Life In 19x19

Hi fellow beginners,

Just sharing some thoughts.

As a beginner, a lost game allows us to gauge our:
1) Skill level (rank); and
2) Shortcomings in technique and strategy.

However, gauging our level online is complicated by the fact that our opponents' displayed rank may not be accurate.

From my experience (albeit limited), I’ve come across four types of players displaying ranks of 20k-30k:
• Solids. Player’s rank is quite steady although it may move up or down a stone over months. May be as close as we can get to a proper gauge of our skill level .
• Dynamics. A rising (or falling) star. On turn-based games (over weeks), seems to get stronger as the game progresses. Played one a few months back - I won the first game, she the second. She has since gone up to 17k – a seven stone improvement!
• Erratics. Skill varies by 3-5 stones up or down. Played one a few weeks ago - I won the first game, he the second (by a big margin). Thinking he was a dynamic, I kept watch. But his rank fell by 5 stones, within a month!
• Baggers. Short for ‘sandbaggers’. Highly skilled player displaying a much lower rank. Wipes out beginners in short order. Two subtypes: ‘purposeful’ and ‘accidental’. ‘Purposeful’ are either (i) new to a server (thus assigned an initial low rank), or (ii) those using the account for casual play (their ‘when I’m drunk’ account). In contrast, ‘accidentals’ had allowed a large number of turn-based server games to be timed-out, dramatically lowering their displayed rank. I'm currently in one game, giving handicap stones to a supposed 30k player, but discovered he’s an Accidental, of 19k rank!

So, the capacity to gauge our skill level declines moving from ‘solids’ to ‘baggers’. A loss to:
• Solid. Is most informative. Likely to indicate that our skill level is significantly below the opponent’s.
• Dynamic. Is less informative. Opponent may actually be a stone or two better (or worse) than displayed rank.
• Erratic. Is difficult to interpret (even if it’s a win) given the volatility in the opponent’s skill level.
• Bagger. Is near impossible to interpret because of our opponent's unknown skill level.

For those very much concerned about your rank on turn-based servers - watch out for Erratics. Why? Well, say, both of you start playing a game at similar rank. You fall behind in the game. The game takes weeks. Meanwhile your rank rises because you're improving. But during the same period your opponent rank falls. When you finally lose the game, you suffer a dramatic fall in your rank !

Have your experiences been the same?

Cheers
tezza

tezza, you may enjoy John's post #9 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1578

John Fairbairn wrote:the pro attitude is to say: If all my moves are perfect, I don't need to worry about my opponent's moves.
The amateur attitude is to look for imperfections in the opponent's moves and to try to punish them.

Work on your own moves; don't worry about your opponent's level (much less their rank) --
Yes, you want to study and learn how to deal with all kinds of moves from different opponents.
But no, don't play your opponent; play the board, and focus on your own studies and progress.

Forget about your opponents' ranks. Play the board. Review the board.

Look at ourselves: fix our own weaknesses and improve our strengths.
Our opponents are merely a mirror for us; no more, no less.

tezza wrote:For those very much concerned about your rank on turn-based servers. . . .

For beginners who are concerned about your rank:

Don't worry, be happy!

It's a game, folks.

Bill Spight wrote:For beginners who are concerned about your rank everyone:

Don't worry, be happy!

It's a game, folks.

Fix'd

Araban wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:For beginners who are concerned about your rank everyone:

Don't worry, be happy!

It's a game, folks.

Fix'd

I'd rather correct as follows:

For beginners those who are concerned about your rank:

Don't worry, be happy take action!

tezza wrote:As a beginner, a lost game allows us to gauge our:
1) Skill level (rank); and

I don't really think so. Definitely not more so than a win. A loss (or win) is a single data point, rating is a statistical interpretation of a mass of data points.

Also, I think results on DGS/OGS can be pretty random. Since the games are played over numerous days, and you only have to have one bad go day to screw yourself in all your games...

Kirby wrote:

Araban wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:For beginners who are concerned about your rank everyone:

Don't worry, be happy!

It's a game, folks.

Fix'd

I'd rather correct as follows:

For beginners those who are concerned about your rank:

Don't worry, be happy take action!

For Kirby:

Don't worry, be happy!

Hi EdLee,
Certainly agree with your view: “Work on your own moves, don't worry about your opponent's level (much less their rank)”. But perhaps the qualifier is that the opponent's level (in the broad sense) is the only widely-used measure beginners have to gauge progress. In an idealized world beginners could measure their progress against an absolute benchmark (perhaps by playing against a “Deep Go” 9p-grade program able to assess skill levels ).

Hi Daniel,
Your statement: “Also, I think results on DGS/OGS can be pretty random. Since the games are played over numerous days, and you only have to have one bad go day to screw yourself in all your games.” gave me pause. You’re right. Perhaps this "bad day, simultaneous games" phenomenon accounts for the erratic rank of some players.

Cheers,
tezza

tezza wrote:Hi EdLee,
Certainly agree with your view: “Work on your own moves, don't worry about your opponent's level (much less their rank)”. But perhaps the qualifier is that the opponent's level (in the broad sense) is the only widely-used measure beginners have to gauge progress.

I think this is precisely what Ed denies. Here are some ways you can gauge your progress:

(i) Are your moves consistent? Do you come up with a plan and follow-through, or do you have to abandon it after the next move?
(ii) Do you play moves that attack or defend groups that are already completely alive? Do you neglect to play moves which attack or defend groups that are nearly dead?
(iii) Are you playing thin formations with tons of cutting points? Who is getting cut to ribbons, you or your opponent?
(iv) Are you playing urgent moves before big moves, and big moves before small moves?
(v) Are you looking for, and finding, multi-purpose moves that answer your opponent's threats but do a little bit of extra work, as well?
(vi) Do you play in a way that shows an understanding of sente, gote, and miai?
(vii) Are you deciding whether to invade or reduce based on an appropriate understanding of the whole-board situation?
(viii) Are you spotting ladders, nets, tesuji, and other techniques that you've been studying?

All of these questions will help you gauge whether your games were good or bad, and over time whether you're improving. Your opponent's rank is, for now, completely meaningless.

tezza wrote:But perhaps the qualifier is that the opponent's level (in the broad sense) is the only widely-used measure beginners have to gauge progress.

IMNSHO, any beginner who wishes to advance rapidly should play the strongest players he or she can, preferably with an inadequate handicap. Ask a dan player to give you 5 stones as a teaching game. If you just want to play socially, don't worry about rank. If you want to play for advancement, don't worry about rank, either. It will hold you back. Better to play White against shodans until you can beat them.

To jts,
Wow, thanks for the questions we beginners should ask ourselves. They’re great!

To Bill,
Talking about 5-stone handicaps, I coincidently took that against a 6d yesterday. Got wiped out (of course), but really enjoyed the game. My opponent, who didn't chat except for a courtesy remark at the start, promptly requested another game – but I couldn’t oblige because of time (ah well).

To all,
Reading the above about “not worrying about the opponent’s rank” feels like zen. Thank you.

Cheers
tezza

I think that there are a couple of factors here: One, believing that after a loss, one played worse than one really did, and Two, believing that after a win, one played better than one really did. There is something to learn from every single game that we play. However, it is usually easier to find the mistakes in a game that we lost instead of won.

There is a piece of advice from chess that really applies here, if you are scared of your opponent after you look at their rank, then don't look at their rank until the game is over. There really is an advantage to playing the board, and not the person.