have chance to verify.)
Maybe I have misunderstood your project, but I believe your attempt to formulate a complete system is going to be overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of go. Perhaps, however, there should be a separate thread for discussing Jasiekian theory.
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
Tami wrote:To end this post, one reason I like the MyCom books so much is that they seem to recognise the precedence of skill over knowledge implicitly.
My current book is Mycom's "Small Chinese Fuseki". It's pretty well done as all Mycom books are, but ends up being a very detailed fuseki dictionary on one type. So I would say just this one ends up more on the knowledge than skill side. I like the Mycom book on shape though. There it tends to be in the other direction.
Awaji Shuzo`s book on Countermeasures to Invasions, likewise, is more knowledge-biased.
I`d recommend Mimura`s Fuseki Bible (三村流布石の虎の巻) to you. It goes together with the Ishida fuseki book very nicely. Mimura does a great job of explaining how to think about late-fuseki issues, and of how to use and counter large-scale strategies.
There is a MyCom book on how to use joseki, 基本定石 使い方事典 ~全35型徹底解説 (Dictionary of How to Use Basic Joseki: 35 Patterns Explained in Detail). It looks quite encyclopedic in its scope, but basically takes the training through problems+detailed explanations of success/failure route. I`ve only held off from buying it because I`ve been a bit berserk on the book-purchasing front recently. Do you have it? Does anybody else have it? What do you think?
Now, if only I could get more free time for doing some immersive reading...
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
I recently purchased 実戦的な定石の使い方―序盤戦で優位に立つ and 一手で局面を変える 布石、その後の攻防 for some opening theory. This is by the same author of the middle game book I mentioned earlier, so I'm looking forward to it. Much more "skill side".
I'm waiting for amazon to ship 攻め合い力養成トレーニング. It's a Mycom book on capturing races that I can't review yet. I also got all of Lee Sedol's commented games in Japanese. I enjoyed the first enough in English that I wanted the rest immediately.
Another book in the last batch I got was 山下流戦いの感覚 which goes over the lines of play from his recent Meijin and Honinbo matches as problems to solve. It's somewhere in between game reviews and more in depth positional analysis.
It would always help to have more time to go over all of them.
John Fairbairn wrote:appraise yourself of the latest related research
Until research proves equal applicability of chess research for go, I do not share your premature conclusion that it would be like that. (It is much easier to draw other relations such as applicability of alpha-beta search to both and other games.)
In this regard the differences between go and chess are irrelevant.
1) I disagree; the smaller chess board makes chess a relatively tactically denser game than go and go a relatively strategically broader game than chess.
2) Teaching and learning in the chess world can have an impact. Before one tries to identify similarities in chess and go learning, one must first describe carefully whether the actual study conditions have been comparable.
Tami wrote:your attempt to formulate a complete system is going to be overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of go.
I have different aims: 1) solve go completely (an aim, not a real expectation) 2) write books on all topics of go theory 3) solve parts of a few topics of go theory completely
Do not confuse the three aims! WRT (2), a rough estimate is to describe theory by ca. 10,000 principles. If you are afraid of this being an overwhelming magnitude, compare it to the magnitude of 1,000,000 moves of examples needed for (subconscious?) learning by examples only. Besides, improved research allows replacement of specialised principles by more general principles ("Play away from your own thickness." + "Play away from opposing thickness" -> "Play away from thickness.").
Of course, Black will not just suffer White`s strategy willingly.
I simply didn`t see much point in mentioning it here, as it`s easy to find out from elsewhere.