I thought you were older than that. I still think of him as Cassius Clay.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

So you're also agreeing that the middle game is more important than the joseki that got you there. In other words, how you navigate the outcome of your opening will bring you the win more than the opening steps.

But also, the assessment of thickness and territory ARE difficult for joseki. Thickness changes based on surroundings. That's not an easy thing to really grasp.


Amateur is just that, amateur. These problems apply to even dan players. If you find me just saying that insulting be prepared to be insulted some more, haha.
Dan players make the same fundamental mistakes that kyu players do, just in different ways. This includes joseki. Even dan players will say "i started out so good, but somehow i lost the game because of some middle game fighting". It might be less obvious, but it's still there.

But let's take your point, where you've got a small loss in every corner for the opening. If your opponent is around the same rank as you, there is no guarantee that even he knows that he's a little ahead because of opening choice. And even if he does, it doesn't mean that the middle game fighting will go his way to where he can maintain that lead. Let's also stress the fact that a "10 point mistake" doesn't exactly always mean 10 tangible points. It could be applied in a way that is realized in thickness or aji. Don't take that number and think that it actually means he's ahead by that much. It's a little bit more vague than that.


Both are valid issues. The middle game problem is a bigger issue that can be applied in more areas more times in future games than simply a "don't do this" problem in a joseki. Thus, middle game lessons are more important than a joseki lesson here.

-----------------------------------------
Here's another way of looking at it. Yilun Yang once talked about this as well. He showed a opening position and argued against this one move that the player did.
The player responded with: "Well Go Seigen plays this and says it's a good move.
Yilun Yang said: "Well, if it's Go Seigen i won't argue with him, but do YOU understand this move? If you don't understand this move and what it's doing its not a good move. Just play the move that does something you can understand"

Joseki is the same thing.

If you don't know what you're getting out of the joseki you're playing, you're doing yourself and your game a great disservice. If you play within the bounds of what you comfortably can understand, it is better than playing the "correct" move that might lead to a variation you can't handle. (AKA, learning joseki really isn't that necessary)


Let's also look at it this way. For joseki to get "complicated" it requires both players to get into that complication. If you play simple responses the difficult variations will never occur and you'll never be in danger of losing because of "joseki".

If you show me a game where you were at a disadvantage because an opening joseki, i will probably ask you "why did you choose this joseki, what were you thinking going into it, and what were you trying to do while play it". Chances are you were playing something beyond your comprehension.

Which is to say; useful! If you're taking into account environmental variables like the densities of icebergs and seawater.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

1) This was not what I have meant. Most josekis worths studying as such end in a settling of territory and influence (and sometimes other relevant aspects to be related to them) so that territory and influence can be assessed, related to each other and evaluated.

2) Regardless of (1), everything is important: middle game, josekis, other things. So I would not say that one is more important than the other. Concerning a greater number of moves - yes.



They WERE difficult until I invented and described methods for that. Territory can be judged with positional territorial judgement applied to the local joseki shape(s). Thickness is judged a) by constructing it as well as possible for the sake of making it thick and efficient and b) assessing its influence by the influence stone difference. Then use my method for relating the stone difference, territory count, the influence stone difference and possibly other relevant aspects.



The global context is another aspect to be considered indeed. However, usually it also is easy: choose the right direction and ensure that the thickness you build has efficient development potential. Etc. Difficult it is only for players (say, weaker than 3d) not having studied all basic go theory yet.

I, too, do, and I remember those times well, but I for one respect his name change.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

But without learning/studying joseki i will never know what to get out of a joseki. And playing the joseki if i know what i'm getting out of it is better than playing something different which might lead to a bad variation.

I'm not talking about playing joseki just "because its joseki" and learning joseki doesn't mean just memorizing the sequence.

So learning these as an amateur is a waste of time?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 5 . . 3 . .
$$ | . 4 . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 6 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 5 . . . .
$$ | . . 6 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . 7 . . . .
$$ | . 8 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 9 . . .
$$ | . . 3 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 6 a . . .
$$ | . 8 5 1 7 . . .
$$ | . 9 . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 3 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Of course knowing why isn't played at a and how to punish it, is part of knowing this joseki.

I find joseki extremly helpful because they give me a basic idea what can happen in a certain situation (for example after a low pincer). Then i can look at the various different josekis i know and compare the "end result" with the rest of the board to see which one is best - or if none is really good and i have to play something else.
I think not knowing josekis for a certain situation will lead you more often into bad variations, that you can't handle, than knowing and then encountering someone who doesn't.

