I'm still a relatively new player, as I have not had the chance to play much. Still, I have read a few books and watched plenty of videos and streams about Go.

I know a few Fuseki and Joseki, I've done Tsumego, and I've learned about shapes. But nowhere I've looked explains how or why shapes are good or bad.


"Go for Beginners" (by Kaoru Iwamoto) explains that a 2-point jump during a standard approach to a 4-4 point "makes a base" because it gives space for eyes and can't be cut. This is the only example of "explaining shape" I have ever found!

I know that 1-space jumps are good, that bamboo joints are strong (they can't be cut, so that one is obvious), and that empty triangles are bad etc. But when I am trying to invade or reduce or just make eyes, I want to know how these shapes are helping me do various things (or not).

Granted, I wouldn't play at all if I understood EVERY move (my opponents or my own)! But it's difficult to take concepts being presented to me as "good" or worth imitating, and see how they ARE good if they aren't explained to me.

It reminds me of playing with a friend of mine, it was the very first day he had played, I gave him 9 stones and he said, "I don't think it will matter. I don't even know how to use them." Good shape isn't "Good" when you don't know how to take advantage of it.

So apart from playing/viewing game after game after game, guessing as to what moves/shapes were good and why, does anyone have suggestions about learning the "how" and "why" of basic shapes?

This is not an easy question to answer. I would recommend just playing and observing shapes. See which work and which don't and when they don't ask yourself why not, how did the opponent take advantage. That experience will probably answer the question much better than any book.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Get the free ebook Shape Up from an authorized site as linked on SL.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ShapeUp

If you want to buy a book on shapes, I suggest "Making Good Shapes" from Kiseido.
http://www.kiseido.com/master.htm#K73

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

The Sensei's Library page on shape says "stones have good shape when they are connected or will easily be connected, make an eye or will easily make an eye with a minimum number of stones, and maintain a certain amount of flexibility." This is very broad, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb for evaluating shape.

The author of this page at Sensei's Library has disavowed his previous ideas, but it could be helpful for gaining an understanding of good and bad shape. The primary problem with that page, and with your question in general, is that shapes taken out of context cannot be universally said to be good or bad. There are rules of thumb, to be sure, but the situation in the local fight trumps any broad generalizations we might like to form.

The freely distributed book Shape Up shows many good shapes along with specific examples on why those shapes are good.

This is quite true. I have seen an empty triangle spring to life and create an eye to save a group. The potential on the board or in a local area can certainly change things.

However, I'm not looking for "universally" good shapes. I'm just wondering why people call shapes good, or strong, or bad for that matter. I have seen pros, or stronger players than myself, explain why a move was a mistake quite a few times. But it's difficult for me to abstract the specific context of that move in that game, into an abstract concept or "shape" to attempt to apply in my own games.

I figured the resounding answer to this question would be "play more games", as that is usually the answer to most of my questions

I will certainly take a look at that "shape up" book that has been suggested though! Thank you all for your comments.

I don't mean to dismiss your question. I think it's a good one, and shape is a useful concept when playing. As I'm growing stronger, the shapes that will remain when a sequence is finished is becoming a heuristic I more frequently rely on to make decisions. I just think it's important to recognize the limitations of the answers you will find, too. Sounds like you've already got a good handle on that!

As DrStraw mentioned, it's an excellent question, but quite difficult to answer.

Another angle: a move or shape is good if it's efficient (best if it's the most efficient available) for the global board situation. You may say that's just a truism -- substituting 'good' with 'efficient' and 'bad' with 'inefficient' -- and in a way, it is. But maybe it's a little better than to associate good with pretty and bad with ugly; rather, it's not the appearance of a move or shape that matters, but its function ( efficiency ). Your empty triangle is a very good example.

shapes are mostly good or bad due to liberties, and to how they relate to, or interact with other nearby groups of stones (both friend and foe)

An excellent book series (that is not necessarily aimed at beginners) that attempts to do something along these lines is Shuko's Dictionary of Basic Tesuji. Slate and Shell has some sample pages that hopefully help explain. Basically you can start with the idea of "I would like to cut two groups" and the book will show you several shapes that have the potential to cut other shapes in the right circumstance, then shows examples of how they work and don't work.

Hm, let me try:

Good shape is an efficient shape. It's the shape with the fewest stones that achieves its objective, either jumping away, creating more liberties, making eye space, etc. Bad shape, on the other hand, is inefficient, with too many stones played, or no eyes, or can easily be cut, etc.

As an example, the empty triangle is usually a bad shape because it has a shortage of liberties problem compared with any other configuration of 3 stones. It doesn't make eyes (by itself), and it doesn't have much influence.

