Heh, don't go and spoil my fun! Otherwise, spot on.

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

In most tsumego, you only consider a fraction of the possible moves, so by that definition, solving a tsumego is a way to practice strategy.

Beyond that point, I think it all depends on what your idea of strategy is. If you're thinking "he played low, so this side isn't interesting, I won't play in it", then I think it's true that both almost every player who reaches dan level has some conception of these issues, but that awareness of them isn't the big determinant of strength.

There's also a distinction between style and strategy. I play very territorially. You might call that a strategy, but I tend to think of it as a style, because I don't think of it as a way to win. I don't think "if I can control four corners, I have the key to victory." Rather, there are just a lot of times when it comes to decide where to play, and my gut reaction is usually to play on the third line, invade corners, solidify and reinforce territory, and so on. When I win or lose, it's because the territories I made were big enough, or I could reduce or invade deeply enough. Was it because my strategy failed? Sometimes, you might say that, because I took a bad trade, didn't realize in time that my opponent would have a big moyo, etc, etc. But there's no short summary of that strategy, beyond "make sure you end up with more territory than him."

There are more sophisticated professional strategies that are related (amashi), but I can't claim to be doing that. I just like territory.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Style follows from strategy like form follows function.

I think you miss the point. I most definitely play with a strategy every time I play a game. Sometimes I have short term goals, sometimes long, sometimes I decide a strategy early on, sometimes it only occurs to me half way through the game.

I greatly enjoy discussion about strategy in Go, because to me it's the most interesting aspect of the game. However, if it was normally defined the way you define it, it wouldn't be a very interesting aspect of the game to me, and I'd end up having to coin a term for what I can currently call strategy (which I'm glad not to need to right now under the basis that it seems consistent with other people's usage).

In no way do I avoid demoting the strategic aspect of Go in favour of tsumego and reading, I just find your definition of the word strategy of little practical value.

Is it possible to play Go without strategy? Yes.

Is it possible to play Go well without strategy? Unlikely.

This sounds like it means something, but it doesn't.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I would love to play a game in which my strategy was so good that my brain-heavy sequence-reading opponent would just get squashed by it. Hasn't happened yet.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

When architects say "form follows function" they talk about design not about the functionality of the building - they want to express the purpose of the building as they interpret it. The result is functionalist architecture not necessarily functional architecture.

In Go you should exclusively worry about functionality. Style and beauty then just happen.

Hey! That's kind of like how strategy follows tactics. Right?

The stones are like water. They only flow where they can flow. They don't (i.e. shouldn't) go where they can't go - unless you want to lose. Water doesn't flow uphill.

In that way, tactics inform strategy. Many times in a game you'll reach a crossroads. There are a subset of moves that are tactically conceivable (still work effectively assuming good play from both players) and you can choose the path that's most in keeping with the stones that are already on the board. This is your whole board plan (aka strategy).

Once you choose your path, the stones should be allowed to flow. The precise way that the stones should flow is dictated by all the latent tactics that exist in the position. In that moment, strategy is only important to the extent that you follow the plan that you already chose, until you reach the next crossroads. You should have already planned this far. If you're human, you'll probably screw this up from time to time, but that's life .

Tactics should always be subordinate to strategy, but... Concentrating on tactics without a strategy is like being a drunken brawler. Whereas concentrating on strategy without tactics is like trying to fight a swordsman with a piece of tissue paper and naively believing you're holding a serious weapon.

The brawler isn't that strong, but they're still much stronger than the deranged person who's waving a piece of limp tissue paper at you.

Strategy and tactics are so deeply connected that trying to think of one without the other must be confusing. It's difficult for me to imagine how such thinking would lead to good play.

It's like trying to imagine black without white.

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV

My vision: It's easier to learn enough strategy to be in a winning position when fights begin than it is to learn enough tactics to win a losing position.

When my opponent recovers from a losing position because of stronger tactics than me, I remember that had he be stronger than me in strategy I would've needed to try to recover from a losing position.

Alguien: It is a very good habit to prepare your position for oncoming fights, so keep doing that!

However don't forget that fighting often also starts in even positions. It's not just a measure to desperately catch up, but a normal part of the game. For illustration: Sometimes at the club players several stones weaker will ask me for an even game and I see no harm in that so we play. And these sometimes have a very good opening, they know joseki and where the big points are so it could well be that up to move 30 the game is completely even (in case of a peaceful opening). But as soon as the first fight begins the game starts to lean heavily in my favor, and that's just because of the better reading ability. And every go game includes fighting. Even if you don't want it, if your opponent starts it, you have to fight back or you'll lose. Btw. you need reading for endgame too

I also want to make a last point that this whole discussion is not about strategy vs. reading (at least not on my part) but strategy with reading. You cannot separate these, I fully agree with gogameguru.

Smoothoper kindly enough repeated the essence of my earlier post in the other thread: "You have to read it out to make a good strategic assessment."
See it this way: If you defend a group that's alive (because of bad reading), it's almost a pass, right? That means, you're missing a move = 1 stone. Consequently, if you make just one such useless move less per game, you are already one stone stronger. It's as simple as that.

Improving your reading will also improve your strategy, unfortunately the same cannot be said the other way round. Reading only improves with practice.

I am saying that your argument while seems plausible, is invalid, because you assume that some amount of reading will lead to a win, but you never quantify the limits of reading, and reading is obviously so limited compared to the possibilities inherent in the game, and therefore even in reading you are making strategic assumptions leading to a logical contradiction in your argument, that reading is superior to strategy. IE reading is a strategy, reading is superior to reading, which ultimately makes no sense.

That is not what anyone has said. Reading is a tool to help you put your strategy into action. It is also the only tool. The further you can read, the more certain you can be that your strategy works. If you cannot read more than five moves ahead, the person who can read ten moves ahead can see twice as far into the future when planning their strategy; they can see whether or not your strategy breaks after eight moves (whereas you have no idea and are guessing), and they can play accordingly.

I know when golem7 wins against weaker players it is because of his superior natural reading ability(which he has carefully honed training with tsumego and yose problems), but when he loses it is because of the other players devious strategies, and not their superior natural reading ability.

Sigh!

[mod edit] Let's keep it away from personal snipes ... -- topazg [/mod edit]

SmoothOper, please drop your personal vendetta against golem7. Each of his posts so far have attempted to be constructive even if you didn't appreciate them.

Try this!

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

topazg since golem7 felt compelled to assess my skill level, I feel entitled to use his comments any way I please, I tried to be polite and generalize to people who seem to be a-strategic, but everyone wants to know an example and well looky there golem7 wrote a perfect example of what I am talking about.

I feel stupid for trying...

Sigh, evidently the mods here don't enforce rules about personal attacks tightly or consistently which would explain much about the functionality/dis-functionality of this particular forum. Maybe they think things like "I can tell you are a weak player, because I have superior reading ability" are par for the course.