So if you've ever gotten serious about Chess, you'll know there's a hand full of different openings with countless variations for each depending on the particular need (some will say that there's countless openings as well but as you come to understand them, you'll see that there's actually just a few mainlines that can be played in different orders and sides of the board (for instance: the Dutch Defense is just a kingside variation to the Closed Sicilian). To get to my question: are there such mainlines in Go? I realize that there's different openings for the first two or three moves such as 4x4 and 3x4, kobayashi etc. However, are there actually follow ups to these openings like in Chess? I mean particular moves that you're supposed to make in a certain sequence? It just seems less likely for there to be strict, structured opening lines because you're opponent can play anywhere, throwing off your plan from the get go. If there are such openings with variations, what would be a good first opening line and follow up for a DDK to get started on? I don't know, maybe what I'm asking about is just Joseki. Would you consider Joseki to be the Go equivalent to a Chess opening or is there even more to it then just balancing the corners? Because the purpose of a Chess opening is to enter the middle game with some sort of imbalance to your advantage (not to be equal such as with Joseki).

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Not exactly sure how to answer that. I sort of think that the joseki are the mainlines. And there are a few hundred of them, with thousands of variations. And the order matters. -- Lin Haifeng (Rin Kaiho)



OC, there are many follow-ups, but you are not supposed to play any one of them. Subsequent play depends on the rest of the board.



I think that a DDK would do well to understand the first three moves by each player in a joseki.



They are analogs, in that they are standard sequences of play, but a chess opening is about the whole board.



Suppose that a chess opening has been played and analyzed for five centuries or more. By that time nearly all of the inferior plays by either side have been discovered and discarded, and each of the main lines leads to a roughly equitable result. Those main lines are like joseki in go.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Thanks for the response Bill! The contrast that I'm making between the two is that in a Chess opening, the goal is to create imbalances and then the rest of the game becomes somewhat of a wager to see who's advantages triumph. As far as I understand, the goal of Joseki is to remain even. Am I wrong about this? (You are correct in saying that opposing openings played correctly ought to result in a roughly equal position for both sides, nonetheless, the purpose is to create imbalances or "differences in strengths and weaknesses", ex: I've got the bishop pair and you've got a bishop and a knight, etc).

I think a better way to ask my question might be to say: What is the relation between fuseki and joseki? Obviously they're not synonymous and joseki are about settling corners vs the whole board but are there such things as strict fuseki patterns and follow ups? I've been told to wait until I'm a least 5 kyu to begin studying joseki but what about fuseki?

in Chess, once you get past beginner study, you learn that every game falls into a basic category, if you will. This morning, I played a Sicilian Dragon vs Gran Prix. A Chess player will know exactly what this means and will have a vague idea of how the game went down without me explaining anything about the position and he'll know what I mean when I say "I left my queen on light" and what impact this had on the game. Other examples would be the Italian game, the Swiss game, the English etc. Is Go like this once you progress into higher levels?

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Compared to chess, go is a much more flexible game. No game is determined by the first ten moves, say. You might expect a moyo game to result from a san-ren-sei opening but, depending on subsequent moves it could become a territorial game. So you can't predict very precisely. In my opinion, chess is somewhat confined and inflexible compared to go. For me 9x9 go is rather like of the feel of chess. In chess only limited (20) first moves are allowed. In go the first move could be on any of 361 places on the board. These obvious comments do indicate essential differences between the games.

At your level you're probably best off reading Opening Theory Made Easy (it's a collection of ideas of what to do and what not to do in certain situations which come up a lot in the opening but can also occur in the midgame). It'll help quite a bit with the opening and midgame. Then reread it when you're a few stones stronger, you'll find some new ideas in it usually.

I am a neophyte, so take my observations with a block of salt.

I would have to say that both games employ asymmetry. In open Sicilian chess openings Black gains a center pawn majority but White obtains active piece play and prospects for a kingside attack, often involving queenside castling and a pawn storm. In the French Winawer Black gives up the bishop pair in exchange for creating weak doubled pawns on the C-file. That is, opening choices have lasting effects owing to the game's most static feature--pawn structure. Modern chess is mainly about White creating some imbalance in the opening in order to get a long-lasting initiative (sente in Go), often by accepting long-term structural defects.

In Go players often bargain over territory and influence, choosing whether or when to invade a corner (too early risks getting hemmed in while the opponent builds power to attack other areas of the board before one has stones to resist on the outside). Like chess, I think that Go is very much about asymmetry. As in chess, saying that a joseki (opening) is "equal" does not mean players have the same options, it means that "all else being equal" they have roughly the same winning prospects. But "all else" is seldom "equal," which is one reason why studying joseki without considering the whole board is not considered very useful for beginners. I highly recommend Fuseki Small Encyclopedia (http://www.britgo.org/node/3263) for an introduction to some of these issues.

