Life In 19x19

(first off, my apologies to people who answered this same thread in DGS, I wanted to float it here since...well, there seems to be more water here )

Many of the activites that I enjoy the most have a rather heavy, frustrating 'rookie/basics' period that manage to discourage a significant proportion of learners (here I'm thinking of everything from learning a language or a martial art, learning to shoot an Old English Longbow, learning how to blacksmith, through to playing chess or an instrument well).

Personally, one source of discouragement is the fact that we can't know in advance if an activity will become a real passion and source of longtime enjoyment once we make it through this harsh, barren novice period, or that effort will be wasted once we lose interest.

When I first learnt the rules of Go a few years ago, I was struck by how static Go felt after years of playing chess. It's obvious that Go is deep enough, fascinating enough, and satisfying enough to draw and hold the interest and mental effort of millions of people..., but maybe you can help me to figure out if Go will hold me long term by providing some 'deep truths' about Go...meaning things that serious Go players know about Go that less serious or non-players don't know.

To give you an idea what I'm talking about, I tried to come up with what has made chess so special to me throughout the years.

-In spite of what people think chess has not been played out to the extent where openings are simply memorizing sequences, important features etc. Tony Miles beating the then World Champion Anatoly Karpov by answering 1. e4 with 1...a6 (normally a terrible beginner's move) being an extreme example. Miles said that after a few moves, the laughter from the spectators was very embarrassing...but he went on to win. At lower ('normal') levels, the game is so complex that resources to win (or save!) the game are often lying under the surface of apparently simple positions...the winner (of relatively balanced games) often being the player who works the hardest at the board. This feeling that "if I 'dig in' and work hard, I can hold the game" adds an enormous amount of pleasure.

-When you constantly cultivate dynamic elements in your position, the values of the pieces begin to change. You can think of your pieces AS units of energy doing work, no longer worrying about who has the most pieces/pawns. Once it's to your advantage to do so, you can exchange certain pieces to leach the dynamism out of the game, so that a 'normal' evaluation of the game puts you ahead for those same static reasons you just denied your opponent.

-Your intuition will often snap you to decisions that long study will later confirm as sound...

-BUT...unsound is often good enough to break down the defence of many players who panic when attacked (yum!)

-Mickael Tal said something like "A game of chess consists of two people with conflicting stories of what will happen in the game in their heads (i.e one thinks"My attack on the kingside will crash through and I'll mate him!", the other thinks "I'll beat off his attack and win the endgame with my extra pawn!"). The most important thing is to not let the other player suck you into HIS story. That's what is hard in chess. The player who gets their story played out on the board wins!" (My sincerest apologies to tal's ghost for this probably absurdly bad paraphrasing ).

-a seemingly insignificant detail sometimes proves to be EXACTLY what makes the difference between victory and defeat. Reversing difficult positions is common. In over-the-board play, losing a pawn early on can help you to play freely with no second-thoughts, while the opponent drifts into a passive position because of his "I'm a pawn up, so I should win" mindest.

Do many of these seem comparable to Go (some seem to), and otherwise...what is the magic of Go? Do we even talk about dynamic Go? Help me understand where the beauty lies in Go please....

Shako wrote: -In spite of what people think chess has not been played out to the extent where openings are simply memorizing sequences, important features etc. Tony Miles beating the then World Champion Anatoly Karpov by answering 1. e4 with 1...a6 (normally a terrible beginner's move) being an extreme example. Miles said that after a few moves, the laughter from the spectators was very embarrassing...but he went on to win. At lower ('normal') levels, the game is so complex that resources to win (or save!) the game are often lying under the surface of apparently simple positions...the winner (of relatively balanced games) often being the player who works the hardest at the board. This feeling that "if I 'dig in' and work hard, I can hold the game" adds an enormous amount of pleasure.

-When you constantly cultivate dynamic elements in your position, the values of the pieces begin to change. You can think of your pieces AS units of energy doing work, no longer worrying about who has the most pieces/pawns. Once it's to your advantage to do so, you can exchange certain pieces to leach the dynamism out of the game, so that a 'normal' evaluation of the game puts you ahead for those same static reasons you just denied your opponent.

-Your intuition will often snap you to decisions that long study will later confirm as sound...

-BUT...unsound is often good enough to break down the defence of many players who panic when attacked (yum!)

