How do you react to falling behind in a game or to an unexpected play by your opponent that disrupts your carefully laid plans? If you become upset, defensive, worried (if you are like me), you may have the wrong hobby! On the other hand, if you become excited, energized (in a word - 'happy') at the challenge, you may be more likely to come up with a creative response that fits well in the situation. Plus you may be able to do it in less time than we worried ditherers require to decide on a lesser move.

Are the very top pros separated from the not-quite-top simply by how much fun they think it is to suddenly have disaster staring them in the face with only 60 seconds left to find an answer? In his blog post after qualifying as the Honinbo challenger, Takao Shinji wrote that he was really happy about playing a 7-game match with Iyama Yuta. Maybe he wasn't kidding!

Two recent finds led to write this post: this John Cleese video on creativity and play, and a section in Joseph Hallinen's "Why We Make Mistakes" on the effect of happiness on creativity. The first led me to the early work on the psychological traits of creative people by D. W. MacKinnon and others (sorry, I could not find a non-pay-walled version of these papers). The second led me to the work on happiness and creativity by Alice Isen and others and the work on creativity in organizations by Teresa Amabile and others.

In Cleese' presentation we are more creative when we are able to be playful, and have the time to do it. The effect of time pressure on pulling out of play mode and back to a cold, hard uncreative reality rings true for those of us who hate byo yomi. Are people who are good at blitz those who are best at keeping it in perspective and just see the time shortage as a fun aspect of the game rather than a threat?

Isen wrote the book (if you'll pardon the expression ) on the positive effect of happiness ('affect' in psycho-babel) on our ability to be creative and decisive. We are more creative, more decisive, and more efficient when we are happy than when we are not. The old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention" may only be true if we can actually enjoy being pushed by necessity.

Amabile's work is interesting for L19'ers because of the important role assigned to 'expertise' in creativity - you can't really be creative unless you have skills relevant to the challenges that you face. In Amabiles' work creativity means the production of ideas or outcomes that are both novel and appropriate to some goal - if it is novel but inappropriate, you have not yet managed to be creative. In other words, those 10,000 hours of practice give you the basic skills necessary for successful creativity.

All this also seems to tie in to Kirby's recent topic on the caring threshold. Kirby put it down to having played enough to have formed the habit of just playing a "typical Kirby move" rather than reading further. Yet Amabile lists 'task motivation' as one of the components of creativity and writes,
"Task motivation makes the difference between what our [example person] can do and what he will do. The former depends on his levels of domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills. But it is his task motivation that determines the extent to which he will fully engage his domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant skills in the service of creative performance."
So is the problem that Kirby has built up a supply of readily available moves or that he is struggling to find the necessary motivation to go the extra mile?

One thing about playing on-line is that I often pop on when I have a little extra time, rather than when I have a little extra motivation. This may be the very worst thing to do in terms of performance! If I am playing over the board, at least I must have made a more significant decision to do so. I have to have left home and traveled to some location or another in order to play.

In a similar vein, I have never liked doing tsume go. I have always approached it as a study task that I ought to do to improve my overall Go skill. However, all the above has made me wonder if I would get more out of it and be better at it if I were able to view it as a game it itself, i.e. as a challenging and fascinating puzzle in its own right. Should I perhaps 'play' tsume go rather than study it?

What do you think of all this?

Oh, one more thing. All that discussion of how good looking GoPanda 2 is or whether a good-looking interface on new servers is more important than other features? Who coulda knowed?

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

In a lot of ways I've found the game gets more relaxed when you're behind. Being ahead requires careful stewardship: too aggressive or too lax and you'll lose your advantage. But once strategically sound, carefully read out moves can no longer take you to a win you get to try all the crazy attacks you can find.

Thanks for the reminder. I had been slipping into caring about games a little too much lately. I do agree that Go is easier and more enjoyable when you're just excited to be playing.

Minor footnote - "affect" meaning "emotion/feeling" is not just psychobabble; it has been in the English language for as long as any other use of affect or effect.

What I remember from Cleese' presentation is not just that you need to have the time, but you have to know that you have the time. In other words, you need to secure a block of time in which you won't be interrupted, and this secure block is a prerequisite for getting into the playful mode. This does not mean that there is no time pressure. Within the block of allotted time, the plan is to come up with the best idea possible. I don't recall the exact time frame he suggested, but I don't think it involved 10 second byo-yomi. The second important point of his lecture was that it's not enough to just be playful and come up with a good idea. You also need to use all of the time that you have allotted in order to make your idea even better. The analogy to go is obvious.


I think I have a good mode and a bad mode, and a prerequisite for my good mode is this block of time that Cleese talks about. In this good mode, when my opponent plays a good move, I tend to view it with admiration, and then set about trying to find a good response. I wouldn't exactly call this happy, but it's a big part of what I consider a fun game. If I am under time pressure, I know from experience that my skill level drops dramatically, and in good mode, I take this in stride and keep trying to do my best, whereas in bad mode ...well, you all know what bad mode looks like. :p

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Winning is also fun.

Longer I think, the most common use of affect is the latest meaning its taken on. It doesn't mean happiness or emotion/feeling but mental state in the broader sense as manifested in someone's physical state, from what I remember. It would be unusual to say someone displayed happiness of affect if they didn't look happy even if they were actually happy emotionally. A depressed affect comes up quite a bit in bipolar/depression symptoms/signs for partners to watch for and such. It's pretty unusual to see affect being used this way outside of psychology/psychiatry though.

Only mentioning this because of our previous chats about etymology and language.

One thing I've noticed and the people who play go with me regularly have commented on is how much being depressed affects my go. When depressed I play very conservatively and crucially very, very passively compared to normal. This isn't particularly relevant to most people as they don't get depressed but I do wonder if a negative frame of mind will result in a lesser example of this kind of effect. Will someone whose mind is somewhat negative due to whatever reason play in a way different to normal that tends too far towards the safe or perhaps even passive side of play. I remember one mid-dan player commenting to me that he'd reached the point where his natural tendency to take the least complicated option where it was slightly the worse option compared to a more complicated variation was holding him back. Not something that would seriously affect a kyu player but for him it was now something of a problem. Could a somewhat negative or aversive state of mind causing someone to avoid certain situations even if they are advantageous for them be something like what you're talking about ez4u?

I think that enjoying go makes you play better and improve faster(or at least without as much stress).
Part of the reason I think I haven't run into a wall is the fact that I enjoy doing tsumego and reading go books just as much as playing. Since these don't require as much of a time commitment as games do I actually end up spending most of my go time on these.

And I think there are positive forms of irritation/anger in response to weird moves. I'm always irritated when I'm playing someone who constantly invades without looking after their group and other things of that nature. I feel like they are saying: "I bet I can get away with this because YOU are bad." I've felt this way since I was 30k and have learned how to temper it after the initial flare to avoid overplaying. It's not quite the energized you describe, but I think the indignation helps.

While I am a mere DDK and as a result have only the sketchiest of plans to be interrupted in the first place, I've played a couple of games in the past couple days where I've been ahead by a lot only to blunder it away, making the game much closer. One time in particular, I got distracted during a ko fight and ignored a threat that brought a large dead group back to life in six-stone handicap game. Post-blunder, instead of being frustrated, I found myself more engaged in the game, and more satisfied with the competitive experience in the end even though I ended up losing by about 10 points. Good sign, even if I am not quite to the "creative response" stage of things?