Both strategy and tactics rely completely on the player's strength of both theory and reading. A debate about how best to emphasise time spent on strategy or tactics would look very different to a debate of time spent on theory or reading - Which is this thread supposed to be about?
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:04 am
by Kirby
Perhaps I am arguing for reading rather than "tactics". I sometimes associate go strategy with go theory. Maybe I'm the only one that does that. I never really called what I do in a game "tactics", either. I just think that reading is most important.
One thing that also comes to mind, though, is that I don't think that we have to separate what people seem to be describing as "tactics" and "strategy".
Part of your local reading should include the global outcome as well. So if you truly are reading well locally (is this what people mean by "tactically"?), you should get a good result globally as well.
I think that good reading cannot omit trying to get a locally good result - if this is what tactics are, and that good reading also cannot omit trying to get a globally good result.
Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?
So maybe my talk about how one's time is spent (doing problems or studying go theory) is a bit off topic. But aside from that, I believe that good reading does not require a distinction between "strategy" and "tactics".
Re: Seeking opinion about books
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:16 am
by topazg
flOvermind wrote:
daniel_the_smith wrote:Who says reading can't be global?
Then please tell me, a or b? And please show me the sequence that tells you why.
Strategically, the decision is relatively easy (of course after reading out both sequences). But I have no idea how I would continue to read globally to reach a conclusion without using strategic principles...
Easy? I never find it easy
How about the next two slightly altered positions?
Yeah, sure, you can make positions where it's not that easy to tell even strategically. But you completely missed my point, and you didn't answer my question
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:53 am
by Monadology
Kirby wrote:Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?
Because it is very unhelpful not to make the distinction. The example you gave shows where it is most useful, in fact.
If someone came to you with a game of theirs and their tactics were excellent but they were not considering the whole board simply saying "Well, I suggest learning to read better" is far too vague.
On the other hand pointing out that the player's consideration of the whole board is lacking, pointing out mistakes in this regard, and suggesting problems or drills to help them improve that part of is game is much more helpful. And "strategy" is simply a shorthand way of referring to that kind of consideration.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:15 am
by topazg
flOvermind wrote:Yeah, sure, you can make positions where it's not that easy to tell even strategically. But you completely missed my point, and you didn't answer my question
I'm not sure I did. In your example, I'd pick "b" on strategic considerations. However, even those are not easy to decide on. One of the key aspects of the position is increasing the settled-ness of the weakness that 2 two-point jumps on the third line have, as well as the high or low placement of the stone on the right, and the development of White in the lower right corner. Also, sente-gote makes a huge difference here. I was disagreeing with your statement "Strategically, the decision is relatively easy", because even in your proposed position, "b" is not completely obvious (and I would not stake my life on it being right either).
My two further examples were illustrating that out of textbook, things are even harder. Interestingly, "a" doesn't become much less weak or more strong with the two positions I have shown, but it affects the value of "b" considerably.
For those following to whom the sequence may not be obvious, the following is the likely outcomes:
Head hurting? Mine is. All of this I have a fair expectation due to theory and experience, and I see these positions in a second or two without playing moves out, but it still doesn't necessarily help with my decision making
Interestingly, one of my proposals was because it leads to the following if you block at "a", which has some crazy aji in the diagram below at "a":
My point so far has been that I didn't read any of these. I am familiar enough with the sequences that I simply expect the end outcome and assess the final position, and take the one that strategically I like the flavour of better. That's not to say reading isn't important, as I have done a lot of trial and error and reading to know what works and what doesn't in these positions, but essentially by this stage it has moved from reading into theory, and I only have to read when suddenly White goes and throws some annoying curve-ball half way through the sequence
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:20 am
by ethanb
Kirby wrote:Perhaps I am arguing for reading rather than "tactics". I sometimes associate go strategy with go theory. Maybe I'm the only one that does that. I never really called what I do in a game "tactics", either. I just think that reading is most important.
One thing that also comes to mind, though, is that I don't think that we have to separate what people seem to be describing as "tactics" and "strategy".
Part of your local reading should include the global outcome as well. So if you truly are reading well locally (is this what people mean by "tactically"?), you should get a good result globally as well.
I think that good reading cannot omit trying to get a locally good result - if this is what tactics are, and that good reading also cannot omit trying to get a globally good result.
Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?
So maybe my talk about how one's time is spent (doing problems or studying go theory) is a bit off topic. But aside from that, I believe that good reading does not require a distinction between "strategy" and "tactics".
Hope I'm not one of the people you thought was argumentative with you, and I'm sorry if I was.
