Balanced Attack

[hyperpape]

I believe that the point of the enclosure is that it is strong, and therefore it becomes less valuable to play on the top side.

[SmoothOper]

I believe that the point of the enclosure is that it is strong, and therefore it becomes less valuable to play on the top side.

Well as enclosure's go maybe not the strongest, but I agree with the point about the value of play on the upper side, given the presence of the strong enclosure.

Also I would add that if black were to make a similar enclosure in the bottom right, he wouldn't be doing all that well against komi.

[SmoothOper]

Also for go there are certainly areas where principles and theory have high value, but playing strength isn't really one of them, IMO.

I think, to make a comparison, that playing go is not that different from, say, playing basketball. You could read all the books in the world on basketball theory, but if you then try to play it against a player who has been shooting hoops on the street all his life, you will quickly realise the value of practice over theory.

I think this belongs in another thread, but even in basketball practice there is a concept of strategy. You can practice three pointers for years, but what are you going to do when when you encounter a team that has practiced a 131 zone press, and you can't even get the ball in bounds before they steal it and shoot layups and score two or three baskets to your one, or a team that cleans the glass rebounding, so you never get a second chance shot. The point is that what teams do in practice is guided by two principles

A) What type of talent they have (height, strength, speed, depth, shooting, driving) and
B) what is the over arching strategy.

My favorite ball team is a good example they switched coaches from Anderson to Haith. Anderson played uptempo, and recruited fast players and in the preseason they spent most of their time doing conditioning exercises. Haith recruited re-bounders and they spend most of their time in the weight room. As it may relate to this thread there are teams that are more extreme than others in the style of play, and some may even prefer a balance, that acknowledges that certain situations will require different skills. IE what if zone press gets the ball out of bounds in a half court situation how they going to score so they can set up their press, or a dribble drive team plays a zone, etc. Same thing in go. Cho Chikun was considered a greedy territorial player, but also was known for his shinogi.

[Dusk Eagle]

I believe that the point of the enclosure is that it is strong, and therefore it becomes less valuable to play on the top side.

Well as enclosure's go maybe not the strongest, but I agree with the point about the value of play on the upper side, given the presence of the strong enclosure.

Also I would add that if black were to make a similar enclosure in the bottom right, he wouldn't be doing all that well against komi.

Actually, a similar enclosure by black in the bottom right is a good move. It strengthens black's corner and right side, and has been played quite frequently in pro games.

[SmoothOper]

I believe that the point of the enclosure is that it is strong, and therefore it becomes less valuable to play on the top side.

Well as enclosure's go maybe not the strongest, but I agree with the point about the value of play on the upper side, given the presence of the strong enclosure.

Also I would add that if black were to make a similar enclosure in the bottom right, he wouldn't be doing all that well against komi.

Actually, a similar enclosure by black in the bottom right is a good move. It strengthens black's corner and right side, and has been played quite frequently in pro games.

Yes and black even wins, 43% of the time.

[HermanHiddema]

Anderson played uptempo, and recruited fast players and in the preseason they spent most of their time doing conditioning exercises.

tsumego

Haith recruited re-bounders and they spend most of their time in the weight room.

tsumego.

This is exactly what I meant. There is theory, and it has value, but 90% of getting strong is not about theory, it is about doing the same things over and over and over again until you get it right. Practise, practise, practise!

But we should also realize that practise is, at its core, pretty boring. Most people don't like doing repetitive things. So we talk about strategy, and theory, and principles. Not because it'll get us strong in the fastest way possible, but because it is fun, because it is interesting, because we like it. And that's fine. That's what we are amateurs for (from French: amateur = "lover of"). We're in this game because we like it. And if theory is your passion, then by all means talk about it all you want. Because ultimately it helps you reach your goal in go: enjoying it.

[Mef]

My favorite ball team is a good example they switched coaches from Anderson to Haith. Anderson played uptempo, and recruited fast players and in the preseason they spent most of their time doing conditioning exercises. Haith recruited re-bounders and they spend most of their time in the weight room.

Slightly OT but....Mizzou?

[SmoothOper]

more like

Anderson played uptempo, and recruited fast players and in the preseason they spent most of their time doing conditioning exercises.

Memorize joseki

Haith recruited re-bounders and they spend most of their time in the weight room.

study tesuji.

This is exactly what I meant. There is theory, and it has value, but 90% of getting strong is not about theory, it is about doing the same things over and over and over again until you get it right. Practise, practise, practise!

But we should also realize that practise is, at its core, pretty boring. Most people don't like doing repetitive things. So we talk about strategy, and theory, and principles. Not because it'll get us strong in the fastest way possible, but because it is fun, because it is interesting, because we like it. And that's fine. That's what we are amateurs for (from French: amateur = "lover of"). We're in this game because we like it. And if theory is your passion, then by all means talk about it all you want. Because ultimately it helps you reach your goal in go: enjoying it.

Everyone talks about a Professional as if they were an oracle of the game. I am pretty sure this is not true and that professionals are very concerned about strategy

[HermanHiddema]

Everyone talks about a Professional as if they were an oracle of the game. I am pretty sure this is not true and that professionals are very concerned about strategy

Only in a practical sense. Professional strategy comes from reading and pattern recognition, not from theory. Professionals don't look at the board and think "urgent moves before big moves", "corners, sides, center" or "hane at the head of two". They look at the board, they recognize the interesting points through pattern recognition, they read out the trickier variations, they play.

