Life In 19x19

Recently, I took part in the European Go Congress' weekend tournament. As someone who had rarely played irl, I was curious what it would be like to play with 1hr main time - basically twice as long as what I had considered to be a "slow game." Well, it turned out to be an eye-opener. I reached byo-yomi in every one of my games, and was delighted to discover that a) I never felt impatient and b) I made virtually no impulse moves and c) I felt practically no anxiety and experienced no self-condemnation.

I had a great time, and while I was there, I bought a few nice books, and have been patiently studying, trying to take in only as much material as I can digest. I've been reading a very nice tesuji book called 200 Tesuji Problems by Shirae Haruhiko, and feel encouraged to look beyond the duffer's move, and I've been learning a few choice Josekis.

It would seem as if I should be on an excellent path, but my latest games have told another story. Practically every game I've played online has felt like a blitz game at some point, and my inner DDK has been presenting itself more and more frequently.

This brings me to the point of utterly derailing my own thread within it's first post, and asking my DDK question:

Joseki's frequently involve an exchange of territory for influence. Is there some principle that tells you whether to go for one or the other? Um, yeah...Look at the whole board. But what should I be looking for?

daal wrote:Joseki's frequently involve an exchange of territory for influence. Is there some principle that tells you whether to go for one or the other?

According to Joseki 3 Dictionary chapter 3, corner results can be evaluated to determine if they are joseki. As an implication, one notices if the territory side or the influence is better in that corner or quarter of the board. Obviously, you would go for the better side. Otherwise, you can choose either colour.

For the whole board / middle game context, a joseki result can be judged either by simple context conditions (e.g. adjacent corner A is valuable, adjacent corner B is invaluable, then the player getting a joseki to develop A has the advantage) or needs global positional judgement. It depends on that and the nature of the position whether some principle can relate the joseki choice in an obvious manner. (E.g., if the global context specifies that further influence is useless and player X will win with T more points of territory, then a joseki giving him at least that excess would be nice.) Usually though, things are not so simple and one needs to evaluate various aspects of the position, see Joseki 2 Strategy chapter 8 etc.

daal wrote:[..] my inner DDK has been presenting itself more and more frequently.

Funny … for me it’s the inner TDK

This brings me to the point of utterly derailing my own thread within it's first post, and asking my DDK question:

Joseki's frequently involve an exchange of territory for influence. Is there some principle that tells you whether to go for one or the other? Um, yeah...Look at the whole board. But what should I be looking for?

Yeah, that’s also what I’ve been wondering about (while meanwhile I go for influence more often than for territory, and I probably do it badly).

It sure has to do with … how many stones are around, and where, and—certainly—of which colour. But that’s already all I’ve understood—the question, not the answer

RobertJasiek wrote:

daal wrote:Joseki's frequently involve an exchange of territory for influence. Is there some principle that tells you whether to go for one or the other?

According to Joseki 3 Dictionary chapter 3, corner results can be evaluated to determine if they are joseki. As an implication, one notices if the territory side or the influence is better in that corner or quarter of the board. Obviously, you would go for the better side. Otherwise, you can choose either colour.

For the whole board / middle game context, a joseki result can be judged either by simple context conditions (e.g. adjacent corner A is valuable, adjacent corner B is invaluable, then the player getting a joseki to develop A has the advantage) or needs global positional judgement. It depends on that and the nature of the position whether some principle can relate the joseki choice in an obvious manner. (E.g., if the global context specifies that further influence is useless and player X will win with T more points of territory, then a joseki giving him at least that excess would be nice.) Usually though, things are not so simple and one needs to evaluate various aspects of the position, see Joseki 2 Strategy chapter 8 etc.

Robert, please excuse a small correction in English usage. "Invaluable" means extremely valuable. The simplest way to express the opposite meaning to "valuable" would probably be "not valuable".

Let me try by offering two examples of common josekis. What are the characteristics of the rest of the board if white feels satisfied after either of the two results?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Low approach pincered
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 6 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c shoulder hit to the 3-3
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 O . . 4 . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And for your joseki pleasure, here's a bonus joseki from olden times that went by the name of "Drooping lotus." What made white decide to toss the corner?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Triangled stones are: at C14, and
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O 8 2 1 . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . Y 0 6 3 4 Q . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . Q 9 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

gowan wrote:The simplest way to express the opposite meaning to "valuable" would probably be "not valuable".

And that is what I mean here, thanks!

daal wrote:I was curious what it would be like to play with 1hr main time

Still too fast for me.

1. Any scenario sente is good/equitable with black's moyo

eg.

