I have a tendency to just fight and attack for the sake of fighting and attacking. I see holes and weaknesses and just pressure pressure pressure. I enjoy pulling the strings like this so I fall into the temptation, but it gets to a point where I am now all in and that running group needs to die in order for me to get anything. Sometimes it does. a lot of the time it doesn't. I know that I need to attack for territory rather than attacking for the sake of attacking. Usually I start out with that in mind but as it goes on I lose myself somewhere along the line and get sidetracked from the rest of the board. Does anyone have any advice as to how I can get over this tunnel-vision?

I had this same problem for ages, and while fighting is still a major feature of my play (Cuz seriously, it's the most fun), I don't go all-in nearly as often.

My solution was to learn to appreciate the aji of light stones. You only get into an all-in fight when you've over-committed to a group. The follow-up to that idea is then "don't make moves that will demand your full attention"

(Obviously, there are exceptions, and finding the balance is vital)

Each light stone is an investment in your power going into the final battle.

Once there are complications everywhere, then start slicing them to bits.

(and don't believe this nonsense about "attacking to gain territory", the only reason why we get territory is to keep the balance so that our attacks can't be ignored)

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

If you want to know what are the biggest problems, weaknesses, and mistakes in your Go,
here is one way -- there are other ways, of course, but here is one way -- find a good teacher.

You think one of your "problems" is going all-in with your fights -- this may be true. Or not.
Until a much higher level Go person looks at a significant sample of your moves and your games,
how would you know what are the real problems ?

They may include, but are not limited to:

• Your basics. Maybe you have problems with your basics which lead you into unnecessary fights, or fights that are bad for you;
• Your counting: maybe your counting needs improvement. Maybe you are not fighting at the right time and place, partly due to your counting;
• Your judgement of the situation. Counting is part of this. But there are still other factors that may lead you to fight incorrectly.

If you have serious games where you think you exhibit this all-in tendency,
you may consider to have those games reviewed (either here, or on KGS, etc.)
You may be surprised by the reviews -- they may reveal aspects of your moves
that you are not currently aware of.

So your style changed after our game on OGS. It was most certainly fun!

I will give that a shot



I really do need to but I've always sorta played on my own. Don't have the money to drop on a review session right now (hopefully soon). I'm the best player I know xP seeing as I taught everyone I know lol



You're very right. I'm sure there is more. This is just something that I've noticed. I really do get tunnel vision when fighting a fair amount. I do need to work on other aspects of my game, but immediately I wanted to see how other people have dealt with that sort of thing. When I've got half the board up for grabs because I just wanted to fight all the things, something is up lol I have been playing a lot of people between 4 and 6 ranks stronger than me a lot lately (I honestly don't know my rank. I know I'm mid SDK and that's about it. I refrain from ranked play. I don't want to get focused on the numbers and instead focus on getting stronger). A lot of the time in those matches I tend to play moves that I can't read out that I have a feeling won't work just to see how it goes and what my opponent does.

One piece of advice i have gotten once from a dan-level player was:
"If you have to kill a (big) group in order to stay in the game, you already made a mistake."
I still fall too often in the pitfall of going all-out in attacking a weak group, but every once in a while i remember this advice and try to calm down.
The goal of attacking is profit, not the kill. While killing gives you profit it is not the only way to profit from a weak group. And most often it is the other kind of profit we should seek.

Since i had such a game just yesterday (i comitted myself to killing a large group - failed and lost the game) in reflecting the game and my thinking during the game i realised something. At least for me this over-comitting to killing most oftem comes from a desire to punish my opponent for bad play. He invaded way too deep or produced otherwise a complelty unneccessary weak group. I feel so insulted by this (Why do you invade my small territory when the board is still mostly empty? Why are you always trying to destroy my territory instead of making your own?) that i tend to let my anger out on the group and only think about killing it. Like the only way to wash the insult away is by removing the insulting group from the board.
Clearly the culprit is me, not my opponent. Because strangely enough, the most satisfiyng wins for me are the games, where my opponent is of the aggressive type and manages to kill a big group of mine - but i still end up winning the game.

Going for the kill seems like admitting defeating to my anger and my emotions. Letting his weak group live is like declearing superiority. "Sure, live where you want - i'm going to take the points and win the game while you are making two eyes."

_________________
Magics way up the hill (personal study journal)

It takes two to tango. It is simply not possible to play in such a way that you never have to kill a big group. An opponent can always invade your sphere of influence and then leave his group in a weak and heavy state, spending his moves making territory elsewhere. At some point that kind of play needs punishment and sometimes that means killing because otherwise you will be behind.

There is a big difference between "always attacking and going for the kill regardless of the situation" and "killing a group because that's what the situation requires".

On another note, I believe playing Go is more about learning than winning. Playing "killer Go" is a very good instrument for learning because it is narrow minded and gives immediate feedback. Study your own games:
- where was the kill necessary and why did it come so far?
- where was the kill possible and why did you fail?
- where was the kill neither necessary nor possible and why did you still try?
Switching to a more restrained attitude only for the sake of winning more often, is not a good learning strategy.

Lee Sedol is such a noob

http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/28525

P.S. and Takemiya, Sakata, Kato, Seo Bongsoo, Choi Cheolhan...

I started out trying to kill everything -- and failing. I have no regrets. Gradually, imperceptibly, I have ended up with a fairly placid style of play. How did that happen?

