Uberdude wrote:

Funny you should mention this. I just had another recent game where a 3-3 invasion failed and I wound up with a bunch of dead stones. I was wondering why I hadn't learned anything from that post and everybody's following comments, but as it turns out in this game, I didn't have an approach stone, so the position was totally different. (Specifically, it was this one.) And, of course, I didn't notice how it was different and what the implications of those differences were. Apparently, the invader isn't supposed to live in this one, or at best get a seki. One of several games I've been thinking about commenting about at length and posting in my study journal.

Well, I can say that

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X , O . . a .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

was new to me. And aiming a isn't something I would have considered. My first thought would be to try to find a way to get an eye on the side, followed by a way to get out to the center for a second eye. So I'd probably play at a or b instead:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X , O . . . .
$$ . . . a . . X . .
$$ . . . . b . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Turns out this is not uncommon, at all.
At our local club, at least two or more members also tend to have similar reactions given certain corner or side situations.
My guess is this "defense mechanism" may have come from having groups killed (often),
leading to fight or flight, and trying to live ASAP could be a variation on the "flight" side.
Whereas the kosumi feels more like "get out, split B into two groups, let's fight":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Usually the points marked are considered best, but that does not mean that the others cannot be considered, depending on the surrounding conditions.

_________________
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).

The context for this discussion are conversations like this:

Question: What do I need to do to fill the gaps in my knowlegde?
Answer: Learn the fundamentals.

So, no, "just fill your gaps" is not an answer because it is circular, and yes, it matters, because usually that is the original question that was answered with "just learn the fundamentals".

On the invasion example:
I have seen them (I am actually just trying to read "Get strong at invasions" again), however, I am not able to use them properly for several reasons. It is one of my weakest points. I think that I have not used different sequences enough to integrate them to a set of choices with predictable consequences. I will certainly study this post again.

On Fedya's example:
I am quite aware of the role of these helper stones in corner invasions/survival, especially since I have learned about the corresponding invasion of the ogeima shimari. I am comparatively good at corner survival, however, I recently messed up a 3-3 invasion defense because I tried out a variation where I keep the corner and I did not really believe that it is the invader who chooses the side to come out.

More importantly:
There are things that, like Fedya's example, just totally escaped my notice.
I only recently realized this *as a sequence*:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$........
$$..3T1...
$$..B.2B..
$$........
$$........
$$---------[/go]

This may sound trivial and I have certainly heard before "no, play above this gap and not above that gap", but I only now realized in a game that the important thing was that 3 should be close to my strength because of the defense against the triangled point and that the point was usually to build a moyo. It is hard to explain that I did not see it as an object before. I use it now in more than half of my games (and my peers don't expect it, either). Similarly, I have only recently tried a double approach in response to a pincer (and mess it up a lot for now).

The problem is, these things you cannot ask for because you just interpret your opponents move as attachment or leaning, but not as a common sequence.

These shapes are quite interesting to study.

OK, let's do this. People often have a mistaken view of what people at various levels know, so maybe this will be interesting.


I haven't internalized this exact sequence, but I know basically connects.


This line hadn't really occurred to me.


If there was a stone at c in a game I might notice this sort of idea, but it's not a pattern in my mental dictionary.


That I know, of course.


And that.


And that. If Black attaches underneath, White hanes to the left, Black cuts, White ataris, Black extends, and White extends down, and now makes a tiger's mouth so he can't be cut. I think I got that one from Attack and Defense.


It's not in my dictionary, but once Black played I'd suspect that my split might fail, and would read it out, and indeed, that tiger's mouth is spoiled by .


That I knew.

More detailed response:



I have seen this before and am pretty sure that it would turn out like this in a game. However, I have trouble visualizing the result beforehand which makes it hard to decide if an invasion is good in a certain context.




I think that I have seen this diagram before but it is not part of my active knowledge.



I am aware of this.




I am not aware of this, but would recognize my stones as being separated. It is possible that I would play this if there were an easily seen reason to want the stone on the second line.





I an very aware of this, part of one of Guo Juan's problem sets that I did.



I have seen this, but I would not be able to check for this result in the beginning.