-Mickael Tal said something like "A game of chess consists of two people with conflicting stories of what will happen in the game in their heads (i.e one thinks"My attack on the kingside will crash through and I'll mate him!", the other thinks "I'll beat off his attack and win the endgame with my extra pawn!"). The most important thing is to not let the other player suck you into HIS story. That's what is hard in chess. The player who gets their story played out on the board wins!" (My sincerest apologies to tal's ghost for this probably absurdly bad paraphrasing ).

-a seemingly insignificant detail sometimes proves to be EXACTLY what makes the difference between victory and defeat. Reversing difficult positions is common. In over-the-board play, losing a pawn early on can help you to play freely with no second-thoughts, while the opponent drifts into a passive position because of his "I'm a pawn up, so I should win" mindest.

Do many of these seem comparable to Go (some seem to), and otherwise...what is the magic of Go? Do we even talk about dynamic Go? Help me understand where the beauty lies in Go please....

All of these are applicable to go.

- With sound fundamentals, you can play a strange opening or corner sequence and still have a very reasonable game. Professionals do this occasionally.

- A lot of the game is making your stones more efficient than your opponents, and discarding stones that have already done their work or aren't important.

- Humans being who they are, you can psych out your opponent.

- Competing narratives of the game are common, though maybe not explicitly talked about. There's a good deal of emphasis on "kiai" or fighting spirit, not passively submitting to your opponent's desires.

- Intuition plays a great or greater part in go, as there are so many moves to choose from you need to start pruning moves before you consciously consider them, or you will go nowhere. A lot of stronger players describe particular points on the board as standing out or shining, like they cry out to be played.

- Sometimes, the hardest thing to do is to win a won game, as your opponent is most free to play to complicate the game.

That said, I feel there is a lot more freedom for improvisation in go, and more emphasis on coordinating different areas of the board. In a sense, every move is an exchange, with something being taken and something being given, and a good player will strive to maintain balance in the game before taking advantage. Of course, it takes time to get to the point where you can appreciate all these fully, but that isn't to say that there isn't something interesting about all levels of the game.

Hi, Shako,
Here are my views, from a 8 kyu player on kgs.

Shako wrote:-In spite of what people think chess has not been played out to the extent where openings are simply memorizing sequences, important features etc. Tony Miles beating the then World Champion Anatoly Karpov by answering 1. e4 with 1...a6 (normally a terrible beginner's move) being an extreme example. Miles said that after a few moves, the laughter from the spectators was very embarrassing...but he went on to win. At lower ('normal') levels, the game is so complex that resources to win (or save!) the game are often lying under the surface of apparently simple positions...the winner (of relatively balanced games) often being the player who works the hardest at the board. This feeling that "if I 'dig in' and work hard, I can hold the game" adds an enormous amount of pleasure.

In go, there are some known "openings", but mostly, there are rather joseki, that are a bit like "pieces of opening" : local sequences of moves that are said to be optimal.

I've been told by a go teacher that we must learn the joseki first, and understand them later. It would take several hours to explain all the moves in a joseki, and why they are better than any other move. Go is a game where we learn much through practice. He also said "copy the moves played by professionals. It doesn't matter if you don't understand them. Just try and see what follows".

The fact that joseki are like pieces of opening allows to use them as large moves played at once. I have just begun to do that, with the simplest ones : "if I play this joseki here, the final result will be good for me." I have not yet reached the level where I can think : "after this joseki, my opponent will have the choice between two joseki on the other side, and one is not good for me, so I'd rather start another joseki here."

At the very beginning of a go game, the four first moves are usually played around the corners, but their optimal location is still a completely unknown field. The game is more than 2000 years old, and it has been only 100 or 200 years that the first moves are free. For centuries, the first moves had to be played on fixed locations in order to give a proper structure to the development of the games.

The more skilled we get, the more we can react properly when the opponent tries some fancy openings, not playing the corners first. The case you describe for chess, with one player trying something completely absurd, and yet winning, happen in go. This discussion is fun : http://senseis.xmp.net/?StrangeOpeningFromAProGame

Shako wrote:-When you constantly cultivate dynamic elements in your position, the values of the pieces begin to change. You can think of your pieces AS units of energy doing work, no longer worrying about who has the most pieces/pawns.

