Is it possible to play Go without strategy?

[skydyr]

My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.

I think that what they are saying is that they may come up with an idea, like 'drive these stones here' or 'split these groups and attack the one that doesn't get reinforced', but in order to decide on that as way to play, they first read to make sure that it works, as far as they can read. If they don't read it, they don't know if it's a valid plan; then it's not a strategy to them, it's a prayer.

[Polama]

Strategy is an old word, it has many different connotations. One of them is just the reasoning behind your moves, and seems to be the one you prefer. That's valid, and yes, we all have a strategy in that sense of the word.

Another valid connotation of strategy is a global aim, to contrast with tactics, the local decisions. In that view, it can be argued that some people use negligible strategy, making good local shape without thinking or looking at the rest of the board. As a thought experiment, we could imagine taking a 9x9 square of a board, centered on the other player's last move and sending it to a different professional each turn. I'm willing to bet they could win against at least a 8kyu with literally zero global information.

A third connotation being used is that strategic is usually a positive term, that 'strategy' without any modifier means 'good strategy'. In that view, adding reinforcing stones to living groups or playing close to walls isn't strategy because it creates losses. This is the connotation where oracles become relevant to the discussion, because what a move actually accomplished dictates if it was 'strategic'.

Strategy is a way to consider something less than simply every possible combination of legal moves while deciding how to play the next move, in this case a random strategy considers no moves.

Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good.

That being said in any one of these strategies, only a small set of tsumego/tesuji will occur, they may be different, for each but only a small set will occur.

I think these three quotes show where the conversation is getting lost. "a small set of tesuji apply to each strategy" is an extreme claim, and can seemingly only be true with a very restrictive definition of strategy. The vast majority of strategies involve 'find life for weak groups, kill the enemy groups if it's possible and profitable, keep connected, disconnect my opponent's stones'. And each of those could be accomplished in a huge number of ways: maybe a squeeze kills a group, maybe nakade, maybe patting-the-racoons-belly. So from your thesis, we expect you to argue for some definition of strategy that would exclude most situations from the board. But instead you argue that strategy is just how you choose to play the game. So given that definition, why do you think each strategy only has a small set of relevant tesuji and tsumego?

[SmoothOper]

My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.

I think that what they are saying is that they may come up with an idea, like 'drive these stones here' or 'split these groups and attack the one that doesn't get reinforced', but in order to decide on that as way to play, they first read to make sure that it works, as far as they can read. If they don't read it, they don't know if it's a valid plan; then it's not a strategy to them, it's a prayer.

The way it comes across is "We don't need no strategy all we need is reading, tsumego is the only thing that will make you stronger, some pros can do strategy but everyone else only needs tsumego, and we don't want you to talk strategy either , and play on the hoshi's while you're at it"

I think some people have had their plans ruined one too many times .

[xed_over]

it seems to me that comparing strategy with tsumego, is like comparing trip planning to driving skills.

• strategy is like mapping out the trip (and along the way you may have to take a detour or two, despite your planning)
• tsumego is like knowing how to stay safely on the road before you get there (avoiding the potholes, parked cars, and people trying to run you off the road)

[ez4u]

SmoothOper, the discussion seems difficult when you have a definition of the word strategy that appears to be difficult to all the other contributors so far

So back to the leaky bridge after all?

[oren]

tsumego is like knowing how to stay safely on the road before you get there (avoiding the potholes, parked cars, and people trying to run you off the road)

So our games are trying to push each other into potholes. I like it.

[illluck]

Uberdude, play nicely, let's not start this thread with antagonism

I think I'm going to add "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything" into my signature

...

SmoothOper, the discussion seems difficult when you have a definition of the word strategy that appears to be difficult to all the other contributors so far

You haven't had the pleasure of reading the OP's other... posts, I presume?

[lemmata]

Another way to look at it, is that the tsumego don't occur because they read out the results and found more profitable ways to play

The exclusive use of the term tsumego, as opposed to the more general term "reading", and a very narrow definition of it is being deployed here as a straw man.

• Tsumego is relevant to the game even when a problem does not appear explicitly on the board. This is especially true when "more profitable ways to play" are more profitable because an invasion will die. The tsumego may not have occurred on the board, but it occurred in the player's mind and it was relevant to his decision.
• Tsumego is not just about killing but how to kill and how many points we get by killing. This is also relevant to calculation of profit.
• Reading out sequences to surround, connect, disconnect, escape, are all skills relevant to not only tsumego but also to all other aspects of the game.

The way it comes across is "We don't need no strategy all we need is reading, tsumego is the only thing that will make you stronger, some pros can do strategy but everyone else only needs tsumego, and we don't want you to talk strategy either, and play on the hoshi's while you're at it"

Let's dispose of this straw man, too. Perhaps you are using it unintentionally. Most of us do not think that strategy is unnecessary or unimportant. However, there is one central message that is being echoed by your detractors in this thread: Good strategy is built upon the foundations of good reading and counting. Reading is a broad category that captures the ability to imagine sequences of play in one's head and evaluate their results. Tesuji and tsumego are major components of reading. Counting also requires some reading because what territory can be reasonably expected from a position needs to consider the aji of its shape (e.g., Can it be invaded? If not, can a reduction and invasion be made miai?).

