What are the fundamentals?

Calvin Clark · Post by **Calvin Clark** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:17 pm

Bill Spight wrote:
$$W Reduction
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . a . .
$$ . . X 1 . . . b c
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Reduction $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . a . . $$ . . X 1 . . . b c $$ . . . . . . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

And this is the usual reduction.

It's in a textbook or two, even in English, I'll hand that to you. But I think this makes a good case study in just how much can be considered "fundamental."

I did a Kombilo search on this position from Winter 2015 GoGoD, 85931 games total. Only 2554 of them, or about 3%, even contain this extension. So we are already looking at a position that only occurs in 3% of games even before the white play. Is this fundamental? I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

with black to play next appears in 46 games, or about 0.05% of the total games. (Actually 'a' and 'b' and more common than :w1:

, but one has to look at the whole board context in these situations in order to determine whether those moves would be called reductions.)

I've seen the openings of maybe 2-3 thousand games. I know this :w1:

is in Attack and Defense, but I don't recall seeing it ever. I either truly haven't seen it or don't recall or maybe I never hit on one of those 46 games. However, I have played it recently but I messed it up because of something that probably really is basic.

I suspect a lot of pros would call this :w1:

a basic thing to know. If so, we have our work cut out for us.

Edit: The attachment of occurs 282 times if there is white stone at 'c', so that's quite a bit more common at 0.3% of games. At that level, I should have seen it played, but maybe I didn't think much about it. In GoGoD, if something appears in more than 100 games, I consider it potentially worth studying.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:26 pm

Is there any mistake in Wolf's or my semeai theory?

Mistakes must not be excused but avoided. Theory with mistakes must not be promoted as fundamentals worth learning justified by the excuse that every theory would contain mistakes. No! Good theory is always correct.

Why have Western players problems to catch up with Eastern players? As far as go theory is concerned, the reasons include neglected LD study, neglected and under-estimated endgame study and too long trust in outdated theory of old Western literature or old verbal Western knowledge. The same mistakes of the past recur.

Even when old results still apply, modern theory can be much more efficient.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:53 pm

Calvin Clark wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
$$W Reduction
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . a . .
$$ . . X 1 . . . b c
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Reduction $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . a . . $$ . . X 1 . . . b c $$ . . . . . . X . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------[/go]

And this is the usual reduction.

It's in a textbook or two, even in English, I'll hand that to you. But I think this makes a good case study in just how much can be considered "fundamental."

I did a Kombilo search on this position from Winter 2015 GoGoD, 85931 games total. Only 2554 of them, or about 3%, even contain this extension. So we are already looking at a position that only occurs in 3% of games even before the white play. Is this fundamental? I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

Just curious. Did you search for this?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W 3 pt. high-low extension $$ . . . . . . . $$ . X . . . . . $$ . . . . . X . $$ . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . $$ -------------[/go]

When I was learning go this was a very common pattern.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . X . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ -----------------------[/go]

It won't show up if you leave two spaces around the stones.

with black to play next appears in 46 games, or about 0.05% of the total games.
{snip}

I've seen the openings of maybe 2-3 thousand games. I know this is in Attack and Defense, but I don't recall seeing it ever. I either truly haven't seen it or don't recall or maybe I never hit on one of those 46 games. However, I have played it recently but I messed it up because of something that probably really is basic.

IMX, few amateurs know about :w1:

, or play it (the invasion is more popular). I know it's been played against me a couple of times. The last time it had been so long I had to work out the play for myself.

I suspect a lot of pros would call this a basic thing to know. If so, we have our work cut out for us.

I would call it part of the fundamental knowledge of invasion and reduction. There are twelve extensions on the side (2 space to 5 space, low-low, high-low, high-high), which have standard invasions and reductions. Dan players should know the basic patterns of play for them. The usual caveats about studying joseki apply.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:00 pm

Shenoute wrote:Maybe some will find this excerpt of Chapter 1 of The Breakthrough to Shodan interesting

...no special talent is needed to reach shodan...

It has been my experience that this is the prevailing opinion in China. Shodan (1 duan) is more a time-based milestone than anything. It is simply assumed that all students will achieve shodan given enough proper study.

Calvin Clark · Post by **Calvin Clark** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:51 pm

Bill Spight wrote:Just curious. Did you search for this?

$$W 3 pt. high-low extension
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . X . . . . .
$$ . . . . . X .
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ -------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W 3 pt. high-low extension $$ . . . . . . . $$ . X . . . . . $$ . . . . . X . $$ . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . $$ -------------[/go]

I thought about it, but what I actually searched for was this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W 3 pt. high-low extension $$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? $$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? $$ ? ? X ? ? ? ? ? ? $$ ? ? ? ? ? ? X ? ? $$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? $$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? $$ -------------[/go]

Bill Spight wrote:
When I was learning go this was a very common pattern.

