Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:Principles are there to remembered and applied - not to be forgotten.

This is nice. Nonetheless, the difficulty with principles is less that one forgets them and more that one must accurately judge the board postion in order to know which one to apply.

Tami wrote:For example, we are advised to "defend before attacking" and "if we have a weak area, to defend it". That's principle, but in the last couple of games I have played, I have lost because I didn't know what was weak and strong - and that's where better reading, L&D and knowledge would come in useful.

This seems to be the case no matter the level of play. A game of go is not a matter of absolutes, but of comparative ability. Depending on the depth of your anaylsis, every position has it's weaknesses, and to each one a principle applies. Who applies the right principle first - you or your opponent. Here another factor comes in that Tami has not mentioned: speed. If you are faster at analyzing a position deeper than your opponent, you have an advantage.

Shortcuts? Learn to learn better. Remember more accurately.

Knowledge may make you strong at KGS. Nevertheless, at Tygem, where berserk fighters dwell, knowledge is useless.

They willingly attack your strong positions from their weak positions, they cut when it obviously should not work, they make L-groups, door-groups, etc (which are supposed to be dead) live by some hokus-pokus, they violate any basic principle and easily get away with it to your frustration. They are there to prove that knowledge may be for pros or high dans, but not for mortal kyu players.

entropi wrote:Knowledge may make you strong at KGS. Nevertheless, at Tygem, where berserk fighters dwell, knowledge is useless.

This rings very false as far as I'm concerned. You do need to be able to not get trashed in a fight, but knowledge of joseki and fuseki get me a very good position in the early game, so that I just need to harass the inevitable invasions my opponent makes. I don't need to descend into beserk fighting at all, because I have enough knowledge to get a good position early.

entropi wrote:Knowledge may make you strong at KGS. Nevertheless, at Tygem, where berserk fighters dwell, knowledge is useless.

They willingly attack your strong positions from their weak positions, they cut when it obviously should not work, they make L-groups, door-groups, etc (which are supposed to be dead) live by some hokus-pokus, they violate any basic principle and easily get away with it to your frustration. They are there to prove that knowledge may be for pros or high dans, but not for mortal kyu players.

I think a better way to express it is that the players on Tygem put your knowledge to the test and see how much you 'really' know.

Araban wrote:

entropi wrote:Knowledge may make you strong at KGS. Nevertheless, at Tygem, where berserk fighters dwell, knowledge is useless.

They willingly attack your strong positions from their weak positions, they cut when it obviously should not work, they make L-groups, door-groups, etc (which are supposed to be dead) live by some hokus-pokus, they violate any basic principle and easily get away with it to your frustration. They are there to prove that knowledge may be for pros or high dans, but not for mortal kyu players.

I think a better way to express it is that the players on Tygem put your knowledge to the test and see how much you 'really' know.

No! They put your fighting skills to the test, not your knowledge.

As I interpret the terminology, knowledge is "don't approach thickness". But the question "what happens if you do (or your opponent does)" cannot possibly be answered by "knowledge".

That's just terminology. But I think Araban is right about the terminology. If you went to a martial arts dojo, you might say "wow, those guys really know how to fight."

What you're after is the distinction between knowledge you can express in sentences and knowledge you can't.

entropi wrote:

Araban wrote:I think a better way to express it is that the players on Tygem put your knowledge to the test and see how much you 'really' know.

No! They put your fighting skills to the test, not your knowledge.

As I interpret the terminology, knowledge is "don't approach thickness". But the question "what happens if you do (or your opponent does)" cannot possibly be answered by "knowledge".

If you can't kill the door group, it isn't dead.
If you can't kill the L-group, it isn't dead either.

But I fear KGS style (Western amateur style) often is this particular "we know it is bad, but we don't know why, so let us both avoid this situation". Anxious go. If applied this way, knowledge = lack of experience = weakness. It should be the other way round. In fact you can see this in the dan range, where knowledge is backed up by a little more reading muscles the relation between KGS/AGA/EGF and Tygem/Wbaduk etc. ranks is practically inversed.

In my opinion, Western DDK, low SDK players usually know too much (books, SL, this forum are among the culprits), on some issues more than dan level players. Most of it is useless baggage however, unless backed up by a better grasp of the basics and middle game fighting strength. I mean, people do not have to love tsumego, but at least when playing, you should read. If you do this, those door groups will soon enough end dead. It isn't knowledge, if you can't apply it.