(If the moyo seems too scary, you can play a moyo reducing joseki (ie attach on top of the pincer stone, or maybe jump or something).

2. Black wants to develop, and central influence isn't uninteresting for white. A typical example, if black has played one of the adjacent starpoints.


3. White is probably black in a 3+ stone handicap game, and so influence is good. Also, the intricate variations demonstrate some cool moves for both sides.

Thanks Robert and Loons. Your answers lead me to suspect that my question is pointless.

Loons wrote:
3. White is probably black in a 3+ stone handicap game, and so influence is good. Also, the intricate variations demonstrate some cool moves for both sides.

I don't know if it's a handicap joseki, but I indeed switched the colors. Good eye!

Your question is not pointless but requires also a so general answer that it can include about 1/3 of all go knowledge.

It's really important not to play things that people tell you are good, but you don't understand. For instance, if you're not comfortable with the result after reading it out or reviewing the game afterward, think about what you could play that YOU think is good (or at least even.)

Let's say that a very strong player tells you that you should play differently because they think the position is better for you. If you don't understand, ask for their reasoning. If you still don't understand, then don't play it just because they say it's good.

Many positions have become clearer to me after getting stronger, and my longest stagnation period was when I played what I was told was "right."

I guess what I'm saying is that you shouldn't trust anyone, they are all out to get you!

It must be bad reasoning if one cannot trust and understand it, even when asking the teacher.

Tabemasu wrote:It's really important not to play things that people tell you are good, but you don't understand.

I think that like many weak players, there's fairly little that I actually understand, and when I do understand something, it's often fleeting because a real understanding often involves remembering quite a few of the specifics of the situation and even with a fair amount of repetition, these specifics have a high tendency to blur. Lately, I've been trying to combat that, by trying to learn less at a time, for example one variation of one joseki.

Given the number of positions in go, this can be described as the "drop of water on a hot stone" strategy. Given a million years, I might get somewhere with it.

Recently, a fellow taught me one variation of one handicap joseki, and I've been playing it every chance I get. Occasionally, my opponent will play the variation I know, and I get thickness facing an extention, and this is something that not only have I been told that it's good, but it's something that I vaguely know what to do with. For this situation, I can fall back on a so-called principle, and when for example my opponent invades, I might not know which move to make, but I have a good idea of my intent. I'm going to push him towards my thickness and make something on the outside while doing so.

This is the sort of thing that has less trouble wedging itself into my memory, and explains the seductiveness of a nice principle.

I think a number of teachers are aware of this - shall I say - sdk mentality. I don't think they are out to get us, but rather they deign to cater to our limitations. Ideally, they will also press us to move beyond them, and as you suggest, become more independent thinkers capable of making our own judgements.

But how do we take this step? You write:

For instance, if you're not comfortable with the result after reading it out or reviewing the game afterward, think about what you could play that YOU think is good (or at least even.)

Comfortable with the result? I'm practically never comfortable in a go game. The only results that I can comfortably judge are the disasters - and even those I can't accurately judge, because I've seen how stronger players have milked what seemed to me to be disasters for enough drops of advantage to fill their victory cups.

When the result isn't so clear cut, I find myself gasping for a principle.

Recently I've been studying the last chapter of Yilun Yang's Fundamental Principles of Go. It involves showing a typical formation, and a few typical ways of dealing with it. I'm doing my damnest to understand the sequences he presents, questioning whether the moves that he says are sente are really sente. I know from experience that sdk responses to invasions are never as concerned with fixing cutting points than he seems to be. This means, that the sequence is only worth remembering, if I understand and remember what damage the cuts can do.

But back again to my original question. To me, there's one type of result that basically look the same throughout the whole chapter despite Yang's nuanced evaluation: One player lives with +/- a stone or two of territory, and the other gets thickness on the outside. Is anybody comfortable with this? Not me. Did w make a steal? Did black? Maybe after the game while reviewing, I'll see that the result of the territory/influence exchange was better or worse, but I'd really like to know beforehand what I should be looking for.

No doubt Robert will tell me which chapters of which of his books to read and re-read, and in fact I did just re-read this from page 57 of Joseki 2 Strategy:

Robert Jasiek in Joseki 2 Strategy wrote:A player's influence is created by his live outside stones and has a greater impact on other intersections the more

*easily friendly stones there can be connected and get life,
*eaily the player can make territory there,
*dificult it is for opposing stones there to be connected and get life and
*difficult it is for the opponent to make territory there.

Is he out to get me?

Greetings,
valueless,
Cheers,
Buri

My post? Your post? Any attempt to seek guidance through principles?

You know that feeling when someone starts blitzing during a slow game? I have it now.