Life In 19x19

daal wrote:When I win it's because I got lucky, when I lose it's because I suck.

This is true for every other deterministic board game as well. In some sense, you can't be good at go; you can only be bad. A simple argument is to imagine that your opponent can play perfectly. No matter how good you are, you will not be able to win. So the only way you can win is getting lucky - your opponent made a mistake. Similarly, the only way for the opponent to win is when you make a mistake - you suck.

Of course perfect play is not achievable, but that doesn't make this argument academic. A review will highlight the mistakes you made. Reviews of pro games usually point out the move(s) that lost one of the players the game. The victory is never an accomplishment of the winner - it's the loser's fault.

This perspective makes go absolutely worthless as a self-esteem booster. If you win a lot, you are still awful; people you play against are just slightly more awful.

palapiku wrote:

daal wrote:When I win it's because I got lucky, when I lose it's because I suck.

This is true for every other deterministic board game as well. In some sense, you can't be good at go; you can only be bad. A simple argument is to imagine that your opponent can play perfectly. No matter how good you are, you will not be able to win. So the only way you can win is getting lucky - your opponent made a mistake. Similarly, the only way for the opponent to win is when you make a mistake - you suck.

Of course perfect play is not achievable, but that doesn't make this argument academic. A review will highlight the mistakes you made. Reviews of pro games usually point out the move(s) that lost one of the players the game. The victory is never an accomplishment of the winner - it's the loser's fault.

This perspective makes go absolutely worthless as a self-esteem booster. If you win a lot, you are still awful; people you play against are just slightly more awful.

Couldn't the same argument be turned the other way, except instead of using perfect play as our standard for "good" play (which, as a side note, is a rather high standard), we use a computer that fills up the first line, followed by the second line, etc. as our standard of "bad" play. Your win is guaranteed to come from being better. As well, reviews of pro games often also point out the "winning" move for the winner. I could say "the loss is never the fault of the loser, the other player just did something brilliant."

In reality, I don't think that's the case, but neither do I think the game is never an accomplishment of the winner either. You played better than your opponent, and therefore you won. Where's the lack of accomplishment in that?

I too feel like when I win, there's nothing to be impressed with, when I lose it's because I played terribly.

On the other hand, the four most famous moves I can think of are The Ear Reddening Move and Jowa's ghosts, not Fujisawa Shuko's blunders.

P.S. Then there's this monster which also came to mind when I thought of the most famous moves I know: http://senseis.xmp.net/?29thMeijinGame3Move31

I don't like Go in the sense that it laid bare all my shortcomings like laziness, impulsivity, eagerness, greed and so on. It's a game in which your true personality reflected so much.

As if the goban was just a mirror of your own soul. And that could be quite disturbing sometimes, especially when you like pretending you're the one you're not...

daniel_the_smith wrote:

BaghwanB wrote:Bruce "Rule 1 of pair go is never gripe at your partner (not kidding this time)" Young

The second rule of pair go is that you do NOT gripe at your PARTNER.

Edit: you gripe about them to others, afterwards, of course!

Well yes, that is a necessary function of any team game

But friends, please take this to heart. If you ever want to make someone STOP playing go, criticize (verbally or non) their pair-go play with you during a game. It's the fastest way to turn someone off of this game forever.

Bruce "That move was... novel" Young

Araban wrote:

1. It is a very unforgiving game. I can play my very best for 200 moves and stay ahead, but if I make one careless move I lose the game instantly, especially in L&D scenarios.

This times 100. It's so infuriating to blow a won game at the end, and this happens to me constantly.

Jedo wrote:

Araban wrote:

1. It is a very unforgiving game. I can play my very best for 200 moves and stay ahead, but if I make one careless move I lose the game instantly, especially in L&D scenarios.

This times 100. It's so infuriating to blow a won game at the end, and this happens to me constantly.

I'm not sure I follow this thought. It seems that a lot of people share the bias that a cause which immediately precedes the outcome of interest is qualitatively different than more remote causes... What's the difference between screwing up a corner on move 20 rather than move 200? What's the difference between losing 5 points in oyose versus losing 5 points in yose?

jts wrote:

Jedo wrote:

Araban wrote:

1. It is a very unforgiving game. I can play my very best for 200 moves and stay ahead, but if I make one careless move I lose the game instantly, especially in L&D scenarios.

This times 100. It's so infuriating to blow a won game at the end, and this happens to me constantly.

I'm not sure I follow this thought. It seems that a lot of people share the bias that a cause which immediately precedes the outcome of interest is qualitatively different than more remote causes... What's the difference between screwing up a corner on move 20 rather than move 200? What's the difference between losing 5 points in oyose versus losing 5 points in yose?

Actually, there's a quantitative difference too.

Screwing up one corner at the very beginning of the game, unless it's SUPER horrendous, is not yet 100% resignable (unless you're playing a 6d+, of course) as you just have to buckle down, make the game complicated, and outfight your opponent on the rest of the board. You've only lost totally 10-15% of the board; there's still another 85% left to contest.

In mathematical go terms (at least, if I understand them correctly) the way to win after a big loss is to raise the global temperature above the amount of points you lost in that corner, preferably for an extended period of time, as it would allow more chance for you to make the decisive high-value move before the game cools off again.

As the game progresses, there is less and less chance for complication, therefore fewer opportunities for extended temperature-raising. A 5 point mistake in the oyose from an even position is bad, but still playable (except against a pro) as there's a bit of opportunity left to set up extended sente sequences and such. A 5 point mistake in the late yose from an even position is time to resign if you're strong enough to be certain that you were at an even position before the mistake.

Araban wrote:

jts wrote:Would you prefer that we go back to playing black and white in alternation?

OMG OMG OMG. I love Batoo and I lost half my soul when it shut down. Those stones had orange inscriptions which I did not see when I played that game. Is it back?! If so where can I download, how do I sign up etc. etc. Please respond to this.

What I have about Go: It is not Batoo.

I like almost everything about go. Differences in rule sets sometimes come up and it is frustrating to think that those will probably never converge. It would be nice to be able to make an unqualified claim to newcomers that Go has simple rules but with the current state of affairs that's not possible.

You have to be careful what you wish for. Sometimes I wish it was considered cooler to play go. It would be fun to be able to walk into a bar and strike up conversation about go the way some people can with other sports. But if that really happened, then so many people would be playing that maybe I wouldn't be as interested in it any more. Still, I wouldn't mind getting some good coverage in English on TV.

snorri wrote:Sometimes I wish it was considered cooler to play go. It would be fun to be able to walk into a bar and strike up conversation about go the way some people can with other sports. But if that really happened, then so many people would be playing that maybe I wouldn't be as interested in it any more.

So you play go because it's obscure?

Araban wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Araban wrote:Same with triple ko.

If you worry about triple ko, why not worry about all complicated tactical situations?

It's not something I worry about, it's just something that strikes me as gimmicky.

A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

palapiku wrote:

snorri wrote:Sometimes I wish it was considered cooler to play go. It would be fun to be able to walk into a bar and strike up conversation about go the way some people can with other sports. But if that really happened, then so many people would be playing that maybe I wouldn't be as interested in it any more.

So you play go because it's obscure?

That's part of the allure, I guess, but not the only thing...

The only thing I dislike about Go are rules dispute, especially those involving Robert Jasiek

PROVOK3 wrote:OMG OMG OMG. I love Batoo and I lost half my soul when it shut down. Those stones had orange inscriptions which I did not see when I played that game. Is it back?! If so where can I download, how do I sign up etc. etc. Please respond to this.

I just wake up ! What's the problem with batoo ?