Life In 19x19

Nick Sibicky's lectures on YouTube are a fantastic resource for kyu players. His most recent video was good, but it was all a repeat of a previous lecture until he asked a great question:

"But what are we trying to do in the opening? What are we trying to accomplish?" - Nick Sibicky (at 32:16 in the video)

His students struggle to answer this basic question; one I'm sure most players would say they can answer. I struggled as well. I usually say the opening is about marking off areas of the board, but really that's a bad way of looking at the game. As Kageyama talks about in Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go you should not become overly attached to your areas of influence. You must not treat those areas as yours. Territory is yours, influence is not.

I love Nick's explanation that he gives. "The opening is about creating potential, or destroying your opponent's potential. You are trying to get the most potential for yourself and the least potential for your opponent."

Now that's a good way to define the opening.

I hear about corners and bases and territory and styles of play, but really the opening is about potential. You want to give yourself a better ability to make points than your opponent. Not that you are making all of your points right away, but by the time the end game does come you want more chances to make points - more options for points - more potential for points.

And as for what potential is - he says that, for kyus, potential is a box. And I also like that definition of potential. Making boxes is the key way to gain potential. That is how frameworks work.

Thats a good way to put it, having more clues as to where to play always helps =).



OT: I watched most of his videos and because of my level I can't really attest for their quality, but even then they are usually pretty entertaining to watch, so anyone who doesn't know them should check it out.

I think it might be somewhat problematic as an answer to say the opening is about potential to a student since they might see a false implication that the rest of the game is not.

"The opening is about creating potential" seems to still cling to the idea of staking out (potential) territories in the opening, which is a rather shallow viewpoint.

A more enlightening aphorism (which I'm fairly sure came from a pro, but I don't recall in what context) was something along the lines of

An unknown pro once wrote: The opening is not about territory, but about group safety.

ALL phases of the game, even the opening, are about creating, sacrificing AND exchanging cash AND potential. The opening can, but need not, have more creation and be more about potential than later phases. (What is 'potential'? A metaphor for influence, options, choices, aji etc.)

leichtloeslich wrote:"The opening is about creating potential" seems to still cling to the idea of staking out (potential) territories in the opening, which is a rather shallow viewpoint.

A more enlightening aphorism (which I'm fairly sure came from a pro, but I don't recall in what context) was something along the lines of

An unknown pro once wrote: The opening is not about territory, but about group safety.

Group safety?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black: 0 White: 0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 7 9 |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 2 4 6 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$cm11 Black: 0 White: 0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 1 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 2 . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Check! Let the middle game begin~!

moyoaji wrote:I love Nick's explanation that he gives. "The opening is about creating potential, or destroying your opponent's potential. You are trying to get the most potential for yourself and the least potential for your opponent."

This is nice definition, and a good viewpoint to opening IMHO.

moyoaji wrote: And as for what potential is - he says that, for kyus, potential is a box. And I also like that definition of potential. Making boxes is the key way to gain potential. That is how frameworks work.

This seems like complete nonsense to me, sorry. I think leichtloeslich nailed some of it when speaking about group safety. Perhaps something like: "Potential of having more different opions to develop further, or more flexible options." Having weak groups around often severely affects your available options and flexibility.

And Kirby, If I read leichtloeslich correctly in above paragraph, your example is well off the mark, right?

TIM82 wrote:

moyoaji wrote:I love Nick's explanation that he gives. "The opening is about creating potential, or destroying your opponent's potential. You are trying to get the most potential for yourself and the least potential for your opponent."

This is nice definition, and a good viewpoint to opening IMHO.

moyoaji wrote: And as for what potential is - he says that, for kyus, potential is a box. And I also like that definition of potential. Making boxes is the key way to gain potential. That is how frameworks work.

This seems like complete nonsense to me, sorry. I think leichtloeslich nailed some of it when speaking about group safety. Perhaps something like: "Potential of having more different opions to develop further, or more flexible options." Having weak groups around often severely affects your available options and flexibility.

And Kirby, If I read leichtloeslich correctly in above paragraph, your example is well off the mark, right?

Regarding boxes, Let's recall that this was also one Go Seigen's ideas early in the Shin Fuseki era. The development of the lower left corner in the famous game between Go and Honinbo Shusai half-way down this page was an example of Go testing his theory to make a 'box-like' shape. This turned to be difficult to succeed with at the professional level but personally I think it is interesting advice for us amateurs. YMMV of course.

For kyu players the opening is that part of the game which ends when one player decides he needs to invade a position which doesn't need invading and hence a large middle game fight starts.

TIM82 wrote:
And Kirby, If I read leichtloeslich correctly in above paragraph, your example is well off the mark, right?

What did I miss? Not making much territory or having safe groups?

