Any general tips on how to contain an invasion?

[SoDesuNe]

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

[Kirby]

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

That happens, doesn't it? And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others. I tried pro lessons for a short period of time, for example, and did not find it very effective.

I also suspect that those that have the same rating for many years do not study as much as they could.

[Dusk Eagle]

Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

First, some general comments. In general, invasions, especially invasions early in the game, cannot be contained. If you can do so, that is usually a good idea, especially early on, because you can use the influence you get to make territory elsewhere, sometimes even on the other side of the board. More typically, you attack invasions without either killing them or containing them. Your gain comes from accomplishing other goals while you attack. Often the first response to an invasion is to solidify your own territory while preventing the invader from making life. If you can prevent the invader from making a base, that is even better. Then the invader runs out into the center, and you build up strength by continuing the attack. Especially early in the game, attack on a large scale. That may not be severe in terms of threatening to kill the invasion, but you do not expect to kill, anyway. Often the right attack is one where the invader does not know whether to reply or not. Also, when attacking a running group, it is often a good idea to get in front of it. That will not usually contain the group, but it may threaten to do so.

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

I agree with what you said, but I think this is almost impossible to put into practice without seeing in action for yourself first. This is why I liked shygost's lectures when I was weaker, despite disagreeing with some of the issues he presented as dogma. He was very good at demonstrating how to attack a weak group, and that helped me shoot through the 8-3k range. I wish I still had some of those lectures on my computer for others.

[xed_over]

...

Well, it depends upon what you mean by reading. If you mean calculation of variations, for an early invasion, give me a break! Most kyu players cannot reliably read out a 3x3 square, and invasions usually occur in areas 2 - 3 times that size. To ask a rank beginner to read out invasions is to ask him to court frustration.

More modest goals, are, however, possible. For instance, it may be feasible to read out whether an invasion can be contained. But an important thing, as karaklis points out, is to learn the objects of reading. Is there enough room (or play) for the opponent to live? to make an eye? Etc. Not to discourage reading. But, as Sakata (among others) points out, an important part of reading is judging the results of your calculations. If by reading you mean not only calculation, but selection of moves to read and assessment of results, then yes, reading is very important.

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

Clearly you've forgotten what it was like to be a beginner. Without any sort of objective, experimentation just becomes placing stones in random locations. And by the time you realize all is lost, your too many moves removed from what got you into trouble in the first place, in order to make the mental connection between a failed or successful experiment.

As a beginner, not only did I not know where to play, I had no idea why one spot might be better than another. And usually because I couldn't read past my own move to figure out my opponent's objective and where he might play next.

Once I started to get a rough idea of an objective, only then I could start narrowing my search pattern for trying to read out what the next few moves might look like.

[Inkwolf]

Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

I think you've hit right on my problem.

I took a style test ( http://style.baduk.org/style/index.php? ) that said I was way too passive, and I've been trying to play more aggressively since then, Maybe too much. Some general rethinking of my entire strategy concept is clearly in order.

[Kirby]

...

Well, it depends upon what you mean by reading. If you mean calculation of variations, for an early invasion, give me a break! Most kyu players cannot reliably read out a 3x3 square, and invasions usually occur in areas 2 - 3 times that size. To ask a rank beginner to read out invasions is to ask him to court frustration.

More modest goals, are, however, possible. For instance, it may be feasible to read out whether an invasion can be contained. But an important thing, as karaklis points out, is to learn the objects of reading. Is there enough room (or play) for the opponent to live? to make an eye? Etc. Not to discourage reading. But, as Sakata (among others) points out, an important part of reading is judging the results of your calculations. If by reading you mean not only calculation, but selection of moves to read and assessment of results, then yes, reading is very important.

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

Clearly you've forgotten what it was like to be a beginner. Without any sort of objective, experimentation just becomes placing stones in random locations. And by the time you realize all is lost, your too many moves removed from what got you into trouble in the first place, in order to make the mental connection between a failed or successful experiment.

As a beginner, not only did I not know where to play, I had no idea why one spot might be better than another. And usually because I couldn't read past my own move to figure out my opponent's objective and where he might play next.

Once I started to get a rough idea of an objective, only then I could start narrowing my search pattern for trying to read out what the next few moves might look like.

I don't think the idea is different for a beginner and more experienced player. You say you had no objective, but now you do. How did you get to that point? I think you could have learned these objectives independently of proverbs or outside help.

[SoDesuNe]

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

That happens, doesn't it? And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others. I tried pro lessons for a short period of time, for example, and did not find it very effective.

I also suspect that those that have the same rating for many years do not study as much as they could.

I do not think this is about some kind of "best solution". Everybody learns in different ways but I'm pretty sure no one learns Go with playing alone (practice/experience) and no form of guidance.
As far as I'm concerned, a Coach is the best thing. You took lessons from a pro player and it wasn't effective, but that just shows that being a strong player does not mean to be a good teacher.
But let alone the Coach, if you study Go, you study examples, principles and advice - again giving from other players. I can't see a way around that.

[Kirby]

...

I do not think this is about some kind of "best solution". Everybody learns in different ways but I'm pretty sure no one learns Go with playing alone (practice/experience) and no form of guidance.
As far as I'm concerned, a Coach is the best thing. You took lessons from a pro player and it wasn't effective, but that just shows that being a strong player does not mean to be a good teacher.
But let alone the Coach, if you study Go, you study examples, principles and advice - again giving from other players. I can't see a way around that.

