That is why I find the whole prospect so perplexing but so many peoples arguments either rely on reading to the end of the game or having access to some professional Oracle

I'd suggest as a useful definition of strategy 'a method for selecting moves past a player's positional judgement and reading ability.'

So on an empty board, is it better to build a moyo or claim safe territory? Since we can't really say for certain, they're both strategies.

Is using 3 stones to claim 3 corners better than using them to build an empty triangle in the center? Yes. That's just positional judgement, no strategy needed.

Is eye-jabbing a strategy for killing a group when careful reading reveals that sealing it in is the only way to kill? No, that's just a mistake if the player was capable of reading out the correct path but didn't.

Exhaustive search of the gametree wouldn't be a strategy under this definition, because that's just a player with perfect reading ability, thus nothing is past it. Neither would random play by even a 30kyu, because they're playing under there ability, just making mistakes.

It is only perplexing because you use a definition that is not shared by anyone else in he conversations you have. Similarly I could say that strategy is "playing left handed, but only after making a prime number of passes where that prime number is also greater than your opponent's age." I then could be dumbfounded that this is an abstract strategy game that no one in recorded history has ever used strategy to play! Of course, it would be better to simply try and figure out what others are referring to when they say strategy.

Are you suggesting that I should simply accept that reading out every possible combination of moves is a valid strategy for playing Go as well as consulting professional Oracles and maybe psychic readers too?

Maybe my definition of strategy is disturbing to many for its inclusiveness, possibly even encompassing many people's play who would prefer to be considered a-strategic or absent strategy and also strategies that aren't very good. My problem is that many of the a-strategic who aren't comfortable with discussing the fact that they actually have a strategy, make arguments that involve reading out every combination of moves or having access to a professional Oracle.

Can you be a little more specific? Maybe give an example? Otherwise it's very unclear what is even at stake with this argument. You have some kind of bone to pick but it's not obvious who you're picking it with.

good thread 5/5

_________________
IN VICTORY, MALICE. IN DEFEAT, REVENGE. DON'T GET MAD, GET BAD

Most people use the following definitions,
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Strategy:



It is foolish to assume that just because people use different definitions than you, that they have some secret agenda.

SmoothOper, what is the goal behind your definition of strategy?

Not to pick on golem7, but the way he has structured his argument is that you have to "read it out" to make any strategic assessment, I highlighted the relevant text with *** ***.

I think that what they are saying is that they may come up with an idea, like 'drive these stones here' or 'split these groups and attack the one that doesn't get reinforced', but in order to decide on that as way to play, they first read to make sure that it works, as far as they can read. If they don't read it, they don't know if it's a valid plan; then it's not a strategy to them, it's a prayer.

Strategy is an old word, it has many different connotations. One of them is just the reasoning behind your moves, and seems to be the one you prefer. That's valid, and yes, we all have a strategy in that sense of the word.

Another valid connotation of strategy is a global aim, to contrast with tactics, the local decisions. In that view, it can be argued that some people use negligible strategy, making good local shape without thinking or looking at the rest of the board. As a thought experiment, we could imagine taking a 9x9 square of a board, centered on the other player's last move and sending it to a different professional each turn. I'm willing to bet they could win against at least a 8kyu with literally zero global information.

A third connotation being used is that strategic is usually a positive term, that 'strategy' without any modifier means 'good strategy'. In that view, adding reinforcing stones to living groups or playing close to walls isn't strategy because it creates losses. This is the connotation where oracles become relevant to the discussion, because what a move actually accomplished dictates if it was 'strategic'.







I think these three quotes show where the conversation is getting lost. "a small set of tesuji apply to each strategy" is an extreme claim, and can seemingly only be true with a very restrictive definition of strategy. The vast majority of strategies involve 'find life for weak groups, kill the enemy groups if it's possible and profitable, keep connected, disconnect my opponent's stones'. And each of those could be accomplished in a huge number of ways: maybe a squeeze kills a group, maybe nakade, maybe patting-the-racoons-belly. So from your thesis, we expect you to argue for some definition of strategy that would exclude most situations from the board. But instead you argue that strategy is just how you choose to play the game. So given that definition, why do you think each strategy only has a small set of relevant tesuji and tsumego?

The way it comes across is "We don't need no strategy all we need is reading, tsumego is the only thing that will make you stronger, some pros can do strategy but everyone else only needs tsumego, and we don't want you to talk strategy either , and play on the hoshi's while you're at it"

I think some people have had their plans ruined one too many times .

it seems to me that comparing strategy with tsumego, is like comparing trip planning to driving skills.

• strategy is like mapping out the trip (and along the way you may have to take a detour or two, despite your planning)
  
• tsumego is like knowing how to stay safely on the road before you get there (avoiding the potholes, parked cars, and people trying to run you off the road)

So back to the leaky bridge after all?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

So our games are trying to push each other into potholes. I like it.

You haven't had the pleasure of reading the OP's other... posts, I presume?

The exclusive use of the term tsumego, as opposed to the more general term "reading", and a very narrow definition of it is being deployed here as a straw man.

• Tsumego is relevant to the game even when a problem does not appear explicitly on the board. This is especially true when "more profitable ways to play" are more profitable because an invasion will die. The tsumego may not have occurred on the board, but it occurred in the player's mind and it was relevant to his decision.
• Tsumego is not just about killing but how to kill and how many points we get by killing. This is also relevant to calculation of profit.
• Reading out sequences to surround, connect, disconnect, escape, are all skills relevant to not only tsumego but also to all other aspects of the game.

Let's dispose of this straw man, too. Perhaps you are using it unintentionally. Most of us do not think that strategy is unnecessary or unimportant. However, there is one central message that is being echoed by your detractors in this thread: Good strategy is built upon the foundations of good reading and counting. Reading is a broad category that captures the ability to imagine sequences of play in one's head and evaluate their results. Tesuji and tsumego are major components of reading. Counting also requires some reading because what territory can be reasonably expected from a position needs to consider the aji of its shape (e.g., Can it be invaded? If not, can a reduction and invasion be made miai?).
This is actually a somewhat reasonable definition of strategy. However, it also raises reasonable suspicion about the motives behind your postings. Under that definition, the answer to your original question is an emphatic no. Consider how pointless the following question sounds when we plug in your definition.
In light of the posts that follow it, the most charitable interpretation of this question is that this definition of strategy entered into your head after rather than before you asked your original question. In other words, you either

• used poor wording (as you did in another thread, where you used "attack" as a synonym for strategy)
• or didn't really understand what you wanted to ask in the first place.

These are not sins. Even if you are truly trolling as many suspect you are, I don't think that it is good for us to get emotional toward you or have take the sophomoric attitude of viewing this as amusing entertainment. However, you should understand that there are good reasons for why people continue to be puzzled by your posts.

Peace. Over and out

Perfect strawman. 10 out 10. You even nailed the landing.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

Well, you didn't really define what you're considering for "strong" here, so I'm assuming 3 dan and above that. I don't believe you can play above 1 dan without using strategy and win. Below that, I think it's possible, but impractical, since you need pretty good reading skills to predict moves globally without using strategic advice. I may be wrong.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go