That is so true in go. In french, we speak about "damaged" stones, when a stone that was originally played in a strong place becomes unuseful, or worse, a burden for its owner.
Some groups often become a charge, costing several points each move in order to prevent them to die. When you realize that it would have been cheaper to let them die than to try to save them, it is too late. The group has grown fat, and its loss would be now much more expensive than at the beginning, which in turn implies more costs to keep it alive !
Personally, I like when a group of mine is completely dead, but can still bite. It's called "aji" in japanese. It dies indeed, but its presence allow to keep another one alive. Its stones are just itching the opponent's position when I need to strike the other side

Shako wrote:unsound is often good enough to break down the defence of many players who panic when attacked (yum!)

That's something often used in handicap games. The strong player may try a bold move, knowing that the weaker opponent will panic and loose its time trying to defend, while there is no danger at all.

Dai Junfu tells about another kind of psychological move in a professional context. He was playing for a title, and was about to loose the game. In any other circumstances, he would have resigned. But that was the final game, so he tried, as a last resort, an "overplay" move, to test his opponents reaction. As he expected, his opponent felt insulted and tried to crush him, banging his next stone on the board. But this move was itself a bit overplay, and Dai eventually won the game ! If his opponent had remained cold-minded and just played quiet defensive moves, he would have won easily.

Shako wrote:-Mickael Tal said something like "A game of chess consists of two people with conflicting stories of what will happen in the game in their heads (i.e one thinks"My attack on the kingside will crash through and I'll mate him!", the other thinks "I'll beat off his attack and win the endgame with my extra pawn!"). The most important thing is to not let the other player suck you into HIS story. That's what is hard in chess. The player who gets their story played out on the board wins!" (My sincerest apologies to tal's ghost for this probably absurdly bad paraphrasing ).

Just replace "chess" by "go" in the above sentence. That must have been told many times by go teachers.

Shako wrote:-a seemingly insignificant detail sometimes proves to be EXACTLY what makes the difference between victory and defeat. Reversing difficult positions is common.

What I sometimes experience is what we call a change of "temperature" in the game. Some games are cold, defensive, with extremely stable positions. The balance between the two players moves very slowly, and by very small amounts. In these games, the one who is behind must afford to take some risks in order to shift the balance. The later he is in the game, the bigger are the risks he must expose himself to.

But sometimes, a fight begins early in the game and grows bigger and bigger : two groups are trying to kill each other, and their value increase by several points at each move. The temperature rises. The initial stones become, little groups, then large groups of chains in close interaction, but none has yet the two eyes nor the connection to any other living group that would set the fight to an end. It quickly becomes clear that the whole game hangs on this fight. What began as an exercice of reading several moves in advance in a local position becomes an thrilling demonstration of technical skills in ko threats, semeai, swindles, cutting sequences, construction of potentially living eyespaces and anticipation of possible vital points in the opponent's position, all the richest thanks to the large size reached by the groups, that allow the use of various tactics in a single fight.
I get out of these games exhausted and happy, even if I loose. The mere pleasure of a beautiful fight being worth more that the satisfaction to win a boring game.

Shako wrote:Help me understand where the beauty lies in Go please....

Go is incredibly visual due to its static nature. The beauty of go is a lot more accessible and less abstract than the beauty of chess. You are almost literally creating a painting. As you get more familiar with the game, you see more beauty in good moves and the wonderfully efficient shapes they create.

Chess to me is like a clockwork mechanism, intricate but very dry. It's a more "left-brain" activity.

Hello Shako,
Your 1st bullet point: check.
Your 2nd bullet point: check.
Your 3rd bullet point: check. (Although... it sometimes leads me to say bad words also ...)
Your 4th bullet point: check.
Your 5th bullet point: check.
Your 6th bullet point: check.

I used to play (western) chess as well, but the beauty of the game of go is unsurpassed.
Chess shines, go sparkles.

Add any other bullet point, and the above still applies (IMHO).

palapiku wrote:As you get more familiar with the game, you see more beauty in good moves and the wonderfully efficient shapes they create.

You make it sound like women (if you are a man) or men (if you are a woman). Little kids don't recognize the beauty, adolescents get overwhelmed by it and cannot think of anything else, young adults recognize it but realize there is more too it, older adults appreciate it but appreciate even more the other things. This roughly corresponds to SSK, SDK, dan and pro.

Here are a few of the "deep truths" I've discovered after taking up go a few years ago:

Go is intellectually stimulating and aesthetically pleasing, but the reason the game stands above others is that it is a rich source of metaphor. (This is true of chess as well, though in a different way. I think this is one of the reasons these games endure.) Thinking about go can lead to insights about the world and one's self.