Actually, I do not typically study examples, principles, or advice. I train with go problems. I try to train my brain to find solutions given a particular board position. This allows me to find a solution myself, rather than spitting out what somebody else told me.

It's possible that people learn in different ways, but in my experience, I do not get much from somebody else telling me what to do.

It could be me, too. Though I went to college, I didn't usually put much weight into what professors told me.

[hyperpape]

Actually, I do not typically study examples, principles, or advice. I train with go problems. I try to train my brain to find solutions given a particular board position. This allows me to find a solution myself, rather than spitting out what somebody else told me.

What is an opening problem except for an example designed to prove a point? Even tsumego are often chosen because they highlight particular techniques that the student won't see on his own.

Also, do you look at solutions to those problems?

It could be me, too. Though I went to college, I didn't usually put much weight into what professors told me.

I hope you mean "unconditional weight."

[Kirby]

What is an opening problem except for an example designed to prove a point? Even tsumego are often chosen because they highlight particular techniques that the student won't see on his own.

Also, do you look at solutions to those problems?

I believe that doing go problems are very much more oriented toward individual training/exercise than what you'd get in, say, a book on go theory, which tells you the correct moves - or, than getting lessons from a pro, for example.*

(By the way, I typically prefer life&death or tesuji problems, as opening problems seem a bit vague to me.)

I typically do not look at solutions to problems, except as a means of verifying that my calculations are the same as what the author came up with.

Yes, this verification does come from another person, but the bulk of my training does not rely on some canned proverb or advice.

... I hope you mean "unconditional weight."

I don't really know what you mean.


*Maybe I should give an example. I believe that taking a jog outside is more effective in strengthening my body than to have somebody push me around in a wheelchair. Both are effective for getting me around the block, but actual training and working for myself is what gets me stronger - and more able to move around freely on my own.

[BaghwanB]

Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

I think you've hit right on my problem.

I took a style test ( http://style.baduk.org/style/index.php? ) that said I was way too passive, and I've been trying to play more aggressively since then, Maybe too much. Some general rethinking of my entire strategy concept is clearly in order.

Here is my SDK advice on this swarm of issues:

1) When someone invades, I first try to look at the stone (cause it is just one stone for now...) as a potential target. I then ask myself:
a) Can I attack this, or
b) Do I have a bigger/better/more urgent move elsewhere?

If attacking/countering this last move is the best thing for me to do right now I then try to remember my 3 priorities for reasons to attack (I think I got this from a Yulin Yang book) in descending order of importance:
1) To secure life for a group of mine
2) To increase my territory/influence
3) To kill the opponent's group

So if I can combine these then great! Double-point play! So frequently my responses won't be planned to kill off the invading stone, but instead kick the group around some and gain advantages for myself in the process while it is still weak and needs to defend or run. This helps keep me out of all-or-nothing sequences that can decide the game with one fouled up (mine, usually...) move. I'm usually happy to give my opponent 10-15 points if I can secure 25+ with my responses.

Now please note that these are not ironclad rules, just a train of thought I follow with some limited success. Sometimes (and this is what makes go fun) a wimpy defensive, passive move can be the right response and sometimes the invasion is ludicrous and deserves to be stomped into the ground. Only experience can let you see what is the best response for you, but I find this process helps keep me from making overly "reactive" moves as a near-reflex.

Good luck and have fun!

Bruce "Keel moose and squirrel" Young

[Kirby]

Coming back to the jogging example, I suppose it's possible that one could relate learning knowledge from books to receiving a piece of technology from another person.

That is, maybe reading a book on go theory could be like getting a scooter from the author. It'll help you to be faster, even though you didn't work much for that speed yourself...

Hmmm...

[illluck]

@Kirby:

I think that's a horrible analogy XD A more apt one might be trying to reach the end of a path, and getting wheel-chaired there for the first half?

But I personally think a better analogy would be like climbing a mountain with a guide?

[Kirby]

...

But I personally think a better analogy would be like climbing a mountain with a guide?

Perhaps... I suppose in that case, given the choice of:

1.) Sitting in a classroom, having the guide teach me about mountain climbing technique.

2.) Practicing my mountain climbing skill by training on small hills behind my house every day.

I'd probably choose number 2 if I wanted to become a better mountain climber. I think that the hands-on experience is valuable.

I don't think that learning from others is totally useless, I guess. I would probably rank my personal experience in study technique in the following manner:

Personally acquired knowledge > book knowledge > knowledge acquired by somebody telling me

So, back to the example, if I had to learn how to be a good mountain climber, I'd put preference toward going out and trying to climb mountains over reading a book on mountain climbing, over hearing what the guide has to tell me... And I suppose that hearing what the guide has to tell me would rank higher than hearing what somebody else said that the guide told them.

[daal]

I believe that taking a jog outside is more effective in strengthening my body than to have somebody push me around in a wheelchair.

That's a rather odd analogy, but what do you think of this one:

I know that I'll get stronger by jogging than by being pushed about in a wheelchair, because I wasn't sleeping the whole time during biology class.

or perhaps more to your liking:

I know that I'll get stronger by jogging than by being pushed about in a wheelchair, because I pay attention to how my body feels.

or this one:

I believe that having someone teach me how to fly an airplane is more effective that trying to figure it out myself.

If that makes you groan, what about this:

I'd rather try to figure out how to fly an airplane myself than have someone teach me.


I think this is more like your position. You prefer to learn go by doing over being taught. Maybe this is the best way, maybe it isn't. Who's to judge?

Edit: as to climbing a mountain or reading a book about it, nobody says that they're mutually exclusive...