$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | ? ? O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .
$$ | . . . . . r r . . ? .
$$ | . b . X . X a . . , .
$$ | . . c . . r r d . X .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . ? .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . ? .
$$ -----------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | ? ? O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . $$ | . . . . . r r . . ? . $$ | . b . X . X a . . , . $$ | . . c . . r r d . X . $$ | . . . . . . . . . ? . $$ | . . . . . . . . . ? . $$ -----------------------[/go]

Of course that changes things, and now white 'a' is more common in my brain, but only slightly more common in Kombilo at 144 hits, even with the tight boundary marked. Now we are close to talking about the same thing, but I think I remember this from a different book now, though I have long forgotten the expected follow-ups. It was most popular in games from 1900-1949.

But it's good to know that b, c, and d aren't the only moves in this position. Go has enormous flexibility.

I haven't analyzed it, but I'm pretty sure I play fewer contact moves like 'a' than pros. Part of that is because I know it opens up a lot of variations that I have not prepared. Part if it is just the experience of it turning out poorly against players with stronger reading, but that is misleading feedback because everything turns out poorly against such opponents anyway.

I would not play 'a' for yuks. I would need to have a plan and understand its aim. I would have to think about black's 4 basic responses 'r' plus black tenuki and have some feeling that the result will be okay for me no matter what. For 'b', 'c', and 'd' I kind of know what I'd be trying to do. So this is indeed a gap in my repertoire.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:02 pm

What does database frequency tell us about whether a particular shape move can be played? Nothing! If it is frequent, the move can be right or wrong in the actual game. If it is rare, the move can be right or wrong in the actual game. The basic aspect is NOT whether the move is frequent.

The basic aspects of an extension / connection are: Is it connected but must be reinforced nevertheless? Is it directly connected? Is it indirectly connected? Is cutting it advantageous? Is preparing to cut it advantageous? What are the aims of maintaining a connection? What are the aims of attacking a connection? In which equally fair or advantageous strategies do such aims fit? Do make the related reading and positional judgements to answer these questions.

Gotraskhalana · Post by **Gotraskhalana** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:04 am

Bill Spight wrote:I would call it part of the fundamental knowledge of invasion and reduction. There are twelve extensions on the side (2 space to 5 space, low-low, high-low, high-high), which have standard invasions and reductions. Dan players should know the basic patterns of play for them.

Is this a description of what dan players know or just a moral statement that dan players should know it because it would be embarassing not to?

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:23 am

In his 4th installment, Minue discusses "Evaluation of local positions - basics of positional judgment"

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorial ... alJudgment

In this chapter he talks about urgent moves:

Many beginner players on KGS simply ignore and play tenuki against an attachment on their stone. Generally, attachment moves create "urgent positions". The basic reason is that, the attachment threatens your stone severely, directly reducing its liberties. However, if you don't see the situation correctly, and don't know that an enemy stone's attachment directly threatens your stone, you will see a big advantage in playing elsewhere.

He goes on to expand the characteristics of stability from single stones to local positions:

1. "Higher number of stones" means "More strength of stones"
2. "More liberties" means "more strength of stones"
3. Connect your stones, cut opponent's stones

The last part of the installment is about efficiency and overconcentration, in other words "shape". It is hard to summarize because it works from specific examples. They mostly show which shape problems arise from being preoccupied with territory and not with strength of stones.

The examples induce a new concept: "ja choong soo" or "removing your own liberties" with the specific example of allowing "hane at the head of two". Minue even devotes an entire chapter to this concept, with lots of examples.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorial ... aChoongSoo

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:27 am

RobertJasiek wrote:What does database frequency tell us about whether a particular shape move can be played? Nothing!

If the frequency of a certain move in a certain position tells nothing about it being right or wrong in general, then why is it played so often or rarely in pro games? The move will not always be right but it makes sense for anyone to inspect regular moves in regular positions first, before moving on to the irregular.

I believe AlphaGo is based precisely on frequency of occurrence, not as a decisive argument, but as a working argument.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:15 am

If the frequency of a certain move in a certain position tells nothing about it being right or wrong in general, then why is it played so often or rarely in pro games? The move will not always be right but it makes sense for anyone to inspect regular moves in regular positions first, before moving on to the irregular.

I believe AlphaGo is based precisely on frequency of occurrence, not as a decisive argument, but as a working argument.