If you like learning, there is enough depth to go that you never need worry about running out of new material to consider. But at the same time, it grounds your learning in a real activity. At some point you must play the game and test your ideas against the ideas of others. Reflection upon go may lead you inward, but the game won't let you stay there.

One of the things I like about go that is quite different from chess is its additive nature. I enjoy chess, but playing the game often feels like I'm simply trying to avoid making a major mistake. Perhaps it feels differently at high levels, but to a certain degree the statistics bear this out. Chess strength is directly correlated with the frequency of one's blunders. I think the subtractive nature of the game contributes to this: when I am playing a player of equal or greater strength, it is very likely that any uneven exchange will lead to a lost game. Careless errors can still be costly in go, but the flow of the game often allows for recovery. Just as importantly, even when I lose I will still have some area of the board where I built something that endured.

In addition to all of the inherent properties of the game, the go playing community is filled with interesting and helpful people. The people with whom I have been able to interact are reason enough to take up the game.

Pio2001 wrote:
But sometimes, a fight begins early in the game and grows bigger and bigger : two groups are trying to kill each other, and their value increase by several points at each move. The temperature rises. The initial stones become, little groups, then large groups of chains in close interaction, but none has yet the two eyes nor the connection to any other living group that would set the fight to an end. It quickly becomes clear that the whole game hangs on this fight. What began as an exercice of reading several moves in advance in a local position becomes an thrilling demonstration of technical skills in ko threats, semeai, swindles, cutting sequences, construction of potentially living eyespaces and anticipation of possible vital points in the opponent's position, all the richest thanks to the large size reached by the groups, that allow the use of various tactics in a single fight.
I get out of these games exhausted and happy, even if I loose. The mere pleasure of a beautiful fight being worth more that the satisfaction to win a boring game.

I can understand this. High stakes, high tension...high drama!

I see that letting go of stones is relatively common. Is there something that works like a 'true' sacrifice in chess? (Meaning it's not just a complicated combination that gets your material back, but really giving up material to upset the position and 'change the rules'). If so, would it be on the scale of giving up a group unexpectedly?

Are there moves that are so unexpected that they 'come out of the blue' and change the way an opponent (and the general public) sees the game?

palapiku wrote:

Shako wrote:Help me understand where the beauty lies in Go please....

Go is incredibly visual due to its static nature. The beauty of go is a lot more accessible and less abstract than the beauty of chess. You are almost literally creating a painting. As you get more familiar with the game, you see more beauty in good moves and the wonderfully efficient shapes they create.

Chess to me is like a clockwork mechanism, intricate but very dry. It's a more "left-brain" activity.

I guess beauty and efficiency go hand in hand like they do in modern chess ('Beautiful' moves that are artificial no longer feel elegant in chess today). Great players talk about sacrificing because it's the only way to gain an advantage rather than any search for beauty.

DrStraw wrote:

palapiku wrote:As you get more familiar with the game, you see more beauty in good moves and the wonderfully efficient shapes they create.

You make it sound like women (if you are a man) or men (if you are a woman). Little kids don't recognize the beauty, adolescents get overwhelmed by it and cannot think of anything else, young adults recognize it but realize there is more too it, older adults appreciate it but appreciate even more the other things. This roughly corresponds to SSK, SDK, dan and pro.

AHA! So Go nourishes maturity and appreciation of real values...good to know !

jeromie wrote:Here are a few of the "deep truths" I've discovered after taking up go a few years ago:

Go is intellectually stimulating and aesthetically pleasing, but the reason the game stands above others is that it is a rich source of metaphor. (This is true of chess as well, though in a different way. I think this is one of the reasons these games endure.) Thinking about go can lead to insights about the world and one's self.

If you like learning, there is enough depth to go that you never need worry about running out of new material to consider. But at the same time, it grounds your learning in a real activity. At some point you must play the game and test your ideas against the ideas of others. Reflection upon go may lead you inward, but the game won't let you stay there.

This I understand...it's basically having to Walk the Walk when you play...

jeromie wrote: One of the things I like about go that is quite different from chess is its additive nature. I enjoy chess, but playing the game often feels like I'm simply trying to avoid making a major mistake. Perhaps it feels differently at high levels, but to a certain degree the statistics bear this out. Chess strength is directly correlated with the frequency of one's blunders. I think the subtractive nature of the game contributes to this: when I am player of equal or greater strength, it is very likely that any uneven exchange will lead to a lost game. Careless errors can still be costly in go, but the flow of the game often allows for recovery. Just as importantly, even when I lose I will still have some area of the board where I built something that endured.

