Lots of people remark about how we win or lose our games based on knowing "the Basics".

But I don't believe I've ever seen defined just what those are. Maybe there's a Sensei's Library link, or maybe someone has written a book (or maybe even a previous discussion topic)? Links to those would be fine, but I'd still like to discuss popular opinion on the subject.

I'm sure there will be lots of differing opinions about what the basics are, but I'd like to hear those opinions.

Just what are the Basics exactly?

Black plays first, white plays second, everything else is pure theory.
-with apologies to Sepp Herberger

Kageyama has

Perhaps not always used the word “basic” …



Way too many links here for me in this forum to find them.



For me this definitely is an interesting question, having probably just scratched on the surface …

Perhaps we could agree the differing opinions may just define fuzzy borders, and then to divide the mass of Go knowledge very roughly into this:

3. advanced
~~~~~~~~
2. intermediate
~~~~~~~~
1. basic
~~~~~~~~
0. bloody beginner

I’d first assume that rules, Ko, the forbidden suicide, Tiger Mouth, Real Eyes/Two Eyes, etc. are bloody beginner stuff.

Somewhere on the border to basics I’d probably put: Is this really connected?

Then, basic (in no specific order):
- Corner->side->middle
- 3-3 alive if no mistakes
- stone on 3rd line alive if no enemies in two points distance (and no mistake)
- two stones on 3rd line in two points distance are alive/have some territory
- different jumps: one-point, two-point, diagonal jump, Knight’s Move and Big Knight’s Move, are they cuttable? At what cost?
- Mouse Trap
- Oiotoshi
- Crane’s Nest
- Ladder (and Ladder Breaker)
- Capturing Race
- Seki
- a few proverbs, perhaps
- glimpse of what is “large” and what may be “urgent”
- knowledge that there’s something they call “Joseki”
- can solve ca. 50 or 100 beginner tsumego (prolly depends highly upon which collection it is)
- …?…

So, anything I don’t know has to be intermediate or better Joseki, for example, and anything else that’s waaaaaaaay over my head I’d shove towards “intermediate”, for the folks there to shove more things up to “advanced”. Likewise, I expect the higher Dan players here to call anything “basic” that they have learnt to play automatically years ago …

And about books, I’m sure all beginner books cover the basics, more or less, whatever they are. Have never read a beginner book to the end, I should add

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Of every topic, the basic important fundamentals.

As Robert said, it is the fundamentals. Kageyama's book, Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go, fleshes this out. A good example is his first chapter on ladders and nets. That chapter brings me back to reality and I realize, if I am honest, my reading of ladders is really poor. I don't try to practice reading them out much and consequently my fundamentals are weak. You hear this in American football with regard to professional players and how some of them don't have the fundamentals of tackling down, even at that level. I think another book that I read, How Not to Play Go, by Yuan Zhou also gets at the fundamentals of play. Zhou says: "What makes a player a kyu-level player is a basic misunderstanding of how to play the game. I am talking about basic, elementary principles of play, not complicated and difficult things that require much effort and even talent to acquire." (p.1 of How Not to Play Go)

When I'm reviewing games for beginners there tends to be a disjunction between "I can tell you this, but you won't understand it until you've done a gazillion problems or been burnt by it in a dozen games" and "I can tell you this, but you'll think I'm being condescending". I tend to think of the latter as basics and the former as building on the basics.

That, sometimes. More often, I think we know the basics---otherwise you can't call them basic---but we win or lose games due to our success or failure in applying them. Too many times we convince ourselves that the basics are not enough, and so doing, lose.

A little side question: What is this "Mouse Trap" quoted by Bonobo?

Maybe another name for snapback? At least that would be a good name for it but I'm just guessing

I'd put the bar lower for "basics" than "fundamentals." I'd say that the basics are:

1. Liberties
2. Eyes
3. Connections

A brief elaboration.

Liberties. The idea that the liberties of a stone is what keeps it alive is go in it's purest form. The liberties of a stone or string are it's most basic property, and an awareness of the way liberties can be increased or removed is what I believe should be most deeply ingrained in a go player.

Eyes. The idea of eyes is an extension on the idea of liberties. Eyes are formed to protect liberties. Awareness of eyeshape i.e., the spaces that can become eyes is something I consider basic, because along with liberties, it is the property of the stones most essential to their life on the board.

Connections. Along with forming eyes, the way stones live is by being connected to other stones. The extent that stones are connected is a basic property. Awareness that connectedness is a spectrum, and not static, that it can change due to the surroundings, is basic to a go player.

So if you ask me, I'd say that the basics of go, what one should be aware of from the very beginning, is that the property of the stones is the space around them.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

The book states only a small fraction of the basics. All English books about the fundamentals plus those about beginner or intermediate knowledge together come closer, but are not complete yet in their treatment of the basics.

Yes, correct. I simply trance-lated the German term instead of using the English “snapback” which I know well funny things happen when one thinks in two languages.

And sheesh, I didn’t include liberties in my list … the most fundamental, most essential, most basical basic only realized when Daal mentioned it.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

According to Wikipedia,

This is so excellent. I agree completely. After getting comfortable with this, you can move on to more advance concepts - like the fact that you can only make one move at a time.

I am not being sarcastic - if I had a dollar for every time a single digit kyu player has said in a review "I thought I could attack this group - I just need to play here...and here", or 'I can tenuki, my group is fine after I play here...and here"

Yup, that my opponent gets a turn stuff - dan level at least

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

"What are the Basics?". This is a very good question!

I took a look through some beginner`s go books at the bookshop today. Most books contain all or some mixture of the following things:

* the rules - capturing, ko, seki, counting
* easy tactics - ladders, nets, snapbacks
* corners, sides, centre
* the easiest 4-4 and 3-4 joseki
* making a base with a two-point extension

Such content can be found in books with titles like "You can play Go in 3 Days" and "Iyama`s Go for Beginners" (sorry, did not make a note of the Japanese titles). The Iyama book looked quite cool for kids, actually. He is portrayed manga-style, explaining key points, and IIRC there is a short manga story about elementary school kids learning to play and challenging each other.

There are also introductory books to specific topics, like Takao`s Introductory Series on the Fuseki (you can find my review in the Go Book Reviews section), but even if they contain the word 入門 (beginner, introduction, guide) in the title these monographs can become quite detailed and advanced.

Anyway, that's what you`ll find in Japanese books on the "basics" - pretty similar to works like Janice Kim`s "Learn to Play Go" series - enough to get you started but not much more.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

And then it becomes: "I can play here, in sente, and then here."

Yup, that my opponent gets to chose where to play his stone stuff - pro level at least.

I disagree to this popular misconception. Connections come before eyes, because then it is easier to make eyes for one connected group than for at least two separated groups.

I also disagree with "eyes". Rather it is "life" (seki without eyes is also possible.)

<meta-discussion>
He didn't say that connections couldn't come before eyes. He said:






He also didn't say that you couldn't live without eyes. He said:


In particular, he said that eyes were something that he considered basic.
</meta-discussion>

_________________
be immersed