I pretty much agree with Robert that it takes a lot of time and study if you want to truly improve.

It can be helpful to have a teacher about these types of things. I've been participating in In-seong's Yunguseng Dojang, and he has several lectures on opening theory and common openings. The lectures are very valuable, and make me feel I have an advantage over opponents that have not studied a particular opening.

That being said, even with a teacher, and even being at the lecture and able to ask questions, there is not enough time to master an opening pattern in a single lecture, even though the lecture may range from 60 to 90 minutes. Even with a teacher there to answer your questions, your opponents might play in ways that didn't come up in the lecture, which can be tricky to answer.

So it takes a lot of individual study outside of the lecture, even if you have an experienced teacher that can answer your questions. Not to mention the "forget factor". You might study a particular opening in depth and learn about several variations, etc., but if you don't use it in your games, after a couple of months, what you've studied may be forgotten.

If anything, I think 1000 hours might be an understatement.

_________________
be immersed

Realistic as a number itself? Sure. I don't think I ever disputed that.
But realistic/practical as an advice to an every-day Go player?

This is what I have a problem with. Especially when combined with the words "do it now." It just seems ridiculous to me. Nobody has such amount of time, unless you are either retired (in which case it might take much longer because of your age), independently wealthy (must be nice), or supported by parents/wife/whoever (get off your lazy bum and get a job!) And I am not even talking about the necessary dedication, motivation, and energy.

But hey, maybe there are people among us who can serious allow themselves to just drop everything and start seriously study Go 8 hours a day (in addition to playing), each day, for years. I don't know anybody like that, but if there are, especially if the OP is one of them, then my apologies. I withdraw this particular comment. But first show me some such people on this forum.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Not everyone has to be a high dan player, Bantari. Playing go on the side and studying here and there is fun, too. You just can't expect to master that which you don't sufficiently study.

_________________
be immersed

This begs the question: What do we understand by "mastering" an opening pattern?

Depending on the answer, do we, average Go players, really need to go that far? As desirable as it might be...
Or have even top pros really "mastered" anything at all?
Has anybody here "mastered" something? OP? RJ? Anybody?

PS>
To me, it is all about levels of dedication and about want/need.

I think that giving an advice that "you need to go and study opening theory 1000 hours now" to improve from KGS 1d to KGS 3d is misguided.
I think that if somebody wants to improve from KGS 1d to a top world-class ama or a pro - such advice would be much more appropriate.

Here is what I can say:
- Does a KGS 1d (like the OP) need to study opening theory to improve? It certainly cannot hurt.
- Does a KGS 1d need to study it to get to 3d? Possibly... but not certainly.
- Does a KGS 1d need to "master" anything? Not really.
- Does a KGS 1d need to study opening theory 1000 hours to get to 3d? I seriously doubt it.

Bottom line:
Whatever study you do is always good and it will always help you improve. The more you study, the better. But the rest is up to you... how far do you want to go, what are your resources (material, mental, and otherwise), etc.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Bantari, it sounds like your main point is that studying several hours for the opening is not the most efficient way to improve. I don't know if it is, but as you approach higher levels, eventually you need to study everything

_________________
be immersed

Hi Kirby.
No, this is not my point at all.

My point is that studying opening theory for 1000 hours is not necessary to get to KGS 3d.
My other point is that I don't believe anyone here can realistically afford to do that, at least not in the sense RJ suggested - to just "do it now".

As for efficiency you mention, I have no clue. It is a very individual issue. Some people can improve most efficiently by studying L&D for example, because theis where they lose most games. Others can improve most efficiently by studying opening theory. Others yet by studying yose (this would be me, I guess.)

You simple cannot tell what is the most efficient in general because it depends not only on the player in question, but also on the development stage the player is at.

The only general statement I would make here is that to improve most efficiently you first need to figure out why you lose games, and then study that area. Once you stop losing games due to that one thing, figure out why you losing games now, and study that. Rinse, repeat.


This is, sort-of, my point.
We are all amateurs, and we study when we study, usually not that much, unless it is fun.

My problem was not with study, but with the advice that to get from KGS 1d to KGS 3d you need to
a) study opening theory 1000 hours and "do it now" (as RJ seems to suggest), and
b) that you actually need to master anything (as you and others seem to suggest.)

