Life In 19x19

Hi,

In trying to find out how much I've yet to learn (which is a lot!), I came across this post at SL page "Rank and what you know" (hope it's OK to cite it):

"tartuffe: While these concepts can be grasped on some level before the given level, I think this is about right for "application of the concepts". Feel free to correct me!

25k-21k: The net, basic dead shapes, eyes, ladders, ko, corner - side - center, how to make shimari
20k-16k: empty triangles are bad, sente is good, don't let the snake into your moyo, 3-3 invasions, the most common joseki, create eyeshape, bamboo joints, miai, throw-ins, big points in fuseki
15k-11k: attention to direction of play, a few common endgame tesuji, the table shape, attention to fast play, the difference between the third line and fourth line, avoid unnecessary early play on the second line, invade before the opponent completely solidifies territory and passes, joseki selection based on developments of other corners, ladder breakers
10k-6k: probes, two stone edge squeeze, timing of invasions, proper use of thickness, balance of territory, invade vs. reduce, better understanding of direction of play, size of endgame points
5k-1k: light play, reasonable expectations for invasions and reduction

In my experience from 30k-4k strength at life & death and tesuji account for most of one's rank. These can be improved rapidly by reading problem books and playing many games."

To Peter Hansmeier (tartuffe of godiscussions): do you still hold the above views? To SDKs and stronger, were your experiences similar?

Take a concept like atari. Beginner needs to know what an atari is and the usual response to atari. It's harder to say when to play atari and when in fact the usual response of extending out from atari is appropriate. I'd say knowledge of Go is rather iterative. What about players (them Koreans) who only study tsumego problems and who brute force their way through ranks with little "conceptual play" that we westerners are so fond of? Would they make list like that of what they "know"?

The list seems a little miscellaneous. I'm surprised he left out tesuji that break the flower vase.

I've bolded the items on the list that I think are well-timed -- i.e., it would be pointless to try to make a beginner learn them earlier, and fairly sad to wait until later. But the other ones would either be beneficial to learn earlier, or possible to delay until later, or both.

I think to put the concept of Ko at the very beginning is way off. Way off!

Even if you learn what Ko refers to, and even if you progress to the level of understanding that (at best) you should take the Ko first (meaing to set up the Ko in the right way), you actually don't know anything about Ko.
For me Ko is as hard to grasp as the concept of Kikashi. You know what it is and how to play it, but it has so many underlying shades in its practical use that in most cases the timing will be off, you will not gain anything by playing it or even worse it will lead to thank-you-moves.

I think, there is a reason why there are whole books just about Ko and even quite a few problems how to make Kos.

In my opinion until SDK one has only to follow two rules: Cut your opponent wherever you can and keep your stones connected. Everything else follows naturally : D

I don't know any of the things listed for my level, and very little of the things listed for the next lower level, and still struggle with several things from the beginning levels.

maybe if I learned those things, I'd be a lot stronger then.

SoDesuNe wrote:I think to put the concept of Ko at the very beginning is way off. Way off!
...
it has so many underlying shades in its practical use

I'd subscribe to the latter, so I would not say that it is completely way off. Ko is part of the rules, so you have to understand at least basically what it is. Using ko as a weapon is a different thing though. I had my first "in-the-wild" ko fight at 20k/16k (EGF/KGS), so I think that it is appropriate at this level to know how to perform a ko fight. In general ko is your companion at all levels of tactical strength, be it at life and death or tesuji or middlegame or endgame fight.

Such lists are OK, but don't take them too seriously. Everybody is different.

I like Bill's comment.

Something that I've been noticing - really very emphatically - is that other people similar level to me have insanely different knowledge bases. And yet we maintain the same rank.

I think it builds at least partly from accumulating half-remembered stronger-player reviews where they say things like: "Here... This would be a more normal way" "This is the vital point" <because...>. And it's a move you didn't/barely/mis- evaluate/d.

Read the tidbits from my blog.
Go strength corresponds with your ability to calculate (read a position).

tchan001 wrote:Read the tidbits from my blog.
Go strength corresponds with your ability to calculate (read a position).

Calculation and reading are not the same. As Sakata pointed out, reading takes judgement.

tchan001 wrote:Read the tidbits from my blog.
Go strength corresponds with your ability to calculate (read a position).

That was a very enjoyable read. Thanks.

On that point:

Maybe a year ago I went through the "Making Good Shape" book. It was mostly Greek to me but I did manage to pick up a few good ideas from it. I'm going through it again now. I'm in the very interesting position where I can read out, perfectly easy, both the "Success" and "Failure" diagrams before I look at the answer, and still have no idea which is which until I peek.

So when we say "reading", it really is two very different skills from very different parts of your brain: one is visualizing stones 16 moves deep, and the other is figuring out if a position is good or bad. I'd agree that those two skills combined really are maybe 80% or more of your over-the-board strength.

Hi loons,

Loons wrote:Something that I've been noticing - really very emphatically - is that other people similar level to me have insanely different knowledge bases. And yet we maintain the same rank.

Interesting. Would it true to say that your opponents (presumably strong SDK or better) have the broad basics but the depth differs?

In my opinion we only have a broad understanding of the basics when we enter Dan-level.
Before that, I think a lot of players (me included) are very good with things they know and vice versa. That has in my opinion less to do with understanding basics but with comfort and confidence when it comes to known situations.
E.g. in the opening I hated it, when my opponents played San-Ren-Sei or other Moyo-based strategies because I always found it hard to judge wether the Moyo is too big or if I can play calmly taking territory for the moment to reduce (or invade?) later. In most of the cases I messed up with the timing and actually helped my opponent to make his Moyo solidified territory.
As I progressed, my experience with Moyos grow, too, and I could judge to an certain extent if I have enough points elsewhere and so on. But well, that feeling, that I'm okay with my opponent trying to make a huge Moyo, only came around 2k.

Other things, like basic fighting stuff, are still hard to use for me in actual combat. Like wether to attach to make you and your opponent strong or to simply extend in the center to hold back to have the possibility to severely attack later. Running groups in general are very hard for me.

I think, I lack experience with this and therefor lack a real grasp of these basics. I was (and still am) a very territorial oriented player, so I almost never had running groups but in a lot of occaisons my opponent invaded me. So now, I'm pretty good with handling invasions.

What I want to say is, I think our understanding of the basics can only grow as much as we play opponents forcing us to rely on these basics. If we only play what we always played, we will only get, what we always got. Thus no progress.

This is a very interesting thread! I'm at about 12k now ... and so far my progress went more or less along the line the initial post describes - maybe with some small deviations.

Btw.: What exactly is meant by 'attention to fast play' ? Anyone can explain and/or point out an example?