Influencial Opening?

Bill Spight · **#21**

moboy78 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Well, I am unaware of a pro who says that influence oriented DDKs should switch to territory orientation. Or the other way around. And I would doubt one who did. There has been very little research on go pedagogy. One thing I do know is that there are many skills involved in playing good go. It seems to me that different approaches lend themselves to developing different skills, and that it is generally a good idea not to stick to any style or approach while learning.

Also, I do recall comments in a go magazine by some pros that a young player showed promise because he had an appreciation of the center. I don't think that you develop that appreciation by playing for territory.

The reason I brought up pros not liking influence oriented openings (e.g. like the sanrensei) is because they always say that to play an influence oriented opening you must be extremely confident in your attacking skills. I spoke with a Japanese professional named Ho Yu (I may have misspelled that) recently at the US go congress in NYC about a subject pretty similar to this and he cautioned against playing influence oriented openings for that very reason.

Thanks for getting more specific.

BTW, I thought that the sanrensei went out of favor because its winning percentage did not hold up.

Quote:

Influence oriented go might work well for DDKs, but as you get stronger you can't always expect your opponents to suck at invading, reducing, and living. You can't count on them making heavy shapes or two weak groups to attack.

Why should we expect the influence player to continue to suck at attacking and otherwise utilizing influence? I was an influence oriented DDK and an attacking player. How do you think my attacking skills improved? By playing for influence and attacking.

Quote:

I don't disagree with what you said about different approaches teaching you different things about go, but all I've been doing is trying to inform the original poster of the thread of the demerits of this particular approach to go. Given that the poster's rank does state DDK, he or she might not be fully aware of some of those demerits.

Let me quote that post:

moboy78 wrote:

WeakPlayer wrote:

And is the follow up too difficult for me?

To be honest, it's not a good idea for player of your strength to play an influence oriented game. The reason is that you have to be very strong at attacking and killing. When your opponent decides to invade or reduce your moyo, if you cannot attack him and either A) kill him or B) make profit then you will invariably be behind on territory. You might find that you get better results in your games if you play for solid points rather than influence.

He doesn't have to be very strong at attacking and killing. He only has to be strong enough. Which, versus another DDK, is not very strong. And how can he develop his skills at attacking and killing? By playing for influence.

What is territory? Basically, it is an empty region of the board controlled by one player such that if the opponent plays there, he can be killed. If you lack the ability to kill the opponent, you will have trouble making territory. One could, therefore, give the following advice:

Uncle Bill wrote:

It is an excellent idea for a player of your strength to play an influence oriented game. The reason is that to succeed you will have to be able to attack and (sometimes) kill your opponent's stones when he invades or reduces your moyos. You will therefore develop those abilities by playing for influence. If you do not develop those abilities, you will never be a threat over the go board.

moboy78 wrote:

By the way, can you elaborate on your example with the go magazine? It's a little hard to take seriously since it just says vague things like "a go magazine" "some pros" and "a young player". Just because this young player has an appreciation or love of the center doesn't necessarily mean that he would show promise, so I'm assuming there was more to the article.

I was vague because it was some 40 years ago.

The boy's father sent in a game record for review, and the review was published in the magazine. As I recall, the moves that were said to indicate promise were all moves into the center, including those that, thanks to Bruce Wilcox, we now say broke sector lines.

Charles Matthews · **#22**

moboy78 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Well, I am unaware of a pro who says that influence oriented DDKs should switch to territory orientation. Or the other way around. And I would doubt one who did. There has been very little research on go pedagogy. One thing I do know is that there are many skills involved in playing good go. It seems to me that different approaches lend themselves to developing different skills, and that it is generally a good idea not to stick to any style or approach while learning.

Also, I do recall comments in a go magazine by some pros that a young player showed promise because he had an appreciation of the center. I don't think that you develop that appreciation by playing for territory.

The reason I brought up pros not liking influence oriented openings (e.g. like the sanrensei) is because they always say that to play an influence oriented opening you must be extremely confident in your attacking skills. I spoke with a Japanese professional named Ho Yu (I may have misspelled that) recently at the US go congress in NYC about a subject pretty similar to this and he cautioned against playing influence oriented openings for that very reason. I didn't include my earlier comment about professional players' opinions because I thought it had anything to do with go pedagogy. I did include it because it shows that the strongest go players in the world (i.e. professionals) view influence oriented openings as a pretty risky strategy.

Indeed. And Kobayashi Koichi is on record as saying that all strong players begin as territorial. For what any of this is worth.

Some of us have done a not inconsiderable amount of research on the practical side of "go pedagogy".

You do have to begin with the teachable, and I think, for example, that shinfuseki is the opposite of teachable. Takagawa, self-described as a child of that go period, has a (more) teachable style. I don't think Go Seigen does, with all due respect to his fans (which include me - I got back into go in the 1990s by playing through his complete games on a board).

None of this is very much to do with teaching players coming up to club level. One needs to get beyond life-and-death problems, to something (anything) that covers big and small, sente and gote, fast and slow, bad shape and good, style (i.e. suji). Style as in grand strategy has to start more modestly. You need some basics about frameworks, for a kickoff.

moboy78 · **#23**

It would seem that you and I could go on debating this for quite some time before this would resolved, Bill. Therefore, I think it would be best if we just agreed to disagree on this topic.

Bill Spight · **#24**

Charles Matthews wrote:

shinfuseki is the opposite of teachable. Takagawa, self-described as a child of that go period, has a (more) teachable style.

Indeed. It is a shame that more of his writing has not been translated into English.

Quote:

None of this is very much to do with teaching players coming up to club level.

True. I would not teach any style to a DDK, but would let the student find his or her own way in that regard.

Bill Spight · **#25**

moboy78 wrote:

It would seem that you and I could go on debating this for quite some time before this would resolved, Bill. Therefore, I think it would be best if we just agreed to disagree on this topic.

Oh, I did not expect that either of us would change his mind, but that we would elicit something good from each other, and I think that we have done so.

It does seem to me that things have wound down.

Bill Spight · **#26**

Here is a game from a time when the predominant style was quite territorial. White consistently played for influence. You can see the related themes of attack and sacrifice.

Influencial Opening?

Who is online