I think that:
a) as you say, we study here and there, when it is fun, and sometimes study more to accomplish specific goals (like 1d to 3d), and
b) mastering something would be nice, but rarely achievable. It is certainly not needed to get to KGS 3d. I know that from experience.

I am really not sure I can make it any simpler.


Personally, even with sufficient study I never really expect to "master" anything, really.
But this might depend on our definition of "mastering something." I probably just have higher standards in this regard. Or my study was not really "sufficient."

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I also side with Robert here. This makes at least 3 people who think Robert's comments here have merit.

This is a free forum; people are free to post from the best suggestion to the wackiest advice. It's free; you get what you pay for.

Food for thought for Pippen: have you encountered a good teacher and received good comments about your Go yet ? It may turn out that the opening is the least of your problems. (From anecdotal evidence, this is most likely true.)

Pippen is intelligent and can decide for himself how much or how little to take from Robert's comments. Or anyone else's.

Thanks for the further explanation, Bantari. I think that I still understand what you are trying to say, but perhaps I didn't word it well. You weren't claiming anything about efficiency - that was my addition, mostly because I think it logically follows that, if there are many paths to 3d, it would be useful to know which one is most efficient.


It sounds like your main argument is here:


Regarding (a), I don't think it is necessary to study 1000 hours to get to an arbitrary rank - like KGS 3d. But I think it is necessary to put in that time if you truly want to be a high level player. What a high level player is can vary in rank depending on the person. But having seen the skill that some players have in opening theory, for example, from my teacher - I cannot fathom becoming that strong without putting in the time necessary to learn what they know. Maybe I can be a KGS 3d without that work - but I would be a KGS 3d without good opening theory knowledge. KGS 3d is an arbitrary rank. But to be truly strong, you need to put in the time. "Truly strong" does not correlate to a specific rank.

Regarding (b), I don't think you need to master anything. Just look at your quote of what I said



You don't even have to play go if you don't like it. I'm just saying that, in order to get truly strong, you need to put in the time and effort for it. Maybe you can get to KGS 3d or some other rank without much work. But this is an arbitrary line.



High standards are of no value if you don't put in work to achieve them.

_________________
be immersed

Alright... so what are we really saying? That studying helps improve and that to get really really strong you need to study really really much. I never had any issues with that.

My problem started with RJ's "do it now" comment, as if there was no alternative, and unless you "do it now" you are doomed to mediocrity or something. In this particular context, it seems to mean that unless you "do it now" you cannot improve from 1d to 3d. The "it" refers to spending 1000 hours studying opening theory. I took the advice in its entirely, not just a "study opening theory" or "study 1000 hours" or the implied "study a lot to get really strong". In particular, the ridiculous "do it now" raised my objections, in case you still wonder.

If you kids have no problem with the above, then we just have to agree to disagree.

For the record - I never said anything about efficiency. Nor did I say that you don't need to study at all or that there are better ways of improving than studying opening theory, although there well might be, depending on circumstances.

What I also never said is that RJ was wrong in the sense that to truly get strong you need to spend a lot of time (maybe 1000 hours) studying opening theory. I simply have no clue, I was never truly strong. But I am aware that you have to study long and hard for that.

It seems I was (mis)understood this way, and the fault for that is certainly on my part, for not explaining stuff clearly enough.

But this thread was started by the OP asking if this will help him to get from 1d to 3d, and so RJ's advice must be seen in this light. And, in this light, I disagree with its validity. That's all.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Bantari, my great motivation hint "do it now" has beaten you, hasn't it?:) Let me clarify:

- Is it possible to become 3d without opening study? Yes. Do I recommend forgoing opening study? No. Do I consider opening study important from 1d to 3d? Very important! Hence I do not give the worst advice "Try it without opening study." but the best advice "Opening study belongs to the most important study topics from 1d to 3d.".