There is no goal of joseki.



I would not worry about fuseki or joseki, but play the whole board.

At the same time, it is very important to master local play. Most plays are near stones that are already on the board, and their effects on nearby stones are strong and they come up again and again. But which play to choose locally often depends upon distant relationships. It is not easy to figure these relationships out on your own, which is why it is important to study pro games.



Well, every opening affects the rest of the game. However, because of the size of the board and length of the game, I think that go players have more freedom than chess players to affect the nature of each game.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I'm starting to realize how front-and-center this concept is to the game though I understand it very little. Could you possibly provide a diagram or example of what you're talking about? Particularly the second part about your opponent building up strength because you invaded too early.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Chess is like fencing on a tightrope. Go is like a mass brawl where you get to play half the participants. Neither is easy, but one of them is way more confusing!

What makes it worse is that the brawl really starts from the first move. There is a constant threat of being blindsided by a sudden attack, or a carefully laid ambush.

The main reason playbooks aren't as big as in chess is that refuting apparently silly opening moves is very hard and your carefully rehearsed strategy is usually abandoned by your opponent.

Just playing reasonably unexciting moves for the first ten or so, that already puts you at millions of possibilities. Add in exciting and creative moves and it asplodes into many more.

An opening playbook will exceed human capacity for memorization.

The classic example is the position that results from a 3-3 invasion under a 4-4 stone. The resulting position is this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

White has territory in the above diagram, while black has none. For beginners playing black, this is disconcerting. But on an empty board, black is considered to have a much better position. The white stones are trapped in the corner and will have no more effect on the rest of the game. The black stones, on the other hand, will not only allow black to take territory on the top (probably more than white got in the corner), but can change black's strategic options throughout the whole board (e.g. ladders that originate in the lower right now work in black's favor.)

If white waits until most of the board is settled before invading, then this joseki can be a good choice. When the top and right side are already mostly settled, black's influence doesn't count for nearly so much. Thus, deciding when to invade is largely a matter of determining when the territory white gets is worth more than black's influence.

If joseki has a goal, it would be the same... to create imbalances. Its just that the standard (joseki) responses have been somewhat proven to remain even.

The game of go is like a big game of chicken. Betting to see who's going to swerve first. Its a trading game, "I'll trade you this for that", and betting that your opponent can't rightly calculate the value of the trade being offered.

This is why pros often deviate from joseki early. They're offering a trade in another part of the board, and often multiple trades at the same time, because depending on who swerves first, these separate local positions will either work well together across the board, or work against each other.

The sooner you put aside attempts to apply learnings or analogies from chess to go, the better off you will be. They are utterly different games.

I would say the only things you can apply from chess are broad concepts that apply to most strategy games, like: read ahead, have a plan, don't panic, consider the whole board, and so forth.

I endorse the information others have offered here. Opening Theory Made Easy (http://senseis.xmp.net/?OpeningTheoryMadeEasy) is an excellent book if you are a total beginner and lost for how to proceed in the first few moves. (BTW, you can get many beginner Go books through inter-library loans.) Jeromie gave you what I would call the prototypical example of trading territory for influence. You probably will need to see some game continuations, though, before you can truly appreciate this. If you haven't looked at youtube Go videos, I suggest taking a look at Nick Sibicky (instructions and some games: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_msct ... M8yAtaju1A) and Haylee L (a professional who gives running commentary while playing: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTji1k ... 5dB_Vxka9g). In particular, Haylee demonstrates the process of trading this-for-that throughout her games. And, of course, capitalizing on her opponent's mistakes as she starts her series as a sandbagger (playing way under her actual rank).

This is true. But more than this, I've definitely found that getting better at the one game makes me better at the other from both sides (my chess game has greatly improved since I took up Go in ways that I never even thought about because of the tunnel vision caused by only focusing on one game). I find that what makes Chess and Go similar are the things that make them different. I could make a whole list but to name a few things: dynamic vs static game pieces; emphasis on the center of the board vs the outer fringe; starting with pieces and progressively taking them off vs starting with an empty board and progressively adding pieces; an absolute, precise ending vs an abstract, indefinite sort of ending, and of course, the obvious: White goes first/black goes first, and the list goes on. There's also tactical similarities and asimilarities (no, that's not a word) though those are kinda hard to explain in words. The point is, I believe a lot of understanding can come from looking at abstract strategy board games from the perspective of other like games. One of the reasons this works for myself is that because of the way I think, there are fundamental things in Chess that are really simple and easy while other things are very difficult and hard to grasp. Likewise, there are concepts like this in Go as well. However, it seems that the simple, obvious things in Chess are difficult to grasp in Go and vice versa, therefore, I can think of something obvious in Chess and apply it to something more sophisticated in Go. I don't know, maybe just a personal thing. I just adore both games though and like to think about them and why they are what they are. I would hate to ever have to choose my favorite (though I would pick Go).
The reason for my original post though was just that I was curious if there were some mainlines I could learn and start practicing beyond the first few moves. You know, something I could use every time I play until I learn something new. It's recommended that you play a new Chess opening for a year before moving onto another one so I would probably stick to that. I'm just craving deeper strategy in my play and so I'm looking for ways to be thinking about advantages right from the get go and how to ride them through the middle and into the end game.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

I feel like you answered your own question.

