Since I started playing go (not so long ago, about a year and a half), I think most of my "serious" games have been long games in online go. I think I may rely a little too much in the simulator (which allows me not to just imagine but actually to play out and see possible outcomes to plays) and in "I'm a little burn out today, I'll come back to answer this move tomorrow". I know this is an advantage both players have, but I think my non-serious OCD makes me a really heavy user of this and probably lets me get a few more points.

Do you think that heavy use of the simulators may be counterproductive to when I go for real life games? Or do you think that it will take a little use to but is not big deal? or, on the contrary, that the simulator also stimulates reading skills almost as much as reading in your mind?

The same goes for playing long games; should I start practicing live games because the gap is noticeable? or do you think experience is experience no matter how I practice?

PS: Note that I am not asking if using the simulator is the same as not using it or playing with lots of time is the same as playing live. I know one will be more difficult than the other (the way starting with white and no Komi is harder than being white with komi), but I want to know if the difference is so that skills in one style of game will be hard to transfer to the other (the way a lot of experience in 9x9 does not prepare you to 19x19).

EDIT: As someone mentioned later, when I talk about "simulators" I am referring to "analyse board" type features, not computer opponents. Apologies for the confusion, I didn't know what to call those.

play more real people
that's it
the moves/mistakes a computer makes are different than the things a person will make
if all you want is to play computers, then simulators are fine
if you want to play humans, eventually you will have to learn how humans play and try irrational or random moves that even a computer won't consider.

If by simulator, you mean computer opponent, then, as often said, it is of some use, but you are better off playing humans. Nothing to be embarrassed about, we've all been beginners!

If you mean something that lets you play through variations, then I'd encourage you to stop because it's a crutch. Learn to read in your head, and you'll get much stronger, much faster.

Tsume go are your friend.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I think the OP is actually referring to "analyse board" type features (even just an .sgf editor) with which to analyse turn based games in more detail.

I think you can land in analysis hell with an sgf editor and turn based if you're not careful. The weaker you are I think the bigger the problem is because you're more likely to play out complete dead ends that a stronger player wouldn't consider playable in the first place. On the other hand this kind of playing out and exposing yourself to many patterns should help I think, if nothing more than just with shape/tesuji recognition. The problems will come from not having to read fast.

Hi Nordico, is your displayed rank in your info here, 30k, up-to-date ?
If not, do you know your approx. current level ?

If you substitute reading with playing things out through an editor, you'll never play real go. So it depends what you want to do. If you eventually want to play real go, with unsupported reading, then you should start doing that asap.

In regular go (so not turn based) already one of the worst habits by weaker players is not to read even a few moves deep and just play without thinking.

I think that this quote from Rowson about chess is a propos. (See Shako's note at viewtopic.php?p=184000#p184000 )

"It really doesn't matter what you study (referring to ideas of studying tactics, strategy, openings, endings etc etc), the important thing is to use this as a training ground for thinking rather than trying to assimilate a mind-numbing amount of information. In these days of a zillion chess products, this message seems to be quite lost, and indeed most people seem to want books to tell them what to do. The reality is that you've got to move the pieces around the board and play with the position. Who does that? Amateurs don't, Grandmasters do..."

The analog in go to moving chess pieces around the board and playing with the position is putting stones on the board and playing with the position. It is not a bad way to study.

There is a danger, as you indicate, of reinforcing bad habits. The counter to that is to play with the positions more. Do not just tread familiar paths. Explore your go world.

It is also true, as others have said, that this practice does not do a lot for improving the calculation of variations. But you can train that skill in other ways. And you can do both. You can calculate variations first, and then play around with the position to see if you were 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 am not sure. I have not played very many games; according to online-go I am 15 kyu; but last game I played against a 13 kyu who said I was much stronger than that. Again, I may be worst in person live games, I really don't know what is "my real" rank.




By turn based you mean "long turns" games? So you don't think the "analyse game" features will help me to increase my real life reading skills?




Mmm, sorry, I think I am not understanding the distinction you are drawing between playing with positions and calculating variations, could you elaborate on that? I would think "playing with the positions" means "when reading does not solve, try unfamiliar new things", so they would seem like two steps of the same process.

Calculating variations is something that you do in your head. Playing with positions is something that you do with a board and stones or with a computer program.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Hi Nordico,

Have you finished about 100 games already so far ?

If you have finished much less than 100 games,
I recommend you finish 100 games as soon as your time allows you to.

If you have already finished about 100 games,
then consider to have your games reviewed, either here
or on KGS, etc.

Well, does it matter much if it helps your reading accuracy or breadth if you haven't trained your mind to be able to read out sequences in the first place?

No; I must be pushing 20. The problem is I don' have many chunks of time to dedicate to live games and was worried that this two things (long turn games + analyze features) were counterproductive to my developing my skills. Knowing this may probably not change the factor of available time, but perhaps I could for example make an effort to not use analizers (though reading then would probably take me more time).

May I suggest you finish about 100 games, as quickly as your time allows you to.

Hello Nordico, I'm about as new at Go as you are, but the same thing crops up in online chess. I apply the same self-imposed limit in Go as I do in chess... I never use an analysis board because I do believe that it teaches you to be lazy. It's SOOOOooo tempting to look at the analysis board 'just to check my calculations' that I actually joined a group that allows no consultation of reference material during a (correspondance ) game, and no analysis board. It's made playing seem lighter and less stressful strangely enough...basically I do my best then just play the move!

Without the discipline of looking hard at the board, calculating/visualising the play then deciding if the position feels okay, then in some ways I feel that your not really learning to play properly. If you feel that BECAUSE you're still in your first 100 games, you'll get more experience more quickly from looking at all those positions played out on the board, then go do it....the difficulty will come when you decide to try to play using just your brain (with all its bugs and glitches

_________________
Working on losing those 100 first games...one horrible fiasco at a time...

I think that is a fine thing to do. Yes, you'll be stronger in correspondence go than real-time, but ranks between locations don't line up anyways. You aren't training your visualization skills as much as you could be, but many players play on instinct and don't read things out either.

When replaying a commented professional game, the commentary will often include 15+ move sequences to explain why some move wasn't selected. I like to play out the sequence, remove it from the board, and then try to replay it in my mind. I'm not nearly strong enough to find it on my own, but this creates a nice opportunity to say "to be real strong, I should be able to visualize that sequence and find the reasons deviations from it aren't better", and then try. You could probably apply that technique here: play out local sequences, choose your move, then look at the current board and recall the different paths you tried.

I'd try to rely on your own reading whenever you can. So play out 5 moves of a capturing race, and then see if you can figure out the end from there. Also, you want to use this to understand shapes. So it's not just a mechanical depth first search, but a chance to learn more about the position you're in, playing with different variations and then going back to the start and reviewing what you've learned about how the stones are interacting.

I'll heed your advice then and try to play (lose most likely), without using analyze tools, as much games as I can. Be warned: if after that 100th game I still feel awkward and insecure, I will be back here demanding more advice =P.