Life In 19x19

Being a new hand, one of the most appealing parts of Go is the extreme inverse relationship of rules simplicity and game depth.

With that in mind, I am puzzled by the references I see from time to time regarding "tricky" play. I've seen everyone from beginners to professional's books cast aspersions at trick plays.

I don't understand how a game with such simple rules can have tricky plays. In my mind tricky play in other games is based upon loopholes or creative interpretations of rules. Anything else I would call skillful.

So, those of you more experienced than I (nearly all of you), please explain to me what is tricky play in Go and why do people not like it?

If I'm not mistaken, a "trick play" refers to a play that if answered correctly leads to a bad result for the one who initiated it. The trick being that it is usually hard to answer well.

As long as rules are concerned, they are perfectly legitimate plays. They are generally frowned upon because to play this kind of moves, deliberately knowing they do not yield a good result for you, implies that you are expecting your opponent to make a mistake in answering them.

Shenoute wrote:if answered correctly leads to a bad result for the one who initiated it.

Hi Drew,

There are moves such that even if answered correctly, the result is OK (or only slightly sub-optimal ) for the initiator,
but if answered poorly, the result could be disastrous for the recipient (thus, "tricked"). So considering the trade-offs -- worst case slightly off for the initiator, versus worst case disaster for the recipient --
then in some cases, it could be a strategy for the initiator.

Drew wrote:the extreme inverse relationship of rules simplicity and game depth.

I don't understand how a game with such simple rules can have tricky plays.

You kind of answered your own question: it's not the simple rules,
but the profound depth that allows the complexities, including trick moves.

I really like this post by AVAVT on the OGS forum: “ Defending against trick plays ”. Be warned, though: there is some irony in that post.

Shenoute wrote:deliberately knowing they do not yield a good result for you

So what if one player is losing badly and is trying to complicate the game with some strange fighting that they know probably won't work but they expect the opponent to bend under time pressure and the complexity of a fight to make a mistake and lose?

So you know you can't win but you still try to do something very complex and you hope that opponent makes a mistake so that you can reverse the game.

Bonobo wrote:I really like this post by AVAVT on the OGS forum: “ Defending against trick plays ”. Be warned, though: there is some irony in that post.

It's an interesting post, but it seems to be more about having a devious and whole-board style than actually playing trick plays as usually defined.

I would say a trick play is a play, generally in joseki, that has an obvious response that is actually locally bad, and a more complicated correct response. The 19 point trick play is a classic example, where one side is tricked into capturing a bunch of stones but actually gets a bad whole-board result. http://senseis.xmp.net/?NineteenPointTrickPlay

It follows that not all overplays are trick plays, and I think one of the other keys to an actual trick play is that it leads to a bad local result, rather than global. Sometimes being "tricked" is actually the right move globally, because the gain in tricking is offset by some global factor, like a position of influence that works perfectly with that other corner. Sometimes the trick is that by changing the move order one side gets a result a few points better than the normal joseki, but there's actually a bad result lurking beneath if the opponent fights back correctly, which is why it's not joseki. There are also hamete, which are somewhere between trick plays and legitimate ones, in that if responded to correctly, the result is not terrible for the initiating side.

Finally, there are also many plays that are tricks up to a certain level, as there can be a clear cutoff in strength when people fall for it and when they don't.

Krama wrote:

Shenoute wrote:deliberately knowing they do not yield a good result for you

So what if one player is losing badly and is trying to complicate the game with some strange fighting that they know probably won't work but they expect the opponent to bend under time pressure and the complexity of a fight to make a mistake and lose?

So you know you can't win but you still try to do something very complex and you hope that opponent makes a mistake so that you can reverse the game.

It depends on how and why you play the game. Personally speaking, I play to try to make good moves, moves that are good even if my opponent/partner makes optimal play. I try to see what is actually in the position both for me and for my opponent/partner and I try not to play moves assuming or hoping that my opponent won't see the refutation. Of course "try" is significant. For these reasons, too, I almost never play blitz games or timed games where I can't make a serious attempt to find good moves.

Krama wrote:

Shenoute wrote:deliberately knowing they do not yield a good result for you

So what if one player is losing badly and is trying to complicate the game with some strange fighting that they know probably won't work but they expect the opponent to bend under time pressure and the complexity of a fight to make a mistake and lose?

So what ?

In your example "strange fighting" and "probably" imply that you don't know for sure wether the move(s) work(s) or not.

Krama wrote:

Shenoute wrote:deliberately knowing they do not yield a good result for you

So what if one player is losing badly and is trying to complicate the game with some strange fighting that they know probably won't work but they expect the opponent to bend under time pressure and the complexity of a fight to make a mistake and lose?

So you know you can't win but you still try to do something very complex and you hope that opponent makes a mistake so that you can reverse the game.

Pros do this all the time, though usually it is not really related to time pressure. You try something, even though it is not supposed to work, but still not trivial to respond. When the response is somewhat easy, they say "he was looking for a place to resign".
Better to try and fail, than to lose the game because you didn't try to win.

I would define a "trick play" as one where:

a) The correct response (which makes the trick play bad) is far from obvious. For example, the correct response might be a violation of one of the fundamental rules of thumb but in this particular situation refutes the trick move.

b) The more obvious responses, the ones following the general principles, in this particular situation, lead to disadvantage or even disaster.

I would add that "a trick play" usually refers to a standard sequence you have prepared before the game (often a joseki deviation), rather than something novel you come up with particular to the current game situation. "Tricky play" meaning complications when behind etc is something different and rarely frowned upon.

Is move 8 a trick play? Previously it had only been in trick play books.

When I was learning bridge I read something by bridge champion Marshall Miles. He and his partner played regularly in local clubs in Los Angeles, where the standard was far below what it was at National tournaments. He said that to keep their game up to par, they always played as if they were competing at the Nationals.

OC, if your opponent makes no mistakes, you lose. But there is value in playing as though your opponent would punish your bad plays.

for double kyu player who read some joseki book... it is much easier to play unconventional play that is not in joseki book.
i guess everything is trick play if they dont know how to answer.

Hi, This video helped me to understand what a tricky play is.

https://badukmovies.com/episodes/a-tric ... -drawbacks