The opening is the only part of the game that is about equilibrium. If an opening sequence is inferior, it gets weeded out of the joseki/fuseki books. What remains is good enough to get you into the middle game, which is the point.

You can't win a game by playing a good opening, but you can lose a game by playing a bad opening.

moyoaji wrote:Nick Sibicky's lectures on YouTube are a fantastic resource for kyu players.

{snip}

I love Nick's explanation that he gives. "The opening is about creating potential, or destroying your opponent's potential. You are trying to get the most potential for yourself and the least potential for your opponent."

leichtloeslich wrote:"The opening is about creating potential" seems to still cling to the idea of staking out (potential) territories in the opening, which is a rather shallow viewpoint.

A more enlightening aphorism (which I'm fairly sure came from a pro, but I don't recall in what context) was something along the lines of

An unknown pro once wrote: The opening is not about territory, but about group safety.

This is not really a dichotomy. Besides, there are other ways of talking about the opening. I would have answered that the opening is about preparing for battle.

But basically Nick is right. The opening is about potential. The first play gains around 14 points. But points of what? Points of potential. Potential what? Potential territory or potential area, to mention the two main ways of scoring. I think that it is easiest to think of potential area. Why? Because all of the board becomes area (unless there is a seki). So in an even match if Black has an advantage in potential of 15 points on a 19x19 board, we expect that at the end of play Black will have 188 points of area and White will have 173. (Not taking into account who will make the next play.)

Based upon my own research I think that we can go further and say that potential is partial area. A neutral point between territories has a potential of 0. At the end we expect that half the time it will be Black area and half the time it will be White area. Suppose that potential of a point is 1/2 for Black. We expect that 3/4 of the time it will become Black area and 1/4 of the time it will become White area.

It is obvious that if we stake out an area that increases its potential to become our area. But what about the safety of groups? A strong group generates a lot of potential, a weak group generates little potential. Saving a weak group may even generate negative potential. There are degrees of safety. A group that is absolutely safe, that never has to make a protective play, is immortal. Based upon my research, it appears that an immortal group exerts 100% influence on potential area, while a group that is only half immortal (halfway between immortal and dead) exerts only 50% influence on potential. Thus, to generate the most potential that we can in the opening we want to create strong groups.

There is an obvious tension when it comes to choosing plays. Do we stake out a big point, or do we secure or attack a group? There is no pat answer, and experience is important. But we do have a proverb to guide us, Urgent plays before big plays.

When I was around 5 kyu I wondered about why in the opening pros would sometimes make a short extension from a live group? It appeared to gain only a few points of territory. The point was that the opponent could attack the group and enclose it or build a strong wall. Securing the group greatly increased its potential.

OTOH, pros may also leave a weak stone or even a couple of stones in the opening without running or defending them. There are a couple of points here. First, running may not increase potential. It can even reduce it when the opponent chases. Similarly, premature defense may also strengthen the opponent, even leading to a net loss of potential. The pro is prepared to sacrifice weak stones instead of straining to save them.

Thanks, Bill.

Bill Spight wrote:Suppose that potential of a point is 1/2 for Black.
We expect that 3/4 of the time it will become Black area and 1/4 of the time it will become White area.

Could you elaborate on this a little bit? I'm not sure I follow.
(I see the relationship 3/4 - 1/4 = 1/2, but otherwise, I'm lost. Thanks.)

EdLee wrote:Thanks, Bill.

Bill Spight wrote:Suppose that potential of a point is 1/2 for Black.
We expect that 3/4 of the time it will become Black area and 1/4 of the time it will become White area.

Could you elaborate on this a little bit? I'm not sure I follow.
(I see the relationship 3/4 - 1/4 = 1/2, but otherwise, I'm lost. Thanks.)

No, you've got it. If the potential of a point is 1/3 for Black we expect that 2/3 of the time it will become Black area and 1/3 of the time it will become White area. 2/3 + 1/3 = 1. 2/3 - 1/3 = 1/3.

That's why it is convenient to think in terms of potential area. We expect that a point will become either Black or White area, so the probabilities add to 1. That does not work for territory.

As for figuring out the numbers, if I could do that for every go position, I could write a nearly perfect go playing program.

Bill Spight wrote:Besides, there are other ways of talking about the opening. I would have answered that the opening is about preparing for battle.

But basically Nick is right. The opening is about potential. The first play gains around 14 points. But points of what? Points of potential. Potential what? Potential territory or potential area, to mention the two main ways of scoring.

I like "preparing for battle" and I am puzzled how the rest of your post relates to it. How is the numbers approach going to help a player struggling to find a good opening move? Most people find it hard to do this in the endgame, but in the opening? Seriously: "Oh, I gained this 10% 100 point territory, great now the 25% 36 territory is the next move."