- The OP wants to become 3d but also shows signs of aiming at higher ranks. Presumably he needs less than 1000h for the opening until 3d, but if he starts study with a too modest approach, his prospects to continue afterwards are restricted. The 1000h indicate the right order of magnitude and therefore suggest appropriately serious study of the opening. Just casual study of one opening pattern or another is insufficient. Ca. 1000h spent on opening study suffice to get a weak 5d understanding of the opening. So if this amount is spent until 3d, one need not study much opening theory from 3d to 5d. Contrarily, with this amount of study for the opening (and similar for other essential topics), the 1d does get enough drive to reach 3d for sure. With instead a too modest aim of, say, 300h, the 1d becomes 2d and then still wonders how to reach solid 3d. Set the right amount of study and motivation, and you are 3d before you have realised to pass 2d.

- I have said it before, but apparently you have overlooked it and missed the great importance: Also study in particular L+D (solve many problems), using influence and all kinds of fundamentals. Play through the opening [and middle game] of 1500 pro games. Each of these is essential for improving fast from 1d to 3d.

- (I know, there is also the endgame. Of course, a 1d must avoid all the endgame mistakes of kyu players; I have presumed this. A 1d still missing kyu endgame knowledge must catch up, of course. However, endgame theory for dan players is a tedious study object. Surely it is important, but studying the endgame is a slow task, so endgame is not the best topic for improving fast from 1d to 3d. Improving from 3d to 5d will be slower, so then there will still be the time for studying the endgame. Delaying the endgame has the other advantage that playing through 1500 pro games is much faster because the first ca. 170 moves suffice and the endgame moves can be skipped.)

- Mistakes, mistakes. Sure they are important and must be studied at all levels. But a 1d has as great difficulties to recognise his mistakes as players of all levels. For autodidactic study, attempting to detect one's mistakes goes without saying. If necessary, take a teacher to point out them. However, the study of mistakes does not replace the need for positive study of opening, LD, infuence, fundamentals and pro games.

Like Bantari, I believe that RJ's advice is correct in certain contexts, but is actually too superficial or too narrow for amateur players.

If the amateur is looking for a shortcut to get to a playing strength of X-dan, he is wasting his time.

However, if he is looking to enjoy go more by being able to appreciate it more, then shortcuts exist, and thinking about the fuseki is one good way to progress to a higher level of understanding.

In language it is possible to have a very high reading ability and a very poor spoken one. In music it is possible to enjoy it and even be a critic without knowing how to play an instrument well. In various sports, it is possible to be a happy and informed spectator without knowing the joys of being hit by a linebacker or felled by a bouncer.

In my opinion, it is quite easy to be a 5-dan spectator of go with a playing strength much lower, even in the kyus. It is to do with knowing what a pro considers, and having some sense of the hierarchy of those considerations. When it comes to reading out variations or counting boundary plays, we can trust the players and/or the commentary. In brief, we study strategy rather than tactics. This is where fuseki comes in. There are thousands of commentaries available to help amateurs enjoy this phase of the game to a very high level.

Of course reading through commentaries can constitute work, but it's easier to regulate it, it's more enjoyable than the drudgery of problems, and it pays very quick dividends at the spectator level. Actually, it pays dividends at the tactical level, too, because any exposure to tactical positions is fodder for your subconscious neural network.

What we could do with in go is the equivalent of those chess books of my youth by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld, with titles something like The most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played. Or even better, something like the current wave of chess books that I call the "300 Family". As I understand it, in the Soviet era, an army chess trainers in the USSR worked on new ways of developing better chess. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, and a consequent cutback in state support, and with the diaspora of many players and coaches to the west, many of these once secret ideas have been revealed. One important idea is that a corpus of around 300 games (some say slightly more, some less, and all cite a different corpus of games) is sufficient to cover almost all the themes you will ever see in a normal career. If you learn these 300 games thoroughly (i.e. study them intensely as well as memorise them), you can be - according to various authors - a strong tournament player, a master, or even a grandmaster.

I suspect go needs its 300 all-encompassing games, too. Not 300 most famous, most exciting, or whatever - the 300 most instructive. These would be perfect for getting someone to 5-dan spectator status, and if studied intensely, for getting someone to 5-dan playing status.