In the same way, good basketball players are not thinking about theory. They're not playing by going through some sort of mental check-list. They see the options in a fraction of a second and decide by instinct. Instincts they've drilled into their subconscious through endless practise.

[lobotommy]

You ask for theory about thing you should practice through playing games. You just don't understand that your questions are asked wrong. In this topic you just simply ask: "is there a book about theory of some sort of playing reached by practice?". In go books there is simple statement for example about "balanced attack" then a practice example and voila, next topic. There is no deep theory behind all this stuff you ask. There is just a hard work.

I mentioned philosophy because (and it's just my presuposition based on your posts) you think that go theory has some great depths. No. It hasn't. The practice of go, the game itself - has depth, but not a theory itself. Theory will not solve any problems you have with your playing skills.

And yes, my degree is not PhD. Is it a problem for you? Have you any experience with european philosophy, cognitive science, philosophy of mind? Feel free to ask me prv about this stuff if you want to talk about it.

I’d like to quote HH from another thread. viewtopic.php?p=124258#p124258

Also for go there are certainly areas where principles and theory have high value, but playing strength isn't really one of them, IMO.

I think, to make a comparison, that playing go is not that different from, say, playing basketball. You could read all the books in the world on basketball theory, but if you then try to play it against a player who has been shooting hoops on the street all his life, you will quickly realise the value of practice over theory.

I edited my post you cited above and added a few words for clarification about what depth I was thinking there. I can't clarify this more at this moment, but needed to add this note to avoid being contradictory to myself. maybe I will open another topic about it

[Dusk Eagle]

Yes and black even wins, 43% of the time.

1. Be careful when dealing with small samples sizes. If the outcome of the game was completely random there would still be a 12% chance that black would win 37 or less games out of 86.

2. If we ignore the problem of small sample sizes and look only at the games where black makes a keima in the bottom right, we get a completely different picture.



Of course, I'm not going to pretend that this proves that white is at a disadvantage after this move, but I certainly disagree that this move is too slow or is a disadvantageous move for black.

[Mef]

In the same way, good basketball players are not thinking about theory.

It would seem that neither are most good golfers

The truth is that golf swings can't be taught, they can only be learned, and learning a swing by yourself has advantages. "The great thing about being self-taught is that you can correct yourself on the course," said Lee Trevino, the six-time major champion who has also never had a lesson

[golem7]

Everyone talks about a Professional as if they were an oracle of the game. I am pretty sure this is not true and that professionals are very concerned about strategy

Of course Pros are concerned about strategy. We all are. But you're missing the point. For making good strategical decisions you need to know the status of groups (thick, dead, alive, weak, strong, unsettled, light, cuttable, whatever). That way you can decide whether to tenuki, follow-up, direction of play in general. But therefore you need very good reading. And that is what practise (tsumego) is all about. If, say, you defend a group that was already alive or make attacks that don't threaten anything big, or don't work at all (because you cannot read it out), it's almost like a pass. Your opponent can tenuki and you'll lose a lot of points and/or momentum.

Your first diagram unfortunately shows that you cannot yet judge the status of groups accurately. White is clearly in a disadvantageous position. Black is making solid territory while white has two unsettled groups to look after. Please listen to the advice of others: tsumego will help you way more than musing about strategy which you cannot understand without proper reading. I'm not saying: don't study strategy. It helps, of course and can be fun, but it will only take you so far. Reading is the basis of everything. If you want to get stronger, that is.

[SmoothOper]

Everyone talks about a Professional as if they were an oracle of the game. I am pretty sure this is not true and that professionals are very concerned about strategy

Of course Pros are concerned about strategy. We all are. But you're missing the point. For making good strategical decisions you need to know the status of groups (thick, dead, alive, weak, strong, unsettled, light, cuttable, whatever). That way you can decide whether to tenuki, follow-up, direction of play in general. But therefore you need very good reading. And that is what practise (tsumego) is all about. If, say, you defend a group that was already alive or make attacks that don't threaten anything big, or don't work at all (because you cannot read it out), it's almost like a pass. Your opponent can tenuki and you'll lose a lot of points and/or momentum.

Your first diagram unfortunately shows that you cannot yet judge the status of groups accurately. White is clearly in a disadvantageous position. Black is making solid territory while white has two unsettled groups to look after. Please listen to the advice of others: tsumego will help you way more than musing about strategy which you cannot understand without proper reading. I'm not saying: don't study strategy. It helps, of course and can be fun, but it will only take you so far. Reading is the basis of everything. If you want to get stronger, that is.

OK, I will believe you that tsumego is necessary, if you can show me one example of a tsumego that arises out of a Chinese Fuseki.

[Mef]

OK, I will believe you that tsumego is necessary, if you can show me one example of a tsumego that arises out of a Chinese Fuseki.

Any tsumego? All right I'll take the low hanging fruit...

$$B Final result of a common invasion in the Chinese opening
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 7 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . X 4 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . 3 . 6 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 8 O . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X 1 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Final result of a common invasion in the Chinese opening
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 7 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . X 4 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . 3 . 6 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 8 O . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X 1 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Assume that in middle game black is able to seal white in by playing at the marked points. What is the status of the lower right group?