By the time I was your strength, I had stopped going for the early lunch and started playing the whole board. Maybe that was the most important change. Soon thereafter I tried to emulate Go Seigen and play a fleet-footed opening. For a long time my games followed this pattern. I would build up a large framework, my opponent would invade, and then I would attack like hell. Gradually my play became thicker. You may think of thickness as preparing to attack.

When I was around 4 kyu I picked up an idea from Takagawa that made a big difference in my play, the idea of attacking on a large scale. That generally means not going for the kill. If you attack on a small scale, you may kill, but your opponent may turn the tables on you and make a sacrifice. If you attack on a large enough scale, you opponent will not be able to make a profitable sacrifice, but simply living will not be good enough, either. The ideal result of a large scale attack is typically to force the opponent to make small life in gote. To avoid that the opponent may run, leaving a weak group for a sustained or renewed attack.

As Ed says, you may well not know what your real problem is. Post a game record for review.

Good luck!

P. S. You may enjoy the games of Killer Kato. http://senseis.xmp.net/?KatoMasao

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Thank you all for your responses I appreciate all of them and I will keep them in mind. It really helps put things into perspective hearing it from others. It's a long road to Shodan but I'll join those ranks! I swear it! In the past year or so I've risen from 20k to where I am now. It's only a matter of time with my love, passion and god damn addiction to this game lol thanks again

I found it remarkable useful to stop trying to kill at all. Like, if I could read the killing sequence, I could read that the opponent could not do anything at all, I'd still try to look for alternatives. I originally used it for that same purpose you are using it, to get rid of my habit of getting into pointless fights, but I soon noticed it was almost cheating how efficient it was at winning games, so if I just want to win a game nice and simple, I'm still following the rule "thou shalt not kill".

The reason it's silly efficient is two-fold: First, even if you could kill, killing tends to leave a lot of aji which then hurts you in later stages of the game. Second, you do get secure profit any time the opponent is about to die because you keep taking secure profit on the outside, instead of gambling on the instead. Occasionally, you may lose out some because you didn't get a kill you deserved, but these instances are pretty rare and you very rarely lose that much anyway when the opponent lives.

The question "What do I aim to do with my moves if not kill" was for me answered with "make nice shape"

Avoiding the kill is lazy. You should read it again, think again, and if certain then go for the kill.
Worst case you fail, and see what was your mistake, what did you misread, or not considered at all. Of course you should analyze and learn from it.

Two seemingly contrary pieces of advice - the one says play light, the other play thick. What they both have in common is patience. Wait until the circumstances for the attack are in your favor.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I don't think the advice is: "Don't read out if you can kill stuff." Instead, I think StlenVlr is trying to say that you should consider how you can play if you don't go for the kill. The general rule for life and death is to first limit eye space, then take the vital point. You should surround fully before you attempt to kill. Obviously you know that, but ,any kyu players do not do this.

The last few months, I've been following a similar philosophy to "thou shalt not kill." I recognize that at my level most players have strong enough life and death to live in many places on the board. I may poke at things to see if I can kill them, but I retain a healthy skepticism over whether I can strike a killing blow with my moves. Instead, I try to first surround. Then, if my opponent neglects his group, I go for the kill. Before that, however, I am comfortable letting them live in gote.

The problem with always playing for a kill is that, while you may learn what does and does not work for killing, you'll never learn how to profit when you don't get a kill. Forcing your opponent to live locally is often better than trying to kill them and letting them run around the board destroying your potential for territory only to have them live in the end.

If a player's problem is that they go "all-in" too much, then it could be beneficial for them to stop even trying to kill things for a month or two just to learn. (And if their opponent really wants them to take the kill, then so be it) Sometimes your opponent asks for too much and you have to kill them or lose the game, but many times letting them live is not only okay, but the best option for the sake of the whole board.

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Often it is not possible for us weak players to read out whether we can kill something. Even pros sometimes can't do this. And if you put everything into trying to kill something and fail, sometimes you end up worse off than if you hadn't tried to kill. See the topic "amarigatachi" on Sensei's Library. Building a moyo and trying to kill an invading stone could be another example of this. You chase the invader all over the place and fail to kill and in the process lose almost all of the potential of the moyo. There is a proverb to the effect that often keshi is better than invading. Invasions usually end in gote while erasing ends in sente. It's too much to ask a kyu player to read these situations out acurately. Finally, build territory while attacking, not by killing.

I've been actively improving on this right now, and I credit high handicap games as white. If you're at 6 kyu, you're strong enough that you can give 9 stones to a player who knows their living and dead shapes, knows some basic tesujis, has some sense of direction of play. Who basically won't just be pushed around.

At first, games would tend to go like this: I'd put some pressure on a group. They'd expand elsewhere. I'd panic at all the handicap stones and try to severely attack the group. They'd respond with reasonable moves, and I'd do something like steal their corner, but down on the first line, and they'd get thickness that more than made up for it. Or I'd kill a small group, and they'd take sente and get an overwhelming lead elsewhere.

Over time I started tempering my play. With 5+ handicap stones, the game isn't really yours to dictate. Just make good shape. Push the opponent into bad shape. Connect your stones. Keep your opponent disconnected. Before I'd isolate a side stone and be reading all the ways I could make sure it died. Now I try to leave it at that: it's isolated, I succeeded. If he tries to form life there, just maintain pressure, looking for access under the group, keeping the eyespace from expanding. And then suddenly, the group would be clearly killable. When I jumped at undercuts and vital points, the group would live. When I ignored all that and just played sensible responses, the group would die of its own accord.