Balance, sharing and attacking
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:13 pm
There have been a few discussions here recently where I've noticed the way people think about many moves as being an 'attack' for example here and here.
I thought I'd bring this up for discussion and see what people think about it. If people think it's interesting I might write more here or on GGG.
I had the pleasure of meeting the late Wu Songsheng (9p) and seeing his lectures several times. I also had the privilege to speak with him about Go at length just once. You can read more about him on the Sensei's Library page. A lot of that text was written by me, so I won't repeat it here.
A number of years ago when I ran a Go tournament in Australia, I took Mr Wu to a restaurant for lunch with a small group of Go players (after picking him up from the airport) and he spoke in great detail about his ideas about Go. Later that day he gave a public lecture at the University of Melbourne on "How to think about Go", which unfortunately wasn't that well attended by Go players. (Possibly because he didn't speak English that well and needed a translator, but I was disappointed and thought people missed a great opportunity).
His way of thinking about the game was (I think) quite unique and he had a refreshingly idiosyncratic style of playing and teaching, much like Kajiwara, Takemiya or Yilun Yang. He viewed every sequence of moves as a sort of 1-2 exchange or trade. Because of his way of thinking he had a penchant for large scale trades (furikawari) and mutual damage - even where he often allowed his stones to die. I think this is how he got the reputation of having a 'Tai Chi style' of Go.
Something he talked about a lot were the concepts of balance and sharing. It's maybe something that we don't think about enough when we talk about Go in English. Here's a position he showed:
He'd ask people how they'd describe white
. Most people replied with something like 'approach' or 'attack', but Mr Wu rejected these descriptions as 'rubbish'. He preferred to call this 'sharing' the corner. He seemed to prefer to not go into complicated examples from games (I think he thought understanding the idea was the most important thing and that specific examples were distracting). Here's something he said about an opening position though:
When you play in the opening there are lots of moves to choose from. If you're black, at this point in the game black could choose to 'eat' the whole corner with 'a' or share white's corner with 'b' (and obviously there are other similar moves like 'c' - my addition to avoid going off topic later). Locally speaking the moves at 'a' and 'b' are equivalent.
Mr Wu said that it's like you're a child with a cake. You can eat the whole cake for yourself by playing 'a' or you can share another cake with white by playing 'b'. Either way, you still get to eat some cake, so it doesn't matter.
After this, white or black might play other moves locally and eat more or less of one cake or the other, but this is just a series of trades rather than an outright gain for anyone in particular. After you play a move, it's the other player's turn to move.
When two good players understand this and play together, they can create a work of art. Of the four ancient Chinese arts, Go is unique because it requires a partner. Because of that, you should respect and appreciate your partner.
I've thought about what he said a lot over the years and it's gradually made more and more sense to me. Respect is fundamental to playing the best moves that you are capable of. Also, most moves that people describe as attacks - things like approach moves and pincers - are just the next exchange in an ongoing negotiation. There's no point in attaching yourself too strongly to any particular move, because everything can be managed if you keep an open mind.
I will point out that Mr Wu is talking about Go at an abstract level and he probably assumes good play from both sides. Obviously if you make several blunders and your group dies, this way of thinking doesn't necessarily apply.
That's enough rambling from me though. I hope other people find Mr Wu's ideas to be interesting and worth some consideration.
I thought I'd bring this up for discussion and see what people think about it. If people think it's interesting I might write more here or on GGG.
I had the pleasure of meeting the late Wu Songsheng (9p) and seeing his lectures several times. I also had the privilege to speak with him about Go at length just once. You can read more about him on the Sensei's Library page. A lot of that text was written by me, so I won't repeat it here.
A number of years ago when I ran a Go tournament in Australia, I took Mr Wu to a restaurant for lunch with a small group of Go players (after picking him up from the airport) and he spoke in great detail about his ideas about Go. Later that day he gave a public lecture at the University of Melbourne on "How to think about Go", which unfortunately wasn't that well attended by Go players. (Possibly because he didn't speak English that well and needed a translator, but I was disappointed and thought people missed a great opportunity).
His way of thinking about the game was (I think) quite unique and he had a refreshingly idiosyncratic style of playing and teaching, much like Kajiwara, Takemiya or Yilun Yang. He viewed every sequence of moves as a sort of 1-2 exchange or trade. Because of his way of thinking he had a penchant for large scale trades (furikawari) and mutual damage - even where he often allowed his stones to die. I think this is how he got the reputation of having a 'Tai Chi style' of Go.
Something he talked about a lot were the concepts of balance and sharing. It's maybe something that we don't think about enough when we talk about Go in English. Here's a position he showed:
He'd ask people how they'd describe white
. Most people replied with something like 'approach' or 'attack', but Mr Wu rejected these descriptions as 'rubbish'. He preferred to call this 'sharing' the corner. He seemed to prefer to not go into complicated examples from games (I think he thought understanding the idea was the most important thing and that specific examples were distracting). Here's something he said about an opening position though:When you play in the opening there are lots of moves to choose from. If you're black, at this point in the game black could choose to 'eat' the whole corner with 'a' or share white's corner with 'b' (and obviously there are other similar moves like 'c' - my addition to avoid going off topic later). Locally speaking the moves at 'a' and 'b' are equivalent.
Mr Wu said that it's like you're a child with a cake. You can eat the whole cake for yourself by playing 'a' or you can share another cake with white by playing 'b'. Either way, you still get to eat some cake, so it doesn't matter.
After this, white or black might play other moves locally and eat more or less of one cake or the other, but this is just a series of trades rather than an outright gain for anyone in particular. After you play a move, it's the other player's turn to move.
When two good players understand this and play together, they can create a work of art. Of the four ancient Chinese arts, Go is unique because it requires a partner. Because of that, you should respect and appreciate your partner.
I've thought about what he said a lot over the years and it's gradually made more and more sense to me. Respect is fundamental to playing the best moves that you are capable of. Also, most moves that people describe as attacks - things like approach moves and pincers - are just the next exchange in an ongoing negotiation. There's no point in attaching yourself too strongly to any particular move, because everything can be managed if you keep an open mind.
I will point out that Mr Wu is talking about Go at an abstract level and he probably assumes good play from both sides. Obviously if you make several blunders and your group dies, this way of thinking doesn't necessarily apply.
That's enough rambling from me though. I hope other people find Mr Wu's ideas to be interesting and worth some consideration.
implicitly says you're OK with white having some of your cake, at 
I've been thinking recently that I'm ok (level-based disclaimers of course) at dealing with my thickness, but where I've been losing lately has often been when I've had to deal with a situation in which the other guy is thick. Any pointers for developing miaish play? Is it really just as simple as "those moves are about the same so if they take one I have the other"?