Strategy is a way to consider something less than simply every possible combination of legal moves while deciding how to play the next move, in this case a random strategy considers no moves.

This is actually a somewhat reasonable definition of strategy. However, it also raises reasonable suspicion about the motives behind your postings. Under that definition, the answer to your original question is an emphatic no. Consider how pointless the following question sounds when we plug in your definition.

Is it possible to play Go without [a way to consider something less than simply every possible combination of legal moves while deciding how to play the next move]?

In light of the posts that follow it, the most charitable interpretation of this question is that this definition of strategy entered into your head after rather than before you asked your original question. In other words, you either

• used poor wording (as you did in another thread, where you used "attack" as a synonym for strategy)
• or didn't really understand what you wanted to ask in the first place.

These are not sins. Even if you are truly trolling as many suspect you are, I don't think that it is good for us to get emotional toward you or have take the sophomoric attitude of viewing this as amusing entertainment. However, you should understand that there are good reasons for why people continue to be puzzled by your posts.

Peace. Over and out

[Phelan]

That is why I find the whole prospect so perplexing but so many peoples arguments either rely on reading to the end of the game or having access to some professional Oracle

It is only perplexing because you use a definition that is not shared by anyone else in he conversations you have. Similarly I could say that strategy is "playing left handed, but only after making a prime number of passes where that prime number is also greater than your opponent's age." I then could be dumbfounded that this is an abstract strategy game that no one in recorded history has ever used strategy to play! Of course, it would be better to simply try and figure out what others are referring to when they say strategy.

Are you suggesting that I should simply accept that reading out every possible combination of moves is a valid strategy for playing Go as well as consulting professional Oracles and maybe psychic readers too?

Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good. My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.

Perfect strawman. 10 out 10. You even nailed the landing.

[Phelan]

"Is it possible to play Go without strategy?" Yes, by playing legal random moves.

The more interesting question, of course, is: "Is it possible to play strong Go without strategy?" Apart from the variety of possible definitions of "strategy" and apart from subconscious replacements for strategy, the answer is: No. It is "No." because strategy-free tactics is simply computationally too complex for decision-making. At the very least, one needs low-level strategy (or related subconscious thinking) for filtering "obviously" uninteresting moves quickly, using a strategy like "First identify and throw away all uninteresting moves, then use tactics and the like for only the interesting moves."

Well, you didn't really define what you're considering for "strong" here, so I'm assuming 3 dan and above that. I don't believe you can play above 1 dan without using strategy and win. Below that, I think it's possible, but impractical, since you need pretty good reading skills to predict moves globally without using strategic advice. I may be wrong.

[ez4u]

... or ...take the sophomoric attitude of viewing this as amusing entertainment...

Heh, don't go and spoil my fun! Otherwise, spot on.

[hyperpape]

In most tsumego, you only consider a fraction of the possible moves, so by that definition, solving a tsumego is a way to practice strategy.

Beyond that point, I think it all depends on what your idea of strategy is. If you're thinking "he played low, so this side isn't interesting, I won't play in it", then I think it's true that both almost every player who reaches dan level has some conception of these issues, but that awareness of them isn't the big determinant of strength.

There's also a distinction between style and strategy. I play very territorially. You might call that a strategy, but I tend to think of it as a style, because I don't think of it as a way to win. I don't think "if I can control four corners, I have the key to victory." Rather, there are just a lot of times when it comes to decide where to play, and my gut reaction is usually to play on the third line, invade corners, solidify and reinforce territory, and so on. When I win or lose, it's because the territories I made were big enough, or I could reduce or invade deeply enough. Was it because my strategy failed? Sometimes, you might say that, because I took a bad trade, didn't realize in time that my opponent would have a big moyo, etc, etc. But there's no short summary of that strategy, beyond "make sure you end up with more territory than him."

There are more sophisticated professional strategies that are related (amashi), but I can't claim to be doing that. I just like territory.

[SmoothOper]

There's also a distinction between style and strategy.

Style follows from strategy like form follows function.

[topazg]

I think you miss the point. I most definitely play with a strategy every time I play a game. Sometimes I have short term goals, sometimes long, sometimes I decide a strategy early on, sometimes it only occurs to me half way through the game.

I greatly enjoy discussion about strategy in Go, because to me it's the most interesting aspect of the game. However, if it was normally defined the way you define it, it wouldn't be a very interesting aspect of the game to me, and I'd end up having to coin a term for what I can currently call strategy (which I'm glad not to need to right now under the basis that it seems consistent with other people's usage).

In no way do I avoid demoting the strategic aspect of Go in favour of tsumego and reading, I just find your definition of the word strategy of little practical value.

[Annihilist]

Is it possible to play Go without strategy? Yes.

Is it possible to play Go well without strategy? Unlikely.