But I think the point you're missing in this is that you haven't said how you decide WHAT to read... THAT is strategy (although I suppose it could be heuristics, depending on how you interpret my statement... but hopefully the following makes the distinction clearer)
Do you want thickness or territory? Why? Where? What direction? How long do you have to read to figure that out? Don't you ever play blitz?
Even ideally good reading will not necessarily get a good strategic result unless one posits an arbitrarily long length of time in which to read - given until the current estimate of the heat death of the universe, a computer should be able to brute force its way through the last 2/3 or so of a 19x19 game. Most of us don't have that long, and we'd like to play the opening as well.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:27 am
by Kirby
ethanb wrote:...
But I think the point you're missing in this is that you haven't said how you decide WHAT to read... THAT is strategy (although I suppose it could be heuristics, depending on how you interpret my statement... but hopefully the following makes the distinction clearer)
...
I don't think I'm missing this point - this is why I said that experience is important. You can call it "strategy" if you'd like. I just don't make that distinction.
I think that if you only do a ton of go problems, and then play a lot of games, you will pick up all the skills you need.
I don't think that worry about what is "strategy" and what is "tactics" is really relevant. The important thing is that you must improve your reading. Experience in actual games also helps you.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:52 am
by Monadology
Kirby wrote:I think that if you only do a ton of go problems, and then play a lot of games, you will pick up all the skills you need.
This is most likely true.
But sometimes people hit a wall developing a skill and need to isolate their weaknesses in order to practice them. Perhaps by paying extra attention to the issue in the games they play, or looking for problems that will help them develop there. Some people find certain aspects of the game more interesting than others. Some people simply like a structured syllabus of study.
In all these cases making distinctions is helpful. Just because the distinction isn't strictly necessary doesn't mean it isn't helpful.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:03 am
by flOvermind
topazg wrote:And just in case that isn't enough, what about the continuations of this second one?
Head hurting? Mine is. All of this I have a fair expectation due to theory and experience, and I see these positions in a second or two without playing moves out, but it still doesn't necessarily help with my decision making
Interestingly, one of my proposals was because it leads to the following if you block at "a", which has some crazy aji in the diagram below at "a":
My point so far has been that I didn't read any of these. I am familiar enough with the sequences that I simply expect the end outcome and assess the final position, and take the one that strategically I like the flavour of better. That's not to say reading isn't important, as I have done a lot of trial and error and reading to know what works and what doesn't in these positions, but essentially by this stage it has moved from reading into theory, and I only have to read when suddenly White goes and throws some annoying curve-ball half way through the sequence
Reading these, or just knowing them by heart, doesn't really make that much of a difference. It's still what I would consider tactics. Actually, your post is full of examples of what I meant when I wrote you can't separate tactics and strategy. You can't really make a strategical decision without reading these diagrams out. But then you have to decide whether these diagrams are good or bad.
For example, the first diagram in your hidden part:
Yeah, sure, big moyo. But is it big enough, considering the amount of stones invested? As it stands now, I'd rather have a single stone at the star point instead of the two marked stones. Or perhaps none at all. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the star point stone on the right side is doing... I wouldn't consider that position a success. Actually, that is exactly the position I had in mind when I constructed the initial position, and the reason why I considered it relatively easy to see strategically why this is the wrong direction.
This kind of reasoning is what I consider strategic. If all you can do is read ahead, you couldn't come to that conclusion. Of course, if you can't read ahead up to the position in your diagram, you couldn't come to that conclusion either. The point is, you always need both.
Disclaimer: I'm no pro, and it could be that my strategic reasoning is completely wrong. But that's beside the point. Better have a plan that's wrong than not have a plan at all and just play any move
Re: Seeking opinion about books
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:31 am
by daniel_the_smith
flOvermind wrote:
daniel_the_smith wrote:Who says reading can't be global?
Then please tell me, a or b? And please show me the sequence that tells you why.
Strategically, the decision is relatively easy (of course after reading out both sequences). But I have no idea how I would continue to read globally to reach a conclusion without using strategic principles...
I'm not sure, but I read out the following two likely positions and compare them:
The first one seems slightly better. In a game I would consider tenukiing to approach the lower right corner-- if he ignores I get a double approach, otherwise the second diagram above becomes the better way to play.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:02 am
by tapir
Numsgil wrote:
palapiku wrote:The stronger I get (4k now), the more I am convinced that the best way to improve, at least until dan level, is by improving your reading.
Doing other stuff might be more fun, and it might get you a little stronger, but it kinda misses the point of what go is all about. And it gives you a false confidence of thinking you know what you're doing. This held me back for a long time.