Certainly one of the things that is harder to deal with as your level increases at chess....that smaller and smaller mistakes lead to a difficult game, combined with the fact that at higher levels it's pretty hard to break into certain types of positions/opening systems.

I may well be wrong (I am about plenty of things I talk about...I'm still out there losing my first ten thousand dicsussions, soon it'll be time to start looking at theory ), but Go seems to have a very different feel to it....None of this 'I'll go about my plans and there's nothing you can do about it!' business in Go

jeromie wrote: In addition to all of the inherent properties of the game, the go playing community is filled with interesting and helpful people. The people with whom I have been able to interact are reason enough to take up the game.

I already feel able to agree with you there...could this be a reflection of the fact that in Go people 'build games together' rather than decimating each others armies/population/kingdoms (Thanks Multifolio!

Shako wrote:I see that letting go of stones is relatively common. Is there something that works like a 'true' sacrifice in chess? (Meaning it's not just a complicated combination that gets your material back, but really giving up material to upset the position and 'change the rules'). If so, would it be on the scale of giving up a group unexpectedly?

Sacrifice is quite common in go, and, as far as I can tell, are true sacrifices, as a rule. As for giving up a group unexpectedly, players will sometimes battle over who will get to give up their group. Good players always are on the lookout for the opponent's sacrifices. BTW, there is a rather spectacular sacrifice, in the fourth game in this post. (Miscount edited. )

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 253#p60253

Are there moves that are so unexpected that they 'come out of the blue' and change the way an opponent (and the general public) sees the game?

In the early 20th century the New Fuseki in go was as revolutionary as hypermodernism in chess. One of its main proponents was the go genius, Go Seigen, who died recently. Even at an advanced age he held a study group for top pros and was still a creative force. His opening in one game against the top player of the day, Honinbo Shusai, caused an uproar. Some people wrote indignant letters to the sponsoring newspaper and go magazines.

Go seems to have a very different feel to it....None of this 'I'll go about my plans and there's nothing you can do about it!' business in Go

Bobby Fischer talked about crushing his opponent's ego. Go humbles us all.

Thanks, that helps to fill in the gaps, and will help me to pull my nose off the board and look broader. I guess in some ways, I can slightly rethink my original question. These answers have all helped for that.

I guess I wanted to be reassured that Go has that elegance of design that lifts the game into the realms of imagination and expression, that you can lose yourself in it, and/or find truth in it.

Thanks everyone.

Bill Spight wrote: BTW, there is a rather spectacular sacrifice, in the third game in this post.

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 253#p60253

the third game? I don't see it (I see the game, not the sacrifice).

xed_over wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: BTW, there is a rather spectacular sacrifice, in the third game in this post.

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 253#p60253

the third game? I don't see it (I see the game, not the sacrifice).

Use the fourth, Luke.

Regardless of whether they're relevant to the conversation, it's always nice to see those old games.

Bill Spight wrote:

Go seems to have a very different feel to it....None of this 'I'll go about my plans and there's nothing you can do about it!' business in Go

Bobby Fischer talked about crushing his opponent's ego. Go humbles us all.

I agree with the above.

To answer the specific point of the OP - in Go you can observe and experience exactly the same contest of ideas as you have in chess. Each player has his/her own plan and tries to implement this plan as best he/she can - while at the same time trying to prevent the other player from implementing their plan. There are feints, sacrifices, killing blows, crushing defeats, joseki novelties, brilliant ideas, blunders, and general battle of wits. Other than castling and promotion, I cannot think of any concept from chess which is not present in Go. There are also a few concepts in Go which are not present in chess, just to be sure to mention that (local vs. global, for example.)

What is different is the attitude, not the game mechanics themselves.
In Go, there is much more respect, both towards the game, but especially towards other players.

Shako wrote: I guess I wanted to be reassured that Go has that elegance of design that lifts the game into the realms of imagination and expression, that you can lose yourself in it, and/or find truth in it.

For sure, it does. My feeling, Shako, is that it is because you have a good deal of experience with chess that you can see its elegance and beauty.

If you get absorbed in go, you'd start to feel the same types of elegance, imagination, and expression in go - maybe even more.

Personally, I think this kind of experience can happen in many subject areas, not just go and chess.