_________________
Magics way up the hill (personal study journal)

You're mixing two ideas together. What the pro means is you don't have to go out and study every little joseki out there to get better. All you have to do is play moves that you feel give you a handle of the situation.
Yes, there are joseki out there that can be considered "basic" joseki that maybe everybody should know. Yes there are trick plays and punishable moves. But even if that moves gets out of control, as long as you play moves that you're comfortable with you won't exactly lose the game because of a move.

What's more, as you get stronger, you learn why to do things and why not to do things naturally. So it's better to naturally play moves and understand more compared to just forcing the matter.


If you're figuring out the thickness/influence/territory after the joseki is over, that's sort of midgame concepts. So you're still arguing for midgame knowledge.



Either way, both of you are missing the point of the pro's position

1. There's no reason to spend time studying opening joseki when a lot of the game is determined in the middle game.

2. Simply studying and memorizing joseki isn't helpful for the times that someone strays away from a difficult joseki variation. That's why it's better play moves that you know and are comfortable with in the event that when it strays away, you still know what's happening on the board.

3. As you get stronger and more comfortable with a position, you're more open to trying new things and straying away from the original moves that you've know

In fact, think about why so many pros seem to say "i don't really know joseki"

If you find learning joseki helpful, fine. I wrote a whole paragraph on the argument for learning joseki as well you know.

Often, do you think there's not such a thing as just haymakering someone during the first couple joseki?

Whether it's a trick play, or an offer of a hard joseki you're better prepared for.

I guess your point is you could consistently back down at the cost of a few points and hope for midgame.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

This is just another myth. Pros do know joseki. They are just being coy. For people who don't know joseki, they certainly love writing joseki books to make money. They certainly use the word when doing commentary. What is likely true is that they didn't learn joseki by memorizing some dictionary. However, consider the fact that pros train by playing and reviewing tens of thousands of games. A pro's optimal training regimen is bound to be quite different from that of your typical amateur with a 9 to 5 job, family obligations, and a social circle of non-players.

Nevertheless, I will not argue that people should study joseki. What I am sure of is that people should do what they find interesting and just enjoy themselves, optimal progress rate be damned.

The coy theory is interesting, and one view.

But not the only hypothesis:

It has to do with what we mean when we use the word know or understand.

Others more knowledgeable about the history (e.g. John) can correct this:
When Go Seigen first played the "inside turn" in the large avalanche in a pro tourney,
Takagawa (or another top pro?) had never seen that move. But the next 10 moves (or so?) Takagawa played what would later turn out to be the exact "joseki" sequence.

So Takagawa did not know the new move or its variations then, but his level
was such that he still found the "joseki" moves. That's his level.

Similarly, pros don't have to have memorized every single sequence in the
joseki dictionary -- of course, they have already digested hundreds of thousands
of the "standard" variations -- they can "just" play.

When they say they "don't know" something, it's (partially) because to them,
the words "know" and "understand" take on a much higher level than what some
people take them to mean.

Dinerchtein & Younggil's book New Moves gives an interesting glimpse of pro joseki familiarity, analysis and later analysis.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

1) Application during creation of a joseki (or a similar corner sequence) is also possible.

2) For determination of the stone difference and the territory, the skills are the same as for the middle game.

3) Influence stone difference is applicable to every joseki but only for some middle game tasks.

4) The relation between stone difference, territory count and influence stone difference is applicable only for josekis (or a similar corner sequences) because a) the (almost-)equality is presumed for the relation, b) the value of an early corner stone is known and applied for the relation, c) valid ratios of territory and influence are known for josekis but not (in general) for other local middle game positions.



The method is specific for josekis.



1) Understanding of knowledge and positional context embedding can always be deepened further.

2) Huge dictionaries always contain more variations than one already knows.

3) They do not know how to relate territory with influence well because they have not studied my method for this yet.

That's what makes this a good analogy.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Well, the middle game is longer than the opening. But one indicator of the importance a player places on a move is the time he spends on it. By that token, most amateurs do not place much importance on the opening, while most pros do.



And that is obvious to you from your vantage point as a professional.



Indeed. Endgame gains and losses are the most concrete, while opening gains and losses are the least concrete. That may be why some amateurs discount them.

It is true that large plays emerge in the middle game, but the gains and losses of middle game plays are typically smaller than those of opening plays.



Well, as you point out, amateurs don't know much.



I heartily disagree. I recall seeing a variation of Sakata's that was exactly what I would have played. Both players made good shape, so I figured that it was an even exchange. Sakata thought otherwise. He thought that allowing the opponent to make good shape was not good enough. Sakata chose a different play, even though, as he admitted, he had been unable to read it out.

I realized that in my own games I had chosen plays that, like the variation, led to good shape for both sides. Because I had understood the results, I thought that I had understood the plays. Sakata taught me that I had to look more deeply.