Any strategic considerations you need you will very quickly learn by getting a couple of your games reviewed by stronger players.
I routinely win games against stronger tactical fighters by out maneuvering them strategically. That pretty much describes every game I play anymore on KGS. Don't underestimate the power of strategy. You can play really passively locally and still win a game if you manage to direct your opponent in useful ways (yeah, you lost a group, but you built up a huge wall in the process). To be a really strong player you need both skills, but I definitely think it's possible to get to the high SDKs, probably the low dans, with little to no reading ability whatsoever, just playing solidly, with no defects, good shape, and a strong sense of strategic vision. Without defects there isn't any aji for your opponent to really exploit, and you can probably entice them to attack groups if you do leave defects behind, so you can sort of direct your opponent without his necessarily realizing.
Most players seem to go the other way (get strong tactically and pick up strategy as you need). But certainly at DDK you can study whatever pleases you and get stronger.
I experience that strategic decisions are highly dependent on reading. Shall I try to run with this group? Shall I invade or reduce? Is tenuki possible? I need to make this move, but can I play this sequence in sente before? Can I play so and so pincer, which is likely leading to a joseki depending on a ladder? More often than not reading is involved. So reading will help you make even better strategic decisions. Or better: you only have a choice if you read - otherwise you gamble.
As kyu the most valuable strategic advice to me was to sacrifice and tenuki more often. You can easily gain several stones advantage that way, enough to give you leeway to let a group die or playing safely elsewhere. I would say, the people always picking the fight are not even gambling, they are just not aware that a strategical choice may exist.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:05 am
by Chew Terr
One thing that is important to remember that this is not a black and white issue. For example, even if we consider theory and reading as diametrically opposed, then you're still looking at a continuum, where (for your rank), you are better than average at one and worse than average at the other. Topazg obviously reads quite deeply, even if he doesn't practice it on problems as much as others have, and Kirby certainly knows a lot of theoretical things, like why you start in the corners. You're not buying one at the expense of the other, you're just choosing to work on one or the other right now. Additionally, working on one often improves the other. For example, if I look at joseki with the intent of evaluating results for each player, as well as who gets sente afterwards, I am improving at reading at the same time as considering strategic implications in the future. Obviously both affect each other (reading out the joseki determines which way the wall will face, for example, as well as looking at the whole board determines whether a local result would actually be favorable). Jonathan Hop describes in his books two types of players: architects (who are stronger at strategy and tend to have their stones work better towards an eventual goal) versus fighters (who are usuallya little stronger at reading for their level, and tend to come out ahead in local fights, even if they don't always choose the correct sides. Regardless of if someone is better at fighting or building, if two people are 5k, they have an even chance of winning. Work on which one you like to work on, or whichever is easiest to improve at, and you will go up in rank when you improve.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:33 pm
by Kirby
If I ever experienced improvement by reading a book on theory, I would be more likely to say, "study what you like best". But I can't say that I have. In my experience, the key to this game is reading.
I will grant you that hearing the ideas of others can expose you to new ways of thought, and make your own thinking broader... But I would much prefer to get to that stage on my own than by standing on the shoulders of others...
This is probably why I never listened to teachers in college. I guess at that time, I read textbooks, at least.
---
Maybe the reason I keep arguing about this is because I do not like to accept things that I cannot see for myself.
If a pro tells me, "You should play at K14 in response to this move", I am not likely to believe him. OK, the pro likes K14. So what?
There's a cliche that says, "Seeing is believing". Well to me, "Reading is seeing". You can tell me about the "right" moves all you want, but if I don't see it, I won't believe you.
Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:45 pm
by Monadology
Kirby wrote:I will grant you that hearing the ideas of others can expose you to new ways of thought, and make your own thinking broader... But I would much prefer to get to that stage on my own than by standing on the shoulders of others...
You will have a very long journey if you study strictly on this basis. Especially since one cannot get to every new idea on one's own. People always have blindspots to new ways of thinking. And really, we're always already on the shoulders of others. There are at least some parts of playing Go that you had to have accepted without fully reading them out, especially in the opening. Or did you try to make sure that 4-4 really was more effective than 7-6 and 13-12 and 3-2 opening plays? Do you refer to common concepts like thickness or aji? Have you tested every pincer play?
It's certainly best to 'see' why a move works for one's self. Otherwise one won't understand it well enough to know when it is appropriate to play it. That's not at all mutually incompatible with being open to reading about and exploring what others think are good moves. I think you're suggesting a bit of a false dichotomy. Especially considering the books I've read show continuations to help demonstrate the reasoning for the move selected.