Very aware of this, again part of the problem set I did.

Well, it probably shouldn't. The following diagram is joseki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 6 . . . .
$$ . . X 3 O . . . .
$$ . . . 2 1 4 X . .
$$ . . . . 5 7 . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

Also, White has a clever play, depending on the circumstances.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 2 X . .
$$ . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

After , is the way to stay connected. See viewtopic.php?p=211886#p211886 . OC, Black may prefer to capture .



The invasion is usually not so good. This position typically arises from a pincer and tenuki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Invasion
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . . . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

This is the usuall invasion.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Reduction
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . X 1 . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . X . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ -----------------[/go]

And this is the usual reduction.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

How do these fundamentals books compare to each other?

Strategic Concepts of Go
Basics of Go Strategy
Fundamental Principles of Go

These all seem like intermediate level books while Lessons of Fundamentals of Go appears to be more of a beginner book, so curious how these books compare to each other.

I argue that gaps indicate a lack of mastery in the fundamentals. Basically, my view is that *everything* is fundamental. Complicated techniques are built upon simpler ones down to the very rules of the game.

Anyway, I don't see value in debating terminology like I mentioned earlier, and I'm feeling pretty crappy in my personal life, so I'll just leave things at that.

I accept your view of fundamentals being like a net, even if I don't see it that way.

_________________
be immersed

The answer is in the appropriate - book - forum:
viewtopic.php?p=212163#p212163

I don't know the two first ones, but according to the description that Robert Jasiek gave in the book forum, they seem to deal with maybe 10 or 20 % of the fundamentals. The third one is maybe around 25 %.

There are so many fundamentals in go that they can only be covered in one volume at the novice level. That's what initiation books try to do, although sometimes it takes two volumes (Learn to Play Go vol 1 & 2, by Janice Kim and Jeong Soo-Hyun).
In comparison, Go, a Complete Introduction to the game, by Cho Chikun, lacks a chapter about endgame.

But when we talk about fundamentals, we mean fundamental principles at a slightly higher level.
I've not read the Second Book of Go, by Richard Bozulich. It seems to be a real book about fundamentals at the double digit kyu level.
Learn to Play Go vol 4 and 5 are about fundamentals, from the double digit kyu level to the single digit kyu. They cover maybe 90 % of the topics that are relevant at this level. The 10 % missing are essentially positional judgement.
And for the single digit kyu to the dan level, Elementary go Series covers a good deal of the fundamentals... in seven volumes ! (I've only got volumes 1, 4 and 5.)

And besides that, fundamentals are not everything. We need books with exercises too, and books with professional games.

I'm talking about higher level fundamental books around SDK that goes into depth on fundamentals and not just a little explanation and a few examples. All the books you've cited are too low level. I've also already read the Elementary series. I already own Strategic Concepts of Go. I know I've read some of it, but not sure if I read the whole thing as it would have been years ago. I just don't know much about Basics of Go Strategy besides it being an update of Strategic Concepts, and Fundamental Principles of Go or any other book that's worth getting on the subject or subjects of the fundamentals.

Good exercise.


Aware of the basic shape, but most should be at SDK. Though, more common with w at A.


Yep. Though, I'd have to read the sequence out every time.


No, wasn't aware of the potential cut, nor do I think I'd have read this out in a game.


Unlikely to have tried this, and don't think I've seen this in any game. White definitely looks too weak here to consider.


Yes, though not how I'd typically cut.


Would cut like this. Probably learned at 5-7k as part of the corner joseki (high approach to 3-4).


Aware of this, but never used it.


Unaware of this sequence.


Aware that this doesn't disconnect.

_________________
Go Books

I've been looking further at some of the new books I just got, and to a large degree much of what I read is repackaging ideas I already know very well. But that, plus the replies above that seem to confirm that some people asking about the fundamentals already know about them, got me thinking. Eventually I realised that for most people here, "what are the fundamentals?" is probably totally the wrong question. And the right question applies to dan players just as much as kyu players.

The right question is "How do I remember to apply what I already know?"