In short, if amateurs stick to plays that they think that they understand, they are making inferior plays. If you look at each of these plays, the loss may not be much, say a point or two per play. But a difference of only one point per play is approximately equivalent to a 9 stone handicap. The problem is not making an occasional slightly inferior play, but adopting an approach of continually and consistently losing points. That is how games are frittered away.

In terms of joseki how often do players say, I didn't make that play because I do not know the joseki! I think that that is a mistake, both in terms of learning the game and in terms of winning games. If you think that a play is right, make it. If you want to play a game you understand, stick to tic-tac-toe.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

So the point you are trying to make is that you think we all should make moves we don't understand instead??
I disagree.

Pros moves are usually better than ama moves. But it is because they follow better ideas and fit these ideas better, not because the stones magically land on better intersections. We should learn from them, but not ape them. And this means - try to grasp the ideas, and then make moves you understand, moves that fit into these ideas. The better we understand, the better we can choose the ideas, and the better we can make moves which fit.

Kageyama in his book said something about pros moves being often the same as beginner moves in certain situations. What differentiates them is that pros understand their moves much better, so even if they make the same plays as beginners, their game is much stronger. Now, if we make the pro moves without understanding them, then we regress to the level of beginners.

Of course, we all should stretch ourselves, always try to find something better than what we know. Like Sakata in the example you gave - he saw the "proper" (or "normal" or whatever) way where both sides made good shape, but this was not enough and he strived to find something better. And I bet that even if he could not read it all out completely, he understood the moves he made. This is what pros do... but I bet often they overstretch instead as well, only the delta is probably much smaller.

So I would say:
1. Try to only make moves you understand, and
2. Constantly strive to improve and refine your understanding.

PS>
This touches a little on the idea I have of western vs. easter teaching. One of the methods would call for making moves you don't understand, and when you make them often enough, understanding will come. Well, its a method... appropriate in some cases, but probably not in the cases of most of us on this forum.

The other methods calls for gaining (at least some) understanding before acting, and this is what I advocate for.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

No, that is not what I am saying.

First, I am saying to have some humility. Realize how little you understand, and that when you think you understand, you may not.

Second, I am saying that your comfort level is a poor guide.

Third, I am saying back your judgement. Sooner or later you are thrown back on it, anyway. Your judgement can never be sure, even if you are meijin. Accept that fact.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

In pre-forum days, when people answered a point by making the point what they wanted it to be instead of what it was, I used to think they were deviously using rhetoric, or playing at being politicians. But in forum days, where people actually quote and highlight the point they intend to (mis-)answer, I am coming round to the belief that there is something deeper going on.

Either way, Bantari's response to Bill is a travesty of what Bill actually said, and in that lies, I think (if you are prepared to look before you leap on me), a clue to the deep theme of this thread, which was famously summed up by Lao Zi well over 2000 years ago: "The Way that can be understood is not the true Way" (a difficult concept exacerbated by exploiting a pun on dao meaning 'way' as well as 'understand/speak of'). He rammed this home by adding that the name that can be named is not the true name.

Or, to put it in terms of Bill's words, if you think you understand you probably don't really understand.

This difficult issue is universal but has been crystallised out mainly ever since western culture met eastern culture in a big way. At first it was described simply as topsey-turveydom, but more rigorous thinkers (and business-school quacks who write books for hoy polloi) have since battled with it by trying to use dichotomies such as analysis/synthesis, eastern/western, strategic/tactical, memorisation/assimilation, Sun Zi/Clausewitz and so on.

In the context of this thread, analysis/synthesis is perhaps the most useful dichotomy, even if a little old fashioned now. People like Robert represent an extreme of the analysis side, but his tendencies are very widely shared - Bantari clearly leans that way, too. But analysis has its (severe) limitations. You can describe as much as you like how to catch a ball: you can measure the height, speed and trajectory of the toss, regulate the speed of the hand, factor in the wind, and so on, and do all this with enormous accuracy. You can even do all this and make a machine that will catch a ball better than a human. But you can't teach a human how to catch a ball that way. Arguably, you can't teach a human how to catch a ball at all - he has to learn it from within. For a human, understanding is not the goal. The goal is just being able to do it. And in the case of catching a ball, trying to understand the process doesn't make acquiring the skill any faster. It can even be harmful as it slows the brain down.

That's the central flaw in Robert's arrogance that pros like Maeda need to learn his system to become stronger. It's a good way to become weaker, because the goal of his method is to measure and understand. A pro just wants to be stronger, and as his grade shows, he is significantly further along that path than a 5-dan amateur. And it's nothing to do with having a bigger pool of players in the west. It's mindset. Bill's anecdote about Sakata illustrates that.

