No. Tactics is a requirement also for the former.

Do you just try to jest or do you have principle doubts about other, more specific principles often being less simple and clear than the one universal principle (alternative: "Apply the game aim.")?

Since we are trying to simplify things as much as possible.
My universal principle for the game of go: Don't lose.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

"Win!" is simpler, but why would be trying to simplify as far as possible? Understanding demands spelling out details to at least some extent of specialised generality.

If someone asks a general question without giving specifics, then chances are good that they are looking for a general answer. While such broad principles as those above will not be valid in all cases, they are so basic to the game that if one hasn't yet internalized them (and from the OP's question, this is a reasonable assumption) one will surely improve by attempting to do so, AND they will easily be referenced the next time the OP gets invaded.



When one is aware that one should not be surrounded, the idea that a jump can be cut becomes relevant. When one is aware that a weak group becomes more vulnerable as the opponent's nearby stones increase in strength and number, ideas such as how one might defend a weak group in sente become relevant. I don't dispute that strategy needs to be backed up by tactics, but having a strategy to defend is a good motivator for finding a tactical solution. Does it also work the other way around?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Interesting question. I suspect this is dependent on the learner. I think children can be drilled on tactics (shapes), and will synthesize enough strategy themselves to get by. I suspect they will be resistant to fuzzy principles. (Having not worked much with kids, however, I admit that I'm speculating). Adults, on the other hand, I think prefer strategic justifications and may be somewhat resistant to endless tactics. That, at least, is what I generally encounter at clubs.

My personal view is that at least for adults in the west, too much focus is given to strategic principles, and a resistance to tactics (borne out of moderate success from strategy) is a huge and somewhat insurmountable barrier to getting really strong. Still, if they enjoy the game, I suppose that's all that really counts.

To win eliminates the possibility of aiming for the purpose of eternal life and other superko possibilities which can make a losing game void Voiding a game does not gain a win.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

Just as a meta-comment: when a beginner asks a "what should you do when..." question, the subtext is normally "(how can I play better)". The problem with answers of the type "when he plays o9 you attach and then reply to the hane with counter-hane. You can't cross-cut because after o10 o11 his forcing move against the upper left corner breaks the ladder and so..." is that they answer the first question without resolving the second. These sorts of explanations are often bewildering, and even if they satisfy the student, it's unlikely that he'll ever encounter that precise situation again. The literal answer only helps with the implicit question (how to play better) to the extent that reviewing the sequence improves his reading.

So this creates a sort of dilemma. If you give very broad advice like "don't make broken shape" or "play efficient moves", advice that will be helpful in all sorts of situations, you seem to be ignoring the question of how to find the line of play that makes shape, or the line that uses stones efficiently. On the other hand, if you give the most practical advice and say "play more games, do more tsumego, study pro games - then this will seem easy", you can come across as equally unhelpful. But the problem is that it's actually very hard to find advice that is both generally applicable and also easy for the student to apply without being able to read better. (Making matters worse, the players who are in the best position to understand the student's perspective, and help him make conceptual breakthroughs that are well-matched to his reading ability, are the ones who are least able to offer sound advice.)

I think there is some value to giving specific sequences, provided that they are not too complicated for the level of the questioner. For me, at least, one of the best ways to know what to do in a situation is to have seen several reasonable moves from it before, to help prune the decision tree away. Only if none of those work well or if there are compounding factors outside do I feel that I need to start reading outside.

In a way, your problem -- in this case, anyway --, is not attacking fiercely enough. Ed Lee is right. is horrid. You must prevent Black from just pushing out, hell or high water.

What you are talking about is not uncommon. You attack, and your opponent cuts off one of your groups and there is a fight between that group and his. Often, if your attack was good to start with, you get a good result even if you lose the fight, because you can make a good sacrifice. I remember one game fondly in which that happened three times to me and each time I lost the fight, only to win the game by 5 pts. My opponent was shocked.

I have entered a number of variations, with some plays that may surprise you. OC, no guarantee that I have not goofed. But even when White loses the fight the result would probably be OK, because of the strength of the resulting White wall and the weakness of the Black orphans in the top right.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I try to jest, Sheldon. Its called 'sarcasm.'
The underlying idea is that, when addressing 11k player, saying he needs to "Read correctly" is about as meaningful as saying (to anybody) "Play correctly" - both are true and absolutely unhelpful. Imho.

Same goes for your other points.

PS>
By the way - you don't mind if I call you "Sheldon", do you? Just for a while, it will make me happy.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Bantari, the read correctly principle accompanies the other two principles, so that one knows how to apply them well: by reading and preferably reading correctly.

Working out the details and editing diagrams for that purpose amounts to up to ca. 2 hours. This is much more than any one of us wants to invest. Nevertheless, this does not make the principles useless for the OP, because he can relate them to the other posters' messages, such as Bill's and his application of the reading correctly principle by studying a few relevant variations.

It has been said that teaching 11k would be difficult. It is not: just combine general advice with specific application in diagrams and their comments. This is not difficult, but just a matter of needed teaching time investment.

so there is a lot of great stuff in this thread, i'm sure. but i am having a hard time knowing what to do about it. i guess my shapes are very bad. how do i get better at this? i honestly don't know much about shape at all. when i do tsumego shape never enters my mind. shape rarely ever enters my mind during a game. i am not even sure what basic shapes are, which is probably why they never enter my mind. i know the empty triangle is bad, as are dumplings. i know hane at the head of two is usually good and so is the tigers mouth. that is about it

Well, this page is a good place to start:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?LameDuGo

Do you understand the ideas on that page? These, I think, are adequate to understand the specific mistake Ed and Bill identified.

"Shape" is a huge topic. I think of broken/ripped shape as being the most fundamental level of shape. But there's a lot more to it. We had a thread on the topic a month ago: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8614

Oh and look, a similar topic from a year ago (that recently blossomed into trench warfare over the cost of a bus fare, but the first two pages are good) - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5825

And if you were to read any one book about go, "Opening Theory Made Easy" would be a good choice - it just so happens that a third of the book is about go.

But again, all this additional information about shape is above and beyond the basic point: when you let your opponent separate your stones without separating his stones in return, you suffer a loss.

Oh, but it should. In a life and death problem one player wants to make eye shape while the other player wants to prevent eye shape. IMO the two great themes of life and death problems are eye shape and shortage of liberties.

E. g.,

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ --------------
$$ | . 2 . X O . .
$$ | 3 1 4 X O . .
$$ | X X X X O . .
$$ | O O O O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

Black dies because, even though she can make eye shape with , there is a shortage of liberties.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Totally true! Teaching is very easy, you just need to tell them exactly what they need to know to improve at any given moment. Piece of cake.

Sorry, Sheldon - couldn't resist.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!