Someone had told me that a KGS instructor names "shygost" (not sure if I have the name right) had a checklist of self-questions to ask before putting down a stone. I think the first three went something like this:

• Am I safe?
• Is my opponent vulnerable?
• Where are the big points/advantages?

Does anyone have the complete list?

_________________
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe. - John Muir

"The List" can be found here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?shygost#toc1

The most basic list:

* Am I ok? (am I about to get hurt or hassled?)
* Is the opponent ok? (can I chase or hassle the opponent to get profit?)
* Where is big area? (going for wide area or big points)

Priorities in the opening:

1. Playing in response to issues (things that are too good to pass up or to let happen, i.e. I have a wall and can use it to attack or extend from).
2. When your 3-3 or 4-4 stone is approached, respond (unless something else is urgent).
3. Playing in empty corners.
4. Playing in unfinished corners (single stones on the 3-4, 3-5 and 5-4 are unfinished corners)
5. Start a joseki in a “2 stone finished” corner that is to your advantage.
6. Approaching the 3-3 or 4-4 stone.
7. Sides.
8. Center.

General rules:

* Don’t get surrounded in sente.
* When living or getting points: Corner first, side second, center third.
* When running away: Don’t get cut (no knight's moves).
* To attack: Take away a running direction from him. The one that gives you most profit or that makes it hardest on him (usually corner first, side second, center third).
* When chasing: Getting cut is fine (chase with the knight's move).
* Don’t contact weak stones (weak groups might be ok to contact, not weak stones).
* Do contact strong stones (if you can’t mess with the stone later, it’s strong).

Many thanks Araban!

_________________
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe. - John Muir

I thought one of the reasons for playing a 3-3 was that it could ignore an approach? Or is it the case that the approach is not so urgent as an approach on the other positions?

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

Not really, the big reason for playing a 3-3 is to get the corner in a single move. Ignoring an approach can be pretty painful; consider the 4-4 approach to a 3-3. If you ignore it and the game has just begun, that is exactly the same as your opponent playing a 4-4 and you directly invading it with a 3-3 - which is clearly not good for you because the amount of thickness you give to your opponent doesn't compensate for your corner points.

Ah, that makes sense. So what about my second hypothesis? A 3-3 is less urgent to approach because the other corners are usually more urgent?

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

The corollary is also that 3-3 and 4-4s are less urgent to enclose Hence, 'taking the corner in a single move'.

To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

One reason a 3-3 stone is not that urgent to approach is that the player with the 3-3 doesn't have a very good followup himself, so you (the approaching player) don't have to be in a big rush to get there first.

Thanks guys, that clears it up.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

I think you meant to say "Play the best move." (This statement does not have any content, though.)
The point is the difference between 'urgent' (a move that is primarily related to safety, your own or your opponent's) and 'big' (a move that is primarily related to points).

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)

No, I meant to say biggest. If urgent situations weren't also bigger point wise people would not play them. The distinction between big and urgent in go terms is artificial, and it's only useful in teaching people to watch the health of groups more, because they don't realize the related point swing otherwise.

I've heard it said that this is why Go Seigen's games can be hard for amateurs to follow - he knows this point very well and in some fights practically every other move invites a massive "you kill me, I kill you" type trade.

I agree. The difficulty for a beginner or weaker player is to recognize what is "urgent," which is what the first two of shygost's three questions help him do. Asking oneself these questions is a way of staying focused. Sure, it's just a variation on a theme, but I personally found it to be more effective than the sage advice "urgent before big."




Not artificial, but rather irrelevant beyond a certain skill level. For many of us however, and for anyone needing such guidelines, not playing an "urgent" move usually guarantees point loss, whereas playing a "big" point offers only a potential gain. Most of my follow-ups after ignoring the urgent move do not have Go Seigen quality.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

But you have to admit that the advice or summation: "Play the biggest move" is nothing else that the advice "Play the best move" simply because biggest = best in a game that is decided by territory. So the advice does not have any content for somebody who already knows the rules.

The advice or summation "Play urgent moves before big moves." however, DOES contain some relevant information.

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)

I honestly hate those three rules. I can't stand them, and I dislike the fact that shygost parades them around in front of a mass of kyu players as if he's speaking the gospel.



Whenever I watch shygost demos, I find that a lot of his moves are awful. I mean like... comically bad. Araban has written, in fact, a lengthy blog post on shygost, and I agree with him on most of the points. Shygost will make a bad move, then he'll use some combinations of proverbs that he knows to rationalize it. I feel that this attitude is detrimental to playing Go, not to mention playing it thoughtfully.

In fact, I feel that it hinders thoughtful play, and promotes thoughtless play.

I have no weak groups. My opponent has no weak groups. Take biggest point.

I have a weak group. Defend group.

I have no weak groups. My opponent has a weak group. Attack.



I feel that the questions themselves cloud the mind from what stronger players really think about during games.

First of all, weakness and strength is something you should constantly monitor, until it becomes an instinct. You can just look at something and feel how strong it is. It's something that comes from experience, honestly. It should be considered, but it isn't really thoughtful.

The big locations on the board are likewise part instinct, part learned theory. If it's a wide area, it's probably big. These are to be kept track of, but they aren't really thoughtful, are they?



Thoughtful play emerges when someone knows the usual way that something is played, and then deviates in an unusual manner which is superior to the usual. Running with the knight's move, because cutting it is impossible. Attaching to a weak stone, because it's part of a sequence to kill a group.

Whenever you play a move that you didn't play because of some proverb, or because of what someone told you to do, or because you asked yourself a set of fixed questions, some kind of play that involves your own thought process and reasoning, that's when you've played something thoughtful. A checklist for thoughtfulness, I believe, is a complete oxymoron.

Perhaps you're right that thoughtfulness isn't the right word, but with all due respect, I think you've completely forgotten how truly clueless some of us are. The guidelines are for people who have *no* idea where to play next. Also, they don't tell you where to play, but rather give a weak player an idea what he should be looking for. Thinking about what is the best way to defend or attack a weak group does involve one's own thought process. The checklist doesn't give you the automatic move, but suggests places to look and helps the weaker player acquire the instinct to constantly monitor the strength of groups. Of course stronger players deviate from proverbs because they can read the consequences, but the starting point is recognizing a situation to be assessed, and if you can't do that yet, such guidelines and proverbs will indeed help you at least to find the obvious move before creatively deviating from it.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.