Ever wondered ....

[Dusk Eagle]

The football analogy is fundamentally flawed. In football, you score points and you keep them forever. In Go, points change all the time. Focusing on the center early in the game can make it easy to reduce a large amount of your opponent's territory to almost nothing or just invade it and live while giving your opponent very little in return for example. Or you may end up with a large area in the center. Or you may launch a severe attack on one or more of your opponent's weak groups and gain territory and take away his that way.

I am very confused as to why you aren't understanding this.

Splatted is 3k, NoSkill is 1d and illuck is 2d. You are 8k. This doesn't make them right and you wrong. However, don't you think you ought to consider what they are saying rather than attempting to teach them?

[moyoaji]

The football analogy is fundamentally flawed. In football, you score points and you keep them forever. In Go, points change all the time. Focusing on the center early in the game can make it easy to reduce a large amount of your opponent's territory to almost nothing or just invade it and live while giving your opponent very little in return for example. Or you may end up with a large area in the center. Or you may launch a severe attack on one or more of your opponent's weak groups and gain territory and take away his that way.

How is my analogy flawed? You can have score changes in football too. If you score one touchdown and afterwards your opponent scores two then you are behind. That is a score change, even if you didn't lose any points. How is a score change where you lose points fundamentally different from one where your opponent gains that many points (or one where you lose 5 points and your opponent gains 2 points different from your opponent gaining 7 points)?

Also, if you are counting it as territory it shouldn't be reducible. I'm talking about solid points, not frameworks with potential. When I was taught how to count I was told that you should only count points that are not reducible as territory - everything else is an estimate and needs to be considered only after you get the territory score. Solid territory can't be taken away where no matter what move your opponent makes you have a counter to stop them from reducing it. (Obviously mistakes happen, but if we are talking at a theoretical level you wouldn't count it if there was any workable reduction option for your opponent)

I know territorial strategies are not common anymore, but from my understand this is how they work when facing a moyo strategy: You make solid points in areas across the board, basically always starting in the corners, and then make sure you reduce whatever your opponent makes to be less than yours, then you win. Fighting will clearly be involved as your opponent won't want to lose, but if you win the fights you will still win the game even if you aren't emphasizing outside thickness. Sure, the fights will be harder, but you don't have to win hard, you only need to make sure you've reduced your opponent's frameworks down to a few points less than your solid territory.

Splatted is 3k, NoSkill is 1d and illuck is 2d. You are 8k. This doesn't make them right and you wrong. However, don't you think you ought to consider what they are saying rather than attempting to teach them?

Yeah, my wording on that sucked. I shouldn't have put it that way and I did not mean to imply that I was somehow educating anyone. I'm just trying to get my point across. What I meant was I didn't understand why they were talking about fighting when I was talking about points. These are related topics, but to say that go isn't about points is to say that any game where the winner is determined by points isn't about points. Points are everything in football, basketball, hockey, soccer, and go.

I've often heard it said that, in football, a good line is the key to victory. I can see that this is true, but to say that scoring points doesn't matter when compared to having a good front line that doesn't make any sense. You can have the #1 rated linemen in the country and still lose every single game because your team can't score points off of their work. In last year's college season Alabama used their huge front line to win game after game, so I will not argue that this doesn't work, but their QB and RB and WRs also need to be given credit for the success of their season because they scored the points (even if the front line did a lot of the heavy lifting). I could see this argument coming up on a sports forum where one person says "If Auburn scores an early touchdown against Alabama they can win." And then someone says, "You don't know what you are talking about. Early touchdowns don't win football games. Having a good front line does." Both people are actually making valid points, but they aren't talking about the same thing. This is why I am confused.

Yes, fighting is very important in go, possibly the most important skill, but if your fights don't gain you as much territory as your opponent you still lose. You can argue that someone can't be good at fighting and unable to turn it into good points, but I will direct you to this game: http://senseis.xmp.net/?ChoiCheolhanVLuoXihe2005SamsungCup Choi Chelohan wins a board-consuming fight against Luo Xihe, killing and capturing a 23 stone group only to lose the game because his opponent had too much territory. Watching a commentary on this game made me realize how true the statement "Go is a game of territory" is.

