I'm taking lessons from Jeff, and last week we discussed some handicap games from my local club where I played white. I thought I'd briefly share some of his general comments about handicap go, because I found them quite interesting.

First of all, he says, in Asia it is generally considered harmful for your own go to play white in handicap games. This doesn't mean you shouldn't do it of course, since you have a responsibility to help other people grow.

Any handicap game is always a teaching game --- white should play to win, but that is not the primary task. The task is to set a series of tests to black: every move should be a test, to see if black knows how to handle the situation. If black does, fine, the student passed the test! If black passes enough tests, they will win, good, move on to lower handicaps.

Familiar handicap go ideas follow: white should not chose simple variations because if it is too easy for black to see how to respond, then it is not a good test of their abilities.

White should never defend (unless it is absolutely necessary, or white is already ahead). A weakness that would immediately warrant reinforcement in an even game should be left exposed, and is to be seen as yet another test for black --- how will you take advantage of my thinness?

I'll end with a few examples from the game I played with daal yesterday (see this post). In this situation, was a test and black responded correctly at (instead of blocking which might lead to trouble if white cuts), and was another test to see if black knew how to resist this kind of kosumi, which can be seen as the most aggressive way to respond to an invasion in many cases.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . O O X . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . O X 1 X . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . X . O X . . . . . . . . . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X . O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . O X . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . O . X . . X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O . X . . X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Later, was the test that black finally failed (black should simply hane on the other side to keep white separated). Before this I did not feel that I had a chance in the game, and I thought black would win.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . O . O O X . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . O X O X . X . |
$$ | . . X X . . O . . . . . . X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X X . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . O . . . O X . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . O . O . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . O O X O . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . X X O O X X . O . . . |
$$ | . X . O X . . . . . X X . X X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X . O . . X . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . O X . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . O . X . . X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O X X O . X . O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . 2 1 . . O O X . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

That sounds like an interesting approach that I might try out.

I have trouble knowing how hard to play against my club beginners. I do not want to slaughter them so that they get discouraged and lose interest, but I also don't want to play a terrible game that will teach them bad habits. Simply not defending might be the best compromise.

That is a good attitude for handicap games. And there is nothing wrong with testing your opponent in an even game, as well.



Perhaps he is generalizing from his own experience. I did not encounter that attitude when I was living in Japan -- admittedly decades ago. And Sakata said the opposite, that if you can't give handicaps, you can't play go well.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Bill, yeah I'm sure he was generalising He can also well have meant the comment with a much more narrow scope, e.g. for a student like me, playing practising games while trying to improve. That I should not expect playing white in handicap games to help me improve in the same way that even games would (and might actually hurt).

OC, if your opponent makes no mistake, you will almost certainly lose. But if you make inferior plays and rely upon you opponent to make a mistake, that can be a bad habit and hinder your own progress.

Taking three stones is a pretty good way to improve, but, as you say, then you have a duty to give three stones.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

To put a figure on it, a Chinese pro told me that playing teaching games made her 2 pro dan weaker - mostly from a lack of sharpness through not always trying to play the best move.

Related to that, when GoGoD was trying to commission commentaries (well paid) on ancient Chinese games, strong pros refused because they said it would ruin their game.

In football terms, it seems that pros attach great importance to being "match fit" as opposed to "fit".

In a go magazine years ago I saw a 4 stone game played by Sekiyama Riichi (IIRC) when he was retired and in poor health. He took a long time on the game, playing as fiercely as he ever did.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

For me, there was a period a few years ago where playing handicap games as white helped me tremendously. My play was a little bit too defensive and slow, and I didn't understand how to play lightly, or how to keep sente very well, or how to maintain aji / keep the tension / avoid settling the position when behind. Over the next year or so I ended up almost exclusively playing as white in handicap games (not deliberately, it just turned out that way) while teaching to weaker players and very naturally ended up learning a lot about these things, gaining a stone or two in the process.

Might it be discipline in resisting overplay? A stronger Irish player once advised myself and another to just play the best move in a handicap game of 5 stones or less, the mistakes will come. I think if you approach it this way it makes sense that you could learn valuable things for future even games. I'm not sure it holds for very large handicap differences as the mistakes are too many and a standard sequence might as well be a trick play. I could be wrong though.

Interesting. I understand why teaching games would make one less sharp as opposed to playing only serious competitive games. But why would the analysis of ancient chinese games ruin their game?

Is it that those ancient games are lower standard because of the missing go knowledge that was built afterwards? Or is it because of other factors (lack of komi)?