To give an example of the sort of things that spectator-type study can throw up, and it just so happens to be a fuseki topic, I have been editing a large number of commentaries recently for a new book. After a while it dawned on me that a certain word kept cropping up in Japanese contexts that, on subsequent reflection, surprised me. The word was probe. Where I would have said 'cap', for example, a pro said 'probe'. Where I would say 'approach' (kakari), the pro said 'probe'. Where I would say 'extension', a pro said 'probe'. The sort of surprising contexts I mean is White 6 in a fuseki with a Black sanrensei. The common low approach was called a 'probe'.

I then realised that a probe to me was like a dentist saying "Open wide" and then diving inside the mouth with a pointy thing. But I realised that a simple question like "Any problems?" is a probe, too. I know it's obvious when stated like that, but it's easy to forget it in practice.

In go, I think I and other amateurs probably have a rather egocentric mindset that goes, "I'll approach here, and when he defends I'll go there." But the change to the mindset when you say "I'll probe him here and see how he responds" is (I soon found) quite dramatic. The most obvious effect was that I started looking for miai follow-ups, and finding them in unsuspected places. This was a great boon because I'd always been a little hazy on where miai come from. Now I know, at least to some degree. I may not be able to apply this in actual games but I am sure I understand pro games a little better now, and over time, subconsciously, it might also filter through to actual play. (Being an old dog learning new tricks did not go amiss either.)

To mention a couple of other items where spectator-type study can yield great understanding and thus enjoyment without being able necessarily to replicate the effects in one's own games, there is momentum (choshi) and tewari.

In short, there is much more fun in go than just rating points.

I agree. I also agree that you can obtain high level in some areas of the game, but not others.

However, it's also enjoyable to spend the effort required to learn something well. Eg. spending several hours to learn opening theory well can, in itself, be rewarding - regardless of how it affects one's rating points.

_________________
be immersed

John, you won't say this, but I will. To all: Get your hands on (i. e., buy) the GoGoD database. It contains more than 300 games, OC. But study 1000 of those games over a range including modern games and going back a few centuries and you will cover almost all of the important themes of go that are known today. That is in line with Shusai's advice. IMO, you should include pro-pro handicap games in which White is trying to win. You need to study mistakes as well as good play.



Just speaking about my own experience, I learned about choshi and tewari when I was about 3 kyu. I immediately began applying them in my games. Not at pro level, OC, but then, none of my game was at pro level. In recent years I have been surprised to find out in discussions how many dan players do not apply tewari in the own play. Being an informed spectator is good, but as players it is good to apply what we learn as best we can.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I have to agree with others here that Fuseki matters, but only to Dan-level and to a lesser extent SDK level players. Generally DDK players make so many mistakes throughout the game that a mistake in the opening (which is highly likely to happen anyway) has little if any impact on the middle/end game.

Regarding posts about studying to get to "X" rank: why does there need to be a goal? What about the famous concept "the journey is more important"? I once knew a Martial Arts instructor who, upon hearing a first-day student remark that his goal was to "become a black belt", promptly told him to go home and wait for his black belt...in the mail. The student's attitude changed quickly.

I do not know where this idea that the fuseki is relatively unimportant comes from. OC, it is possible to become quite good as an amateur without studying the fuseki much or at all. That does not mean that such players have not learnt fuseki, just that they have picked up a good bit about it from their opponents or from watching pros or others with good fuseki. That said, it is not unusual for a 5 dan amateur to lose 5 - 10 points to par in the first 50 moves.

It is also true that very hot positions can arise in the middle game and endgame, so that an error can lose much more than a bad fuseki play does. That does not diminish the size of fuseki plays, nor their importance. It is also true that the fuseki gains in relative importance as a player's general level improves. For instance, DDKs often make large endgame mistakes, dan players hardly ever do.

What about the study of fuseki? I have no data to support any opinion about its relative importance. I don't think that anybody else does, either. But I know that it is easy to point out fuseki errors in reviews, and I tend to do so.