Yes joseki are "even" exchanges in the same way trading a bishop for a knight is "even"
but if on the other side of the board you play a joseki that blocks the white diagonals, then you trading your bishop for the knight was a good fuseki.

I think this concept is called direction of play.

But if you really wanted to understand joseki through chess, I would say that joseki are like forced exchanges. You can't keep all your knights and all your bishops. So in one corner you'll trade a knight for a bishop (Territory for influence) or (Influence on one side for influence on the other side) and then in the end you hope your exchanges fit the board better than your opponent's exchanges fit the board.

Sure your opponent can play anywhere to sour your strategy, but if you stay more flexible you can adjust your strategy to make any of his moves seem inefficient.

Thank you for this post. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in the previous post above; using principle analogies from one game to better understand the other. I guess I didn't realize that joseki is so much about exchange for territory vs influence. I thought when people said "equal for both sides", they meant just that. So you're saying that choosing the proper joseki is about creating the imbalance which favors you're strategy for the rest of the game? While were on the topic of joseki, I do have some basic questions: with so many joseki out there, are there such things as like the "common" ones that any real player ought to know? I always wonder when I study pro games "how do they agree upon which joseki variation to use?" What are the odds that two different players would not only know the same joseki but choose to use the same one at the same time? And what if one player starts the joseki and the other player see's that it's ultimately better for his opponent and doesn't want to play it? Is there a battle of the josekis as both players try to player their own way? Furthermore, what if your opponent doesn't even know you're playing a Joseki? I mean, do all strong players always settle every corner with joseki? Is that just standard play for corners?

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Some pros like to joke "I don't know any joseki, I invent joseki" I'm sure they are both joking and serious, i.e. they have already studied and committed to memory all the standard josekis and their outcomes, and are now exist in a different sort of post-joseki world where they really do just play the best move in the circumstances, and if that means making up new josekis then that will be the outcome. New joseki sequences are still being invented. With a few small exceptions, josekis don't even have names, which to me indicates (a) how many there are and (b) how they simply are the best move for the current situation.

Pros do not agree on joseki sequences, and if they can refute the line the opponent is taking then they will, provided it gives them a good outcome.

Note that josekis are not exclusively about territory vs. influence, there are some which give a roughly equal balance of territory, e.g. http://senseis.xmp.net/?44PointLowAppro ... ionSlide33

I think you're still missing the point.

Its not that they agree... many joseki often have so many different variations that players do just that... trying not to let their opponent get the upper hand.

I've read stories of at least one famous professional (and I've forgotten his name) who claimed not to know any joseki, but instead simply worked out what the best response should be while playing. Another (if not the same one), since he was unaware of the proper joseki move, ended up playing a move that wasn't in the books, but ended up being better, and therefore proving the books wrong.

here's an interesting article about not blindly following joseki
http://361points.com/articles/20/1/

don't just play a move because its joseki. play a move because its the best response to the situation (which may just happen to be joseki).

edit: ninja'ed by quantumf (and his answer is better than mine anyway)

I think there are, though you are depending on your opponent to cooperate to some degree - to agree that your opening "line" is right about the choices it is forcing on them (and see http://senseis.xmp.net/?HighConceptOpeningMyth).

As Black, I spent a little while starting out with the Low Chinese opening, as a way of imposing some order on the beginning and getting a feel for what is going on. A friend did the same with Sanrensei. Now I think it hampered my understanding a bit (though probably not a terrible idea), and instead I try to see the opening as a series of tradeoffs and come out of it even (this is probably starting to sound familiar).

I second the suggestions to have a look at Opening Theory Made Easy. For me, this better filled the need I felt to impose some order on the early phases. Actually I think I should probably read it again.

_________________
Confucius in the Analects says "even playing go is better than eating chips in front of tv all day." -- kivi

Instead of learning whole board openings or other chess-inspired ideas, I would suggest you focus on your local fighting skills: beginners* lose not because of opening mistakes but because they run out of liberties and get captured. There are a lot of local shapes that will keep coming up again and again and recognising these and what the important points are and how they are affected by slight changes in the configuration of the stones is far more valuable. Can you solve the problems in this post? Was it second nature solve in a glance, or did you need to read?

* I seem to recall you are still quite a beginner, apologies if this is too easy.