Absolutely. And that brings up another way of looking at "what are the fundamentals" that may be more useful in practice, even if not rigorous: candidate moves.

If positions are presented to a higher ranked player and a lower ranked player and we compare their list of, say, 5 candidate moves in each, we can get a rough measure of whether they have arrived in the same ballpark. The types of move that they both include in their list will presumably be the easiest aka the most fundamental.

Obviously, even when their lists tend to coincide the higher ranked player may hit a home run more often, but at least the weaker player then knows that he has at last something specific to work on.

Here's an example where both higher ranked and lower ranked players can compare themselves to an even higher ranked player, a pro, in picking 5 candidate moves (and then making a final choice, of course - Black to play). I think we can all agree that this sort of position is very common and, both from that point of view and others, fundamental.

Obviously this only works if enough people here offer their list of candidates.

Incidentally, this comes from a Japanese game in which one player favoured a thick (atsui) style for a reason I had never come across before: his name was Atsushi. Calling someone "thick" over here does haven't quite the same flavour...

Gotraskhalana · Post by **Gotraskhalana** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:30 am

Knotwilg wrote:
The examples induce a new concept: "ja choong soo" or "removing your own liberties" with the specific example of allowing "hane at the head of two". Minue even devotes an entire chapter to this concept, with lots of examples.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorial ... aChoongSoo

BTW, this part was really immediately useful for me. Despite knowing a simple example of hane at the head of two, there were several examples that would simply not have alarmed me during a game.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:56 am

Knotwilg wrote:If the frequency of a certain move in a certain position tells nothing about it being right or wrong in general, then why is it played so often or rarely in pro games? The move will not always be right but it makes sense for anyone to inspect regular moves in regular positions first, before moving on to the irregular.

I believe AlphaGo is based precisely on frequency of occurrence, not as a decisive argument, but as a working argument.

Good point! Of course, frequency matters.
What else is the basis for a rule of thumb?

To give an example:
In tsume-go, I am sure that "Think twice before giving atari!" is a valid rule of thumb.
(It's not "Never start with an atari!", because there are exceptions.)

Other shape issues are by far more "regular", so these should be considered first. Only after the "regular" moves do not lead to success, the time has come for studying an "irregular" atari.

Gotraskhalana · Post by **Gotraskhalana** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:25 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Absolutely. And that brings up another way of looking at "what are the fundamentals" that may be more useful in practice, even if not rigorous: candidate moves.

...

Here's an example

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:35 am

Knotwilg wrote:If the frequency of a certain move in a certain position tells nothing about it being right or wrong in general, then why is it played so often or rarely in pro games?

A certain move in a certain position is played often in pro games because it is

1) fashionable or

2) good.

Certain other moves in the position are rarely played because they are

1) unpopular,

2) good but not recognised as such or

3) bad.

The move will not always be right but it makes sense for anyone to inspect regular moves in regular positions first, before moving on to the irregular.

I suspect you mean regular = currently frequently played in pro games.

There are different approaches to good move choice, among them:

1) First consider every conceivable move (e.g., make a Local Move Selection), filter the seemingly less interesting moves, then choose among the allegedly most interesting candidates.

2) Consider all frequent moves. Also consider some "suitable" selection of rare moves. Choose among considered moves.

I believe AlphaGo is based precisely on frequency of occurrence, not as a decisive argument, but as a working argument.

AlphaGo's input is a tremendous sample of moves in positions. This makes it more likely that the input correlates to frequency.

AlphaGo's "thinking" might also involve decision arguments encoded in a network so that we cannot identify it as such.

AlphaGo's playing choice and output includes both frequent are rare moves. (I have not considered its rare moves as "new", but every pro commentator has.) Since AlphaGo does play rare moves, you cannot use well AlphaGo to justify that rare moves should not be considered.

***

Be careful how you measure frequency of shapes. Standard mistakes are including too many empty intersections or ignoring stones (e.g., thickness) in the farther and far positional environment. E.g., frequency does not explain a rare presence of remote great thickness.

John Fairbairn wrote:The types of move that they both include in their list will presumably be the easiest aka the most fundamental.

Such as moves that maintain connection? Function does not equate frequencies of shapes. The function is the most fundamental - a list with a selection of only specific shapes is not.

Cassandra wrote:What else is the basis for a rule of thumb?

Why do you care? Replace rules of thumb by principles! The basics of correct go theory are the basis of correct principles.

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:49 am

(Robert, I won't respond to your answer, but I appreciate it. I think it will lead us too far.)

Responding to John's exercise:

Life In 19x19

What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?

Re: What are the fundamentals?