One of the famous examples from Lao Zi is the bowl. You can make a bowl that is bigger, prettier, cheaper than anything else, but none of that obviates the fact that the only thing that makes a bowl useful is the empty space you put your cereal in. Sakata eschewed the 'prettiness' and easy result of good shape and looked for the useful empty space instead. He wasn't sure he'd found it, but at least he knew there was something deeper he should be looking for (again putting it in Bill's terms, play the move you feel is right, not the move you think you understand).

There will be those who say, that's all very well but how do I translate that into becoming stronger now. That immediately brings to mind one of T Mark's favourite quotations: the lady (she was always American in his version, but doesn't have to be) who said "God grant me patience - and I want it NOW!!" I came across a more subtle version of that just last week. I got talking to an old guy in a park in Shanghai who was doing taiji, and I remarked that he was doing it much more slowly than anyone, even experts, I've seen doing it in Britain. He smiled and said, "It's not about slow movement; it's about slow mind".

And thinking about that profound remark later, it occurred to me that even those in the west who do genuinely try to understand the synthesis/eastern/assimilation approach of Lao Zi's Dao De Jing have a tendency to focus too much on 'body/doing' over 'mind/not doing' and, more specifically, on Dao (understanding) over De (virtues). Yet there are eastern scholars who argue even that the correct order of the book in ancient times was De Dao Jing, and thinking about the book in those terms can be illuminating. For example, one virtue is "daring not to be first" (how does the sea become the king of all streams - because it lies lower than they do). A good starting point!

I think it is no accident that analysers find chess easier than go, whereas synthesisers are most adept at go. Apart from anything else, the synthesisers (as humans, not machines) have the advantage that they can use the results of analysis, but the analysers find it hard to use the results of synthesis. Presumably this was behind Kasparov's attempt to introduce Advanced Chess where humans were allowed to consult and override computers. Lao Zi himself said this (of the Way, after explaining that we should look at its inner essence, ever hidden but should also look at its outward essence, always manifest): "These both flow from the same source. Though differently named they are both called mysteries. And the mystery of the mysteries is the gateway to all marvels."

Please go easy on me. I am a beginner and continuing my longtime learning of the game. I want to reply to this from the point of view of a total beginner. When I first picked up the game, I read a lot of concepts of go including Joseki. I learnt the basic moves and most of them are corner Josekis. I then looked at a few pro games and realise that they don't play them except for some occasions with corner moves. Then recently I saw a youtube video of go commentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofu1xRwE2_4 and realise that Joseki is not just about corners but moving around the whole board in perfect harmony (which in real play, it is impossible to play perfect harmony because your opponent would not want to be lured into it and I think that's why most games end up with resignations and very few with o.5 points). However, when I study pro games, they don't follow "perfect" Joseki. I think it is because once they start playing certain moves, the opponent breaks it down and he has to find a move to balance it out. To me Joseki is balance of your moves to the opponent's moves. Recently, I also use Smartgo Kifu to study pro games. When I do, I turn on the Fuseki and Joseki options. I find that the Fuseki database shows that it only applies up to moves 8 or 9 and Joseki database analysis only applies up to around moves 28 to 30. Thereafter, it is about middle game and endgame. When I play (note: I haven't played against human opponents yet) against Igowin Pro/MFOG, I mark out generally where I want to move in the first 8 to 9 moves (using basic corner Joseki where necessary) and from 9 to 30, I mark out potential territories (I look for balance and make sure that I don't get boxed in. If I do get boxed, I counter with external moves and making balance shapes there) and I don't use Joseki here. I make sure that I gain as much territories as possible and thereafter attack and defence to gain territories and reduce my opponent's territories and finalise them at the end. I find that it works. Game 7 of Lee Sedol and Gu Li Jubango Match open my eyes to how to play go with balance, whole board connections, good shape, making good shape while running and so forth. Therefore, when I play I use all those concepts. I don't think Joseki. I am constantly discovering many possibilities. I know I have a long way to go.

( Ninja'd by Bill, John, and jtman. )The ball example is great. My understanding, or at least the wording of it, is slightly different --

The physics and math of catching a ball represent one level of understanding, (A). (Perhaps, we can call this an intellectual understanding. )
Being able to catch a ball is another level (B), a mind-body understanding.

It's not whether (A) is a higher level than (B), or vice versa.
The point is that (A) and (B) are two different levels, or spheres, of understanding.

More than once, people have brought up a similar analogy of the "theory fighter with zero actual combat experience"
versus the street fighter with years of actual combat experience -- like the ball example, they too represent two different understandings.

Bantari, the river-monk analogy has a similar meaning to the ball analogy --
it's also about the intellectual understanding, and the mind-body understanding.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"?

_________________
Confucius in the Analects says "even playing go is better than eating chips in front of tv all day." -- kivi