In my own case, I expect that I have put in more than 1,000 hours of fuseki study. But nearly all of that has been done as a dan player. OTOH, I regarded my fuseki as a strong point even as an SDK. I have mentioned how I jumped from about 11 kyu to about 7 kyu in a week, just from regarding the whole board. That is what fuseki is about, playing the whole board. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that, of the 40 stones or so that separate a pro from a rank beginner, more than 10 have to do with the fuseki.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think one of the reasons that studying fuseki isn't considered so important is that you can get a long way in fuseki just by sticking to a few basic rules and knowing a few common josekis by rote. Of course, as soon as you come up against someone who really knows what they're doing you've got problems, but that isn't going to happen much at the lower ranks, I'm certainly not feeling it at 4k.

Doubly so if you stick resolutely to a single fuseki for each colour where possible.

PeterN

Me neither, but I agree with it. Robert's theoretical three point advantage in the opening will, in almost all games, be dwarfed by several three, five, or ten point mistakes later, maybe even a game ending mistake, even at the KGS 3d level. That makes the fuseki relatively unimportant, at the KGS 1-3D level under discussion.

Fun to study? Sure. Interesting? Absolutely. Easier to explain than complicated fighting? Without a doubt. Just not important, relatively speaking. All imho, of course.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

You also don't get it. A player with good opening knowledge can drive a good fraction of his games into known middle game and endgame waters so that a, say, 3 points lead after the opening suffices to win. Yes, this means avoiding most noteworthy mistakes and this is another essential achievement on the way from 1d to 5d; a 3d should already be reasonably good at it.

(It is like biathlon. Imagine the skiing as the opening, followed by all shootings representing our middle game and endgame. With a good opening skill, they establish their 30s in front of the pack. All they need to do then is to make only 0 or 1 shooting mistakes; the top athletes achieve this.)

No, it's not like biathlon. It's perhaps also not like software, where you can write 1M good lines of code and one error that makes the program fail. It's unlike a lot of things actually. Go is like go. When one shifts to an analogy, that's mostly because one runs out of arguments or is too tired to repeat the same ones all over again.

I used to be 2d. I'm now 1d on KGS. Maybe I should post a few games of mine and show/ask for the decisive points. I'm curious if the fuseki supporters find a stage in the opening that led to a (dis)advantage larger than any swap or advancement later in the game.

Robert, when you're saying that fuseki matters at 1-3d level because a 1-3d should already be capable of carrying home an advantage obtained in the opening, you're both shifting the skill zones (1-3d cannot do that) and arguing that such ability comes before fuseki skill.

Almost any game I play or observer at my level is characterized by careless middle game and poor endgame that randomize whatever advantage has been obtained in the opening.

Edit: I added my three latest KGS games against human opponents.

Huskey: is move 19, the biggest fuseki mistake, a bigger mistake than 151, which misreads the L&D status of the bottom group?
Forestman: is move 11, the biggest fuseki mistake, a bigger mistake than 43-52, where a living White group is pushed through Black's weak structures?
Gocommander: is move 9, the biggest fuseki mistake, a bigger mistake than 52, where I allow being cut towards his strength, or 93, where I reconnect my stones through capture?

Are any of Black's later mistakes induced by being behind in the opening or are they independent of the opening?

Even if there can be a greater swing in point difference in the middle of the game, it doesn't necessarily make it more important than the opening. There are at least a couple of reasons for this:

1. With a good opening, you have an advantage when the middle game fighting starts. When you have an advantage, you can play more aggressively, and it's more likely to work. Reading skill will probably be a large factor in deciding the result in middle game fighting, but there are more moves that will lead to a good result when you already have an advantage. It's like playing your opponent with a handicap. In other words, it's not exclusive - studying the opening does not only help in the opening, but also in middle game, too!

2. It's common to play under time constraints in tournaments. Let's assume that the middle game is the most important part of deciding the game. If you know how to play the opening very well, you can quickly advance to the middle game stage, and spend most of your energy on it. Because there are so many familiar patterns in the opening, knowing how to respond properly beforehand allows you to spend your efforts on later parts of the game.

3. Understanding the opening well can give you better global sense. Understanding many opening patterns and joseki can allow you to think of new good ideas, even in the middle game.

--

I don't advocate to drop your, eg., life & death study and study only the opening. I advocate studying everything. Being very good in one area is nice, especially if it's effective in helping you to win games. But I think there's value in being well rounded in your ability, too.

_________________
be immersed