[NoSkill]

Okay im finally on a pc so I can respond better.

What we mean is that even pros admit that playing in the corners is not "better" as in the best moves. Pros will tell you, they do not play the best moves. They play the moves that will win. Playing in corners is good for pros because:

1. It limits variations
2. Already a lot of known variations
3. The point factor and number of stone logic does indeed back it up
4. To try something new like playing on the sides would be hard even if you had a good reason, because pros want to win. They don't care about playing the best, good moves. They care about winning their games. Their is a big difference. Read lessons in the fundamentals of go and you will see what he says.

So basically: Corners are not fr sure better, but noone really wants to try something crazy or innovative because of the high chance of failure from breaking the huge, long tradition, and also even if it WAS better, it would have to be consistently able to win against the time time and time perfected joseki to be used. Because all pros care about is winning. So say we find that .... some middle star poing is the BEST move in the opening. Pros won't use it until it gives them a better chance of winning than 4-4, and variations are innovated to make it simpler.




Now to our side argument: Points don't matter. Yes whoever has the most points wins. But over 50% of games are decided in kill or be killed fights. Then, every other game that is won by points is won by fighting, that gave points but noone died. Every game of go is decided by the opening fighting (joseki fighting, variations) if nothing dies/huge result there, mid game fighting (groups dieing, trade offs, points made off attacking), and if not there... then the small endgame fighting moves. You cannot sit down at a go board and think about trying to get 90 points in order to win. You don't think, yay 40 points by move 30.

You should be thinking: Who is controlling which parts of the board, what is the direction of each stone, what are the strong groups, weak groups, what are the aji, any other variations, where is the influence, what is the future going to hold, what is my long term game plan, and lastly what is his long term game plan.

Its about the fighting, the thinking, the struggle. Points are a result of the fighting, and points are a result of fighting. However if you focus on points you will lost your fights, focus on your fights and you wont lose in points if you fight correctly. If that makes sense to you .




But when I made this thread I was thinking as in: Say 500 years ago they had started with joseki in the middle of the board, had totally different joseki, tesuji/shape things, and different ideas about go. Like I mean just fundamentally different. You know how you look at shusaku go and it looks familiar, but kinda odd? Imagine that but to the extreme. Josekis being plyaed at side star points, or tengen. I think its like computers, once they get to be pro level they will play really odd looking to pros, but be just as good right? Go isnt as simple as "corners are always better".

[NoSkill]

Okay two more things:

1. Even if you play territorial and try to just reduce the opponent who is aggressive and influential, you are still going to have to fight. Invading is fighting, reducing is fighting, sabaki is fighting. Basically those things still decide the game right? Still fighting. You cannot play 100% passive and play for points and win. Therefore, the fighting is what makes the difference to win the game. Of course, its because you end up with more points...

2. Football is won by points. Yes. Playing for points doesn't win the game. You know what does? Im not expert, but im guessing its the plays themselves, the individual running plays, kicks, and passes. Sure you can have the perfect STRATEGY to win by points in football but you have to actually do the plays right? Same as in go. You can say points win, but you do the fights to get the points.

In football you execute plays correctly to get points, in go you fight to get points. Its all the same.

[Dusk Eagle]

Also, if you are counting it as territory it shouldn't be reducible. I'm talking about solid points, not frameworks with potential.

If you're talking about only purely solid points, then both the 3-4 and 4-4 don't make any, and thus can't really be compared to getting an early touchdown in football. Also, while it's true that when counting we'll often stick to the solid points to determine who's ahead in territory, even what is considered solid territory can often end up getting reduced later on. Ways this can happen is by ignoring a move by your opponent, having a fight run near to the territory, having to ignore a ko threat in the area, etc.

[paK0]

Okay im finally on a pc so I can respond better.

What we mean is that even pros admit that playing in the corners is not "better" as in the best moves. Pros will tell you, they do not play the best moves.

I would assume those are somewhat interchangeable.

Yes, if one is ahead he will try to avoid complications and keep it simple, but whenever one player has that mentality the other is likely behind and should will probably push for moves like those.

