Life In 19x19

I've learned some great stuff from Contact Fights, but sometimes (often!) I wonder if a situation is a contact fight or not. Does anybody have some principles they can give me?

saxmaam wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:You are not the one with sente in that example. The opponent threatens the cut (playing sente) you defend, while losing 1 liberty. Since it's again opp's turn, he has still sente and you lost a liberty.

So the text is just in error, then?

I don't know the example, but it is not that the text is in error, it is that English is inexact. It may be that you can take gote to create a liberty, but your opponent can prevent you from doing so in sente. If she does, then we may say that you lost a liberty in sente, when you only lost a potential liberty in sente. As a rule, we assume that sente plays are made and answered, so we do not count such potential liberties at all.

For example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . X O O X . .
$$ . . X C C X . .
$$ . . X W W X . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . . . . . . .[/go]

The blank area indicates that we do not know what is there, nor is it relevant to our question. (If it were, we would show it. )

How many liberties do the stones have on the points? At first glance it appears to be 2. But appearances can be deceiving. If White must connect the stones in the bamboo joint, we anticipate this exchange (or its mirror).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . X O O X . .
$$ . . X 1 2 X . .
$$ . . X W W X . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . . . . . . .[/go]

So the right liberty count is 0.

If White does not need to connect, then the liberty count is 2.

¿Es claro?

saxmaam wrote:So the loss was mine, but the state (sente) belonged to my opponent. It'll take me some time to get my head around that.

The apparent loss was yours, but in the phrase, "in sente", sente belonged to the sequence of play. In the sequence your opponent made the first play (sente) while you made the last play (gote). First play and last play are the basic meanings of sente and gote. A sente sequence is one in which one player makes the first play and the other player makes the last play. A gote sequence is one in which the same player makes the first and last play.

Bill, thanks for contributing here. Both of your replies are helpful.

Do you have anything to say about the following question? I understand that contact fights are mainly a feature of the middle game.

saxmaam wrote:I've learned some great stuff from Contact Fights, but sometimes (often!) I wonder if a situation is a contact fight or not. Does anybody have some principles they can give me?

saxmaam wrote:Does anybody have some principles they can give me?

I also like Bruce's Contact Fights a lot.
In it, he already gave beginners many "guidelines," and "principles."

Now you need to play serious games, and have them reviewed.
Either here or on KGS, etc.

Principles and guidelines could be useful for beginners,
or at "beginning stages," which we repeatedly encounter
when we are introduced to new ideas, strategies, and techniques, etc.
But principles are also a double-edged sword:
eventually they may become a trap or hindrance.
Eventually, we must free our mind of them.

Contact fights can happen any time, anywhere,
even as early as . Or as late as 200.
Strictly speaking, as soon as you make any contact
with an enemy stone, it's a contact fight — HOWEVER,
the importance and significance of the contact depends
on the specific board. That's why guidelines only
go so far: we must always look at the exact position,
and decide what to do case by case.

So, after you have studied Contact Fights a bit,
you need direct experience. I seem to remember
Bruce explicitly mentioned in his lessons somewhere
that you must stop and play some games before
you should proceed to the next section. Do it.

Hi saxmaam, see also post 36 of this thread.

In particular,

leichtloeslich wrote:To me this sounds suspiciously like the stories of Chinese kids playing on 19x19 and having no real idea about fuseki, josekis, etc. but totally crushing Westerners who can't defend themselves against the advanced fighting skills of these children.

Basically I think these secondary skills (fuseki, joseki, "strategy") are much overrated in the West

In other words, to repeat: theory and principles are OK, but only up to a point.

EdLee wrote:

saxmaam wrote:So, after you have studied Contact Fights a bit,
you need direct experience. I seem to remember
Bruce explicitly mentioned in his lessons somewhere
that you must stop and play some games before
you should proceed to the next section. Do it.

I'm playing, Ed. That's how I know I have questions.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Susan

saxmaam wrote:I'm playing, Ed. That's how I know I have questions.

Hi Susan, that's good, and you're welcome.

The next step is to review your games.

Adults like to look for guidelines, proverbs, and principles, etc.
Little kids don't: they just play and play and get tons of experience
from actual Go combats, and they improve their reading skills,
shape skills, tesuji skills, life-and-death skills, etc.
This is how children can improve so quickly (and of course,
thanks to their amazing brain.)

What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ? Exactly what leichtloeslich observed
in his post (above).

EdLee wrote:What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ?

Back when I was playing seriously, my favorite opponents were the street fighter types. Why? Because I could count on them to make overplays.

Bill Spight wrote:

EdLee wrote:What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ?

Back when I was playing seriously, my favorite opponents were the street fighter types. Why? Because I could count on them to make overplays.

I used to hate those types of players and would respond badly. Then I loved them because they were making obvious bad moves I could take advantage of. Then I hated them again because they got better. Rinse and repeat.

EdLee wrote:

saxmaam wrote:What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ? Exactly what leichtloeslich observed
in his post (above).

This reminds me of something I learned when I was interested in Meyers-Briggs personality assessment. One facet of the categorization was to characterize people as "sensing" types or "intuitive" types, and of course it's a spectrum. I haven't read those books in years, but here's something I took away: For the sensing type, the details are paramount. The particulars of particular situations are the ultimate truth. For intuitive types, understanding is found in the patterns and principles of situations taken as an ensemble.

Abyssinica wrote:I used to hate those types of players and would respond badly. Then I loved them because they were making obvious bad moves I could take advantage of. Then I hated them again because they got better. Rinse and repeat.

Yes to both Bill and Abyss. Indeed, rinse and repeat.

saxmaam wrote:the details are paramount.

Hi Susan, yep, in Go the details are paramount.

EdLee wrote:

saxmaam wrote:the details are paramount.

Hi Susan, yep, in Go the details are paramount.

I knew you'd say that.

I guess I'm that "street fighter" type of player.

Are there really that few of us on L19? I think most of the people I see posting have an eye towards principles ...