After today's game i'm finally convinced that i have no idea about the game and should stop watching pro games.
I'm sure you are not alone, especially if, as I suspect, you are trying to make sense of modern pro games on the back of the classical go theory that is still widespread in books (especially western ones). That sort of go theory has had its day, which should be acknowledged more. The same thing has happened in chess and there is a rather good description of the process by John Watson in his fascinating book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy."
Here is an extract from a chapter he calls "Rule-Independence." In go, we would call rules in his sense proverbs or theory.
QUOTE
Many changes have taken place in modern chess, for example, with respect to new ideas about weaknesses, the relative strengths of minor pieces, the value of the exchange, and considerations of time and dynamism. But the forerunner and in some sense the precursor to these changes has been a philosophic notion, now so entrenched that we barely notice this. I call this notion 'rule-independence', for lack of a more comprehensive way to express it. It is simply the gradual divestment on the part of chess-players of the multitudinous generalities, rules, and abstract principles which guided classical chess, and which still dominate our teaching texts. Furthermore, a rejection of the very notion of the 'rule' has taken place, in favour of a pragmatic investigation of individual situations. The intense study of large numbers of positions, in combination with a dramatic increase in the frequency of play by the average professional player, has led to a new approach to chess knowledge. This approach might be described in terms of 'unconscious principles', or subtle and verbally inexpressible guidelines which are continually modified and weighted to fine-tune the assessment of positions. A 'feel' for positional chess is developed, just as in the old days, but one which is unconstrained (or considerably less constrained) by dogma. Hence 'rule-independence'.
UNQUOTE
He later quotes the great chess trainer Mark Dvoretsky who said, "There is a popular opinion that the highest strategic art is the ability to envelop nearly the whole game in a profound plan, and that this is precisely how leading grandmasters think. This is a delusion. It is nonsensical to map out an overly long plan - the very next move could totally change the situation on the board and give it a completely different direction." Watson further approvingly mentions Dvoretsky's suggestion to ditch the word 'plan' in favour of 'next strategic operation', pointing out that this "very astute distinction [] applies particularly to the heavy and multi-faceted positions which arise from so many modern openings."
In a broad developmental sense go has often been in step with chess. We had parallel classical phases in which openings gradually became more and more important. We had parallel waves of writers boiling all this down into 'rules' or 'proverbs' for amateurs while pros explored new avenues: hypermodern chess and Shin Fuseki went hand in hand. Then we had the parallel explosion in number of players and tournaments, with a consequent diversity and intensity of research. We had parallel changes in time limits that have affected notions of "time and dynamism." Now we have a corps of professionals who not only think on a much higher plane than amateurs but can't even talk about the game any more in terms that amateurs understand. We generally just think of it as mad fighting, but I'm sure there's more structure to it than that.
It seems that the only way amateurs can now understand how today'spros play is to put in a similar amount of effort so that they too acquire the "unconscious principles."
For those who wish simply to appreciate what is going on, because they can only do 100 hours instead of 10,000 hours, maybe the right approach is nevertheless to keep watching pro games and to go into 'absorb' rather than 'understand' mode. You will get far fewer insights than the Stakhanovites but you may get some and they will be very enjoyable. Apart from that, there are precious few commentators who can straddle the two spheres, and no books (with the possible exception of Relentless?). I can recommend Watson's book as a general mind-opening approach to how to think about modern mind-game play (his precepts mostly do apply to go) but it's a huge book and you need some chess background.
A grim state of affairs? Yes, in a way. But it shows there is still much to learn about the two games, and that's exciting.