I also don't buy the whole "I think its better but I won't play it argument". I'm sure the fact that corner openings are well researched is a factor, but if a pro would seriously believe that another opening move would give him a better chance to win he would play it. Yes, he would research it first and run it through test games, but at some point he would use it in a real game and reap the benefits of the knowledge that he has.

The fact that other opening moves are not implemented means either:
1: Pros looked at them and dismissed them because they are inferior.
2: They are about the same in strength and are dismissed because they are less well researched
3: They are better than the existing moves, but pros don't use them


Now which of the three sounds the least likely?

[NoSkill]

Pako I think you dont have much knowledge of professional go. Every 20 years a new opening move becomes popular and an old one gets outdated, same with joseki. If you think pros have researched every opening move other than the corner ones and found them ineffective, how come they cannot even research joseki so that their joseki doesn't become outdated?

Basically pros don't know anything for sure. They say this joseki is fine etc, 50 years later its slow. They thought 4-4 wasn't good 100 years ago, now look at what is played.

The pros will admit to you if you ask, they are not sure that 4-4, 3-4, etc are the best, but to their knowledge that is the move that gives them a better chance. Because its easy, simple, limits variations, they know the josekis, etc.

Like you said, if they KNEW say 7-4 was better they would play it, but no research is really being done on that. Maybe by a few pros, but 99% of pros are researching 4-4 and 3-4 joseki. Why do you think we keep replacing like every 4-4 joseki every 5 years? It is because they are doing heavy research on it.


I think within 100 years it could be possible 5-5 or something else is played more often. What we think of 5-5 is essentially what people 100 years ago thought of 4-4.


As I said, pros are good, but they do not know everything. They know how to win and play go, but they do not know what move is the best in the opening, and don't always play the best moves.

[quantumf]

Watching a commentary on this game made me realize how true the statement "Go is a game of territory" is.

As others have said, I'd like to stress that go is primarily about fighting, and only secondarily about territory. On this topic, I always point people to this great online book about go: http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Ch1.html, that says in huge bold letters: "As a result, perhaps the major key to making appropriate strategic decisions lies in understanding that:
Go Is A Fighting Game"

[paK0]

Pako I think you dont have much knowledge of professional go. Every 20 years a new opening move becomes popular and an old one gets outdated, same with joseki. If you think pros have researched every opening move other than the corner ones and found them ineffective, how come they cannot even research joseki so that their joseki doesn't become outdated?

Basically pros don't know anything for sure. They say this joseki is fine etc, 50 years later its slow. They thought 4-4 wasn't good 100 years ago, now look at what is played.

The pros will admit to you if you ask, they are not sure that 4-4, 3-4, etc are the best, but to their knowledge that is the move that gives them a better chance. Because its easy, simple, limits variations, they know the josekis, etc.

Like you said, if they KNEW say 7-4 was better they would play it, but no research is really being done on that. Maybe by a few pros, but 99% of pros are researching 4-4 and 3-4 joseki. Why do you think we keep replacing like every 4-4 joseki every 5 years? It is because they are doing heavy research on it.


I think within 100 years it could be possible 5-5 or something else is played more often. What we think of 5-5 is essentially what people 100 years ago thought of 4-4.


As I said, pros are good, but they do not know everything. They know how to win and play go, but they do not know what move is the best in the opening, and don't always play the best moves.

Research is usually done because someone believes there is a reason for it to exist.

I'm not saying they know everything, but I firmly believe that if they would think than another opening move would be better then they would put the time in and research that. Obviously they can't consider every possible opening, but I guess a lot of the opening moves that have potential have been explored to some extend, and the ones that we don't see have been dismissed for one reason or another(so if we see a new opening move its probably more likely that its a move that has been considered before and has been given a new twist, rather than a completely new invented move).

[Splatted]

Research is usually done because someone believes there is a reason for it to exist.

I'm not saying they know everything, but I firmly believe that if they would think than another opening move would be better then they would put the time in and research that. Obviously they can't consider every possible opening, but I guess a lot of the opening moves that have potential have been explored to some extend, and the ones that we don't see have been dismissed for one reason or another(so if we see a new opening move its probably more likely that its a move that has been considered before and has been given a new twist, rather than a completely new invented move).