Sorry for the rant, but I couldn't hold back.

Helel wrote:All non-mathematical knowledge is wrong,

It depends on the system of evaluation. If that is mathematics, then most non-mathematical knowledge is neither right not wrong but annotated in a non-fitting syntax.

A lie that gives good practical results is better than a truth to complex to handle.

Like late yose?

entropi wrote:They put your fighting skills to the test, not your knowledge.

We strong players test your fighting skill, your knowledge or both.

"don't approach thickness"

This is basic knowledge designed for the sake of DDKs' predominating abuse of thickness to approach it carelessly. At a higher level of principles, thickness can be used for different purposes like "attacking at a distance" or "building a (big) moyo". Even for the latter, closely approaching thickness is still doubtful; the moyo in front of it should be large enough. Etc.

tapir wrote:If you can't kill the door group, it isn't dead.
If you can't kill the L-group, it isn't dead either.

But I fear KGS style (Western amateur style) often is this particular "we know it is bad, but we don't know why, so let us both avoid this situation". Anxious go. If applied this way, knowledge = lack of experience = weakness. It should be the other way round. In fact you can see this in the dan range, where knowledge is backed up by a little more reading muscles the relation between KGS/AGA/EGF and Tygem/Wbaduk etc. ranks is practically inversed.

In my opinion, Western DDK, low SDK players usually know too much (books, SL, this forum are among the culprits), on some issues more than dan level players. Most of it is useless baggage however, unless backed up by a better grasp of the basics and middle game fighting strength. I mean, people do not have to love tsumego, but at least when playing, you should read. If you do this, those door groups will soon enough end dead. It isn't knowledge, if you can't apply it.

Sorry for the rant, but I couldn't hold back.

Nice rant!

In any case, what we do see is that there appears to be a difference in styles between western KGSlers and same ranked players on asian servers.

My gut feeling is that many of the people playing on the asian servers are following a different set of fundamentals than we in the west. At least at my level, my opponents on Tygem seem better aware of the ebb and flow of the strength of groups, and have a better eye for weaknesses in a position. Often it happens to me that I make a temporary assessment of a local position, but forget to revise it as the game progresses, only to be dumbfounded when my opponent revives a group that I thought I had killed. Yes, this is faulty reading on my part, but it seems symptomatic of a perhaps somewhat more static mentality, one that my Tygem opponents excel at taking advantage of.

daal wrote:My gut feeling is that many of the people playing on the asian servers are following a different set of fundamentals than we in the west.

But that's the key issue right there, isn't it? Fundamentals.

Perhaps we in the west do not yet understand what the fundamentals are? (this has been discussed extensively in other threads here).

This whole thread makes me think of Loons' old signature:

Loons wrote:Loons: FlameBlade, do you have any Amazingly Powerful Advice that will bump me into dan level strength with just a few words
FlameBlade: learn how to read.
ketchup: !!

tapir wrote:
But I fear KGS style (Western amateur style) often is this particular "we know it is bad, but we don't know why, so let us both avoid this situation". Anxious go. If applied this way, knowledge = lack of experience = weakness.

In my opinion, Western DDK, low SDK players usually know too much (books, SL, this forum are among the culprits), on some issues more than dan level players.

Exactly what I am trying to say! Unless you back it up with fighting strength, theoretical knowledge is not only useless, but might even be harmfull.

entropi wrote: theoretical knowledge is not only useless, but might even be harmfull.

What kind of theoretical knowledge? How?

RobertJasiek wrote:

entropi wrote: theoretical knowledge is not only useless, but might even be harmfull.

What kind of theoretical knowledge? How?

It is rather difficult to draw a line between theoretical knowledge and practical applications.
Nevertheless, I can come up with many examples, one of which is the following:

You know from joseki/fuseki study that it is generally not advisable to cut a one space jump as in a typical low pincer joseki.

Can you call this an example of theoretical knowledge?

If "yes" go on reading, else this discussion will be fruitless (because it will lead to discussing definitions).

This theoretical knowledge, as learned from a book, is not yet internalized. You don't yet have the gut feeling what will happen if you do cut.
Consequence is that in many situations, you don't even consider cutting a one space jump. Somebody who has never heard of something like that, may try to cut and learn it by experience which means internalizing the knowledge.
Hope it's clearer.