Example of good shapes:

• One space jump is hard to cut without strength around it. It's also faster than extending from a single stone.
• Tiger's mouth makes eye shape with the potential of ponnuki. It can't be cut, and has plenty of liberties (though a peep could make an empty triangle).
• Knight's move can't be cut without a favorable ladder. It can put pressure on a group while remaining strong and extending a group out (dual purpose moves!).
• Bamboo joint can't be cut (except through shortage of liberties).
• Diagonal can't be cut (but is slow, in most cases).
• Table shape is a connected shape that has potential to make eyes.

Some bad shapes:

• Hane at the head of two (or three) creates a shortage of liberties, may force an empty triangle, and allows you to be pushed around.
• Dango/Dumpling (B2 bomber, for example) due to no eyes.
• Split shape since you're divided into two weak groups that must now live separately.

In general, when reviewing a position, you want to find the most efficient move. During this review process, see what stones you can remove as unnecessary while still achieving the objective. Then the good shapes will become more evident.

Like tchan001 and jeromie said, I'd recommend Shape Up as a primer. With more tesuji and tsumego practice, and in reviewing games, you'll start to see why certain shapes are better. And how to force your opponent into bad shape.

I've recently learned that I have a bad habit of making a two space jump. While its not a bad shape, it can easily be cut. Without supporting strength, its better to make the one space jump.

_________________
Go Books

Yes, there are books that offer such explanations, but not so many in the Western literature.



Well, there is hope. You can learn how to utilize good shape by playing it. (If you don't play it, you cannot learn how to use it, can you? ) Bad shape is in general self punishing, and good shape is in general self rewarding. It can be easier to make use of good shape than to see it in the first place.

There is a fair amount of material on shape here. For instance, here is a good thread: viewtopic.php?t=8136 And here is a reference page on Sensei's Library: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Shape

Good luck!

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

See viewtopic.php?p=209103#p209103

This is a very good book, that DOES explain the why's behind good shape.

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

See also this thread: www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5825

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

well, most of that thread was pointless bickering, though somewhat entertaining
it was nice to hear from TMark again

Good shapes give you potential eyes, maintain connection and allow you to develop from the shape easily by making extra moves.

That is in most cases.

If you play good shapes you will have less problems.

Since others have already given much more valuable advice than I ever could, I take liberty to ponder about the topic title.

My first spontaneous thought when I first read the title has stuck with me and been going around in my head since then:

IMHO, it should rather be The “Where” and “When” of Shapes because that’s all that matters: context. (Though I think others have said things here which point in the same direction.)


There’s a whole zoo of named shapes … here are just a few:

• The Empty Triangle, for example, has a “bad reputation” (cf. The Empty Triangle Is Bad).
  
  
• Another shape, the Ikken Tobi (one-point jump, one-space jump), has a “good reputation” (cf. The One-Point Jump Is Never Bad).
  
  
• Another one, the Keima (small Knight’s Move), is one of several shapes that can be used for a Shimari (Corner Enclosure) (but would you play it when another corner is still free?) or, less specific, for enclosing enemy stones (but it can be cut; beware of the ladder).
  
  
• I remember that, when I was relatively new to The Game, I was overly fond of the Kosumi (diagonal move) “because it cannot be cut” and “it is good for running”, so I played it wherever possible, even when I didn't need to run, leading to the loss of many games because of too slow play.

A shape often described as “good shape” can be totally useless if played prematurely or too late, or simply in the wrong place. A “bad shape” like the Empty Triangle can save your life when the situation gets crowded (cf. The Good Empty Triangle).


Just a few thoughts that sprung from my confused ~10k mind that loves words and language

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I read Shape Up several years ago, and loved it. Until I read that book, I was mystified anytime people said something was good/bad shape. I should have another look at it soon, as there were a few ideas that were beyond me when I first read it.

Making Good Shape is nice, but I feel like you have to be a little further along to appreciate it.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Thanks to all for the suggestions and thoughts.

I have been trying to focus on basics lately: staying connected, looking for weak groups to support or attack, and doing life and death problems. Shape is just a concept that baffles me a bit. I know "good shape" is shape that leaves room for eyes, that lets you connect, prevents cuts etc. But it's sometimes difficult (for me at least, as a beginner) to watch a stronger player "make shape" and understand how these goals are met by their moves.



This may have been a better title, in a way. Clearly shapes have a "time" and "place", they are neither "good" nor "bad" in themselves. Understanding what makes them "good" or "bad" in the right time and place, however, is my difficulty. So if I've already got an answer to the "where" and "when", I think the title still applies (such as when I am watching a stronger player and I can see the "where" and "when" but I don't understand "how" it helps them reach their goals).