Life In 19x19

I developed a completely new computer assisted opening theory that is aimed for the KGS blitz games. The idea is that I draw randomly first four moves and does not care where opponent plays their own opening moves. I use a php script for generating random moves, thus computer assisted. I got the inspiration for this because Zen is my favorite go player and I wanted a little irrational MC gobot feeling for my kgs games.

There are two aspects that are little surprising. There is little relevance for the final outcome where the first four moves are. Especially when playing black, result after opening is usually roughly even. When playing as white games are sometimes more difficult than normally, but still often manageable. However other thing that is even more surprising is that I have not seen any other using such opening theory. Thus I declare that it is new opening theory.

Anyways I have now played some 35 rated blitz games on KGS and I have had no difficulties of keeping 2d rank there. Although I am not that particularly strong for 2-dan so handicap what is given by placing first four stones randomly is far less than one stone. I usually assist a little if it seems that local response is urgent. When playing as black assistance is hardly never required, and when playing as white assistance is required sometimes but perhaps less than one out of 4 games.

I would like to discuss about people's personal likings towards highly experimental fuseki theory.

"I usually assist a little if it seems that local response is urgent." Does this mean you don't always play the first 4 stones randomly, but only when you decide it's OK? If so, that's not really the same as true randomness. I'm not really surprised to hear opening doesn't matter too much in blitz, though.

emeraldemon wrote:"I usually assist a little if it seems that local response is urgent." Does this mean you don't always play the first 4 stones randomly, but only when you decide it's OK?

No it does not mean that. It just means that if randy draws a random move and opponent replys with tsuke, it is reasonable to reply nobi locally. Like I stated that these things are rare and relevant only if opponent's moves are urgente sente moves. Sente is a move where tenuki to any other part of the goban will lead to the immediate loss of points.

I'd be interested to hear how it does in non-blitz games. I find new and experimental fuseki interesting in theory, but I haven't tried any in practice because I'm not strong enough to play out an opening that I don't yet know the general properties of.

I'm assuming you exclude plays on the first line at least.

Interesting idea and I might try it.

However you should either state up front that you'll respond to a contact move locally, or not deviate from those four moves no matter what. I think I will try the latter.

Yes, I have excluded intersections below third line and also I have excluded coordinates that are next to each other (nobi). I do not have had courage to try with non blitz timings =)

You might be interested to check out the games of Robert Jasiek (sum on KGS). His account is 5d and his first few moves often look pretty random.

dezomb is another KGS character with, how to phrase it, imaginative openings.

This just shows how little all this theory stuff really matters

I've heard more than once before the notion that your first two moves can be anywhere (except the first line), and only from move three should you be thinking about coordinating the stones.

palapiku wrote:
This just shows how little all this theory stuff really matters

No, it just shows how few people understand opening theory. If Liisa encounters someone who does, he/she is going to get clobbered.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:No, it just shows how few people understand opening theory.

It's quite astonishing how often you will find "wrong direction" in professional's comments on even high amateur Dan's games.

This will be true with "normal" Fuseki as well as with "unusual" Fuseki.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

palapiku wrote:
This just shows how little all this theory stuff really matters

No, it just shows how few people understand opening theory. If Liisa encounters someone who does, he/she is going to get clobbered.

Actually, I suspect this is a testament to how well Liisa does understand opening theory, in knowing what to do with those 4 stones.

dfan wrote:You might be interested to check out the games of Robert Jasiek (sum on KGS). His account is 5d and his first few moves often look pretty random.

Yes. He has written before, I believe on gd, that he sometimes uses random moves for the first two moves.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

palapiku wrote:
This just shows how little all this theory stuff really matters

No, it just shows how few people understand opening theory. If Liisa encounters someone who does, he/she is going to get clobbered.

I do not think so. First if someone understand's fuseki significantly better than my randy, their rank would not be 2d. And second is that in Kgs blitz wins the player who has bigger muscles. It is not about winning by four points, that is what you might loose by playing non ideal opening moves, but finding a sequence that opponent cannot read in 10 seconds.

When Wang Yang 5p was the main teacher on a Go 'n' Games Go to China trip I asked him about how much "worse" eg the Big Cross or Great Wall openings are in comparison to more traditional openings.
As far as I remember he said that for amateurs it makes no difference, it is more important to play a opening that you "know", so if you study the Great Wall opening it will suit you just as good as eg San-Ren Sei or Kobayashi.
Again if I remember correctly he said that on a professional level, there may be a difference of 4-5 points to use a less optimal opening.

/Mats