Just a general question here. I guess it is really a beginner question, but I am not sure that's all it is.

Let's assume a player has a nice side of the board well walled off. Within are roughly 25 points of territory, wide open. This type position poses questions for me, and I am not sure the best answers, so I thought I would ask.

First and foremost, this area may be open to invasion/reduction. But what if I do not know if this area can be safely approached? Is it 'rude' of me to not try to play in this space because I do not know it can be taken? Further, am I obligated to play there if there is a chance? If it is possible, and I do not play, is this seen as 'playing wrong'?

Let's also then assume the situation shows (but I can't see it) that the area can not safely be taken, so any moves in there are wasted. Is it then 'rude' of me to play in there, not being aware of this? What if it is safe with perfect play, does playing in there anyway imply you are hoping for a mistake so that you CAN take some points?

Right now, I play against AI opponents a lot because of this. A computer never gets insulted at a wasted or bad play. I can throw useless stones there to my hearts content to learn why it may have been a bad idea, and the computer never gets impatient or upset thinking I am making a game go much longer than it should have gone. But are there rough guidelines on any of this? Is this always an ongoing concern?

First of all, 25 spaces that have been completely walled off is pretty impregnable unless your opponent helps you to live a lot. This 289 point space below is actually quite hard to live inside.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X |
$$ | . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

In real game positions though, it is rare for the surrounding walls of territories to be so perfect and strong.

If you think you have a chance to invade some space then you can try. There is no obligation to do so, or to not do so. But think what does your move threaten. If your opponent passes (or plays a valuable move elsewhere on the board) and you get to play again are you still dead? A common beginner mistake is to only try invading secure territories at the very end of the game once they are totally safe and strong (which is a bit rude), when an invasion actually had some chances to work earlier in the game before you helped them to solidify their territory. Put yourself in your opponent's shoes and think how would you feel with your proposed invasion played against you. Is it "Oh my god that is so stupid I can pass 5 times and you are still dead"? In that case don't do it. Or do you feel "Oh no he saw the weakness in my territory, maybe it's not mine afterall"? Then do it. If you think your move has a chance to work, but your stronger opponent knows it can't because of his greater skill it's ok to play it.


Actually you may not learn so much. Perhaps your move was so bad the computer could have passed, but it didn't because it still won by answering. A human is more likely to enjoy passing to show how useless your move was.

"rudeness", don't worry about anything like this, just play where you think is best

This is certainly not rude! Go is a sharing game; it is often a better strategic choice to allow your opponent to make territory on one area of the board while you play elsewhere. I can't think of any situation where choosing not to invade would be considered rude. If you lose the game it may have been "wrong," but that's why we play.



In general, this isn't rude either. Failed invasions are also part of the game, and there is nothing wrong with making an opponent prove it fails. The only exception (in my mind-others may feel differently) would be if you are playing obviously useless moves just to avoid ending the game. If you think something might work, it's not obvious.

It's only rude if the move doesn't work if they're sober and you know this.

You have to try playing there to find out

Playing online is about the fun you can have. Especially as a beginner you don't need to worry much about what would happen if both players played perfectly, even professional players make mistakes.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

It is possible to prolong the game of go by making unnecessary plays. Doing that on purpose would be rude. However, you have to be fairly good to be sure whether a play is unnecessary or not. Even average players at times fail to make necessary plays or make unnecessary plays. Beginners often do so. It is never rude to make an unnecessary play by mistake, or to make a play that you are not sure is unnecessary or not. Also, it is not rude to fill a dame. Before the dame are all filled, it is possible for a player to fail to make a necessary play, thus giving an opportunity to his opponent.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.