We all know much more than we think (intuition as well as explicit knowledge). But how many times do we realise, even during a game, that we "forgot" something just at the time we played a stone, only to realise ourselves a few moves later that it was a crappy move? Or how often a commentary on a game we have played or studied rings a dull note of remembrance - oh, yes, I've heard of that...

We don't know everything but we all know a huge amount more than we realise, and if we could tap into that we should be playing more good moves, right?

So what are the steps? Suggestions, please, but here are mine to start the ball rolling:

1. Stop playing blitz games - these don't allow you time to dredge up knowledge from your memory.

2. Stop playing very slow games - these allow you too much time to dredge too many things up and get confused.

3. Use tricks to help you remember things during games. I've mentioned before that I used to put, say, three stones in front of me to remind me to think of three things before I played each move (e.g. make a base, don't invade, hold back on forcing moves).

4. Replay pro games through the prism of a single theme. E.g. connections: for kyu players, how they are made, when they are made; for dan players, are they made at all, and if not made, are they implied?

I think it is important, too, to remember that there is a considerable difference in types of knowledge. There is a somewhat different mindset involved between remembering that the L group is dead and the principle that making territory in front of a live group is small. The vaguer kind of knowledge represented by the latter seems easier to overlook during actual play, even when understanding of it is simple and complete. For example, to take connections again, I'm sure that every dan players knows that connecting on a dame point is embarrassing, but how often does it happen nevertheless?

So, again, it's not "what are the fundamentals?" but "where are my fundamentals hiding?" and "how do I get them to show their faces?". And this applies to all players - each level has its own set of hidden fundamentals.

So far, nobody has replied to my post about Minue's "Haengma tutorial for beginners", which to me addresses exactly the question "what are the fundamentals of Go" and not the equally important question John addresses: "how to apply what we already know". John's answer to that question relates to things I have mentioned in daal's popular question "why is it that some people never seem to reach shodan" or in more general terms "why do we reach plateaus in our playing, which seem to be well under our level of understanding".

So, I will here summarize the teachings of Minue, in a few posts. If that body of knowledge remains ignored, I will at least have attempted to bring it to the attention:



He elaborates on stability:



Of those, liberties and location deserve attention:



This is how it starts. I think many people will think the above is rather trivial. But what's trivial to some, is really fundamental to all.

(to be continued)

Since you seem perplexed at the lack of reaction, I will offer a view. Lists.

Obviously I can strictly only offer my own view, but in journalism we have a saying, "Lists make bad journalism." Whenever a journalist got himself into a bind and up against a deadline to write a feature, if he resorted to an article of the type "Ten Reasons Why ..." or "Ten Best ..." laughter and scorn would ring round the newsroom all day long. The point there is that journalists have learned from very long experience that their readers don't really like lists. It doesn't mean you can't ever use them, but you won't get away with it very often and you do have to learn to incorporate them in an interesting way. So, in the sense that I am also reflecting the wide experience of the body of journalists about reading tastes, I am not just offering my own view. I believe I am offering the majority view.

It's not a matter of saying that the information is wrong, or is not inherently interesting. It's just that you don't serve dinner by putting a raw egg, a raw potato and a tin of beans on a plate and offer it as egg and chips. Minue's list presentation offers a "tutorial". What we get is a reference list. If you went for a tutorial with a professor, would you really expect him to spend the time just giving you a list of things?

Robert Jasiek has had the same problem in his books. He has, belatedly but happily, tried to move away from the list style, though personally I think he still has some way to go.

There are, of course, some people who do like that dry style, but I (and other journalists) believe they are in a very small minority. The way to promote Minue's work, therefore, would be to rewrite it. Then it may get the attention you (probably rightly) believe it deserves.

That's just my opinion - not something to fight about.

Where is the limit between "fundamental" and "advanced" ?

If we add the 1500 pages of Elementary Go Series with, say, 250 pages of introduction for complete novices, we have already 1750 pages that are equally divided into text and diagrams.

Covering all and every topic at a higher level would require more than 2000 pages ! At this stage, should we still call this "the fundamentals" ?

Or, if "advanced" is the opposite of "basic", maybe we can talk about "advanced fundamentals", but in this case, what is the opposite of "fundamental" ?

17 Buzzfeed authors disagree! The seventh will shock you!