Unfortunately I can't remember the source, but I once watched an interview with a pro who talked about the aims of study groups. He explained that finding a better move was just a one off advantage because once it's been used in a public match everyone else will have studied it too, and so the goal of these groups is not so much to find the best moves, but to find new moves that will put them in a situation that their opponents haven't studied and they have. A new type of opening might be one way of doing this, but I imagine it would also take a lot more work than slightly deviating from a standard sequence and the advantage would be just as short lived.

[snorri]

I think it is possible. If 19x19 is solved or, for example, computers become much stronger than pros, it could be that games will arise that are very strong but are quite different from modern pro games. On direction is incredible vulgarity: like in life&death, sometimes the answer is a move that normally would be bad shape but works in this specific case. So I can imagine that the strongest go would include many one-off moves that only work in that particular game because of some specific tactical situations. (It's like the joke: what's the difference between a Japanese joseki and a Korean jungsuk? Answer: In the Japanese joseki, each player gets an equally good result. In the Korean jungsuk, each player gets an equally bad result. )

Another possibility is mind-bogglingly boring, peaceful games---perhaps a single pushing battle dividing up the board into two parts with no contesting or invasion as it might be analyzed that it is futile.

[paK0]

Research is usually done because someone believes there is a reason for it to exist.

I'm not saying they know everything, but I firmly believe that if they would think than another opening move would be better then they would put the time in and research that. Obviously they can't consider every possible opening, but I guess a lot of the opening moves that have potential have been explored to some extend, and the ones that we don't see have been dismissed for one reason or another(so if we see a new opening move its probably more likely that its a move that has been considered before and has been given a new twist, rather than a completely new invented move).

Unfortunately I can't remember the source, but I once watched an interview with a pro who talked about the aims of study groups. He explained that finding a better move was just a one off advantage because once it's been used in a public match everyone else will have studied it too, and so the goal of these groups is not so much to find the best moves, but to find new moves that will put them in a situation that their opponents haven't studied and they have. A new type of opening might be one way of doing this, but I imagine it would also take a lot more work than slightly deviating from a standard sequence and the advantage would be just as short lived.

Its not really about surprise value, but a move that gives an objective advantage over what we have now. Right now the pros play 4-4 because they think its good, noone is like:"Yeah, I'll open 4-4, my opponent will never see that coming".

I think it is possible. If 19x19 is solved or, for example, computers become much stronger than pros, it could be that games will arise that are very strong but are quite different from modern pro games. On direction is incredible vulgarity: like in life&death, sometimes the answer is a move that normally would be bad shape but works in this specific case. So I can imagine that the strongest go would include many one-off moves that only work in that particular game because of some specific tactical situations. (It's like the joke: what's the difference between a Japanese joseki and a Korean jungsuk? Answer: In the Japanese joseki, each player gets an equally good result. In the Korean jungsuk, each player gets an equally bad result. )

Another possibility is mind-bogglingly boring, peaceful games---perhaps a single pushing battle dividing up the board into two parts with no contesting or invasion as it might be analyzed that it is futile.

I think the first version is quite likely, but it may take some time until we are there. One of the top chess players once said he hates to play against computers, its like playing an idiot that always wins^^.

[Wasiqi]

I think an interesting question to ask is how is Chess different from Go. I'm not really knowledgable about such things but how do computers evaluate a situation like ko? How do computers perform positional judgement?

I think Chess has some clear fundamental advantages in regards to computing in comparison to Go. Just the search space alone is much much smaller. I'm reminded of this article

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008047

If you look at the hardware requirements needed to solve that opening, it seems like quite a bit.

I imagine it would be possible to solve an opening like san ren sei but at what computational cost?

While this isn't to say that some relatively strong Go computer programs don't exist or can't exist, what would be the source of their strength? Tactical calculation?

I wonder how computer Go treats the opening? Does it just copy known openings?

[judicata]

Someone should condense this into a few questions and ask Takemiya what he thinks at the upcoming US Go Congress.

[wineandgolover]

Someone should condense this into a few questions and ask Takemiya what he thinks at the upcoming US Go Congress.

And he will say, "Play the move you want to play," like he always does*. He likes people to play moves that feel right to them and make them happy. That's his schtick.

I wonder if software "wants" to play a move?



*always = the last two Congresses he attended.