Hi All,

After some games and reading, I am still trying to find out what Go is all about, over History and in the current time. There are some things I don't understand (yet), but they could be pending on Ego, and the knife stuck in a Go board during play.

Let me paint you the scenario, and I am waiting for your responses.

My Idea of Go was, that 2 people play a game together where the territory is divided based on skill and respect and a learning touch for the lower skilled player to keep them motivated and create players that in the future will be a much better challenge to the higher graded player. I could be wrong though based on what I see. (A win on 0.5 points is a win, does it really have to be a win with 200 points to show how fabulous one really is?) In my opinion, if you are that good, you can make that win based on the developed skills in the game that ones grade is pending on. It includes counting to enable you to make it a graceful win, not?

As a beginner one learns to make the right moves from books, corner, side, enter into middle territory. And the moment one runs into a player who is much stronger, they stop making the right moves that one could learn from for one reason or another and start making moves they know they can't get away with during play with a same level opponent. The whole game becomes fighting for every stone that appears on the board killing both motivation of the lower skilled player or the fun during play. (Talk about Challenge.)

I noticed a Dan player who challenged me to play and my sorry 10 lost out of 10 games. (I Had run out time to play, so I denied.)

A day later I notice same player demoted to 1Kyu+. Meaning he only wanted to play with me to score a fast win and keep his precious Dan grade. Is this really what the game is evolved in, a knife stuck in a board to keep ones grade? Where is the fun?

Your Opinions Please.

Regardless of the truth, it's not worth worrying about.

Ranks only matter to the extent that you want them to, and on places like KGS, can fluctuate a lot without you playing at all. Fixating on it too much will only cause anxiety and other problems for yourself. Your opponents won't care.

Furthermore, if you play someone significantly weaker than you and win, it doesn't have much of an effect on your rating, as it's the expected result. Would you think that say, Andre Agassi was an underrated tennis player because he can beat me in a match? With one hand tied behind his back?

It's also fairly difficult to tell when a particular game will push you over the edge of a rank in one direction or the other.

I got 2dan? on KGS by not playing! A known bug apparently.

For me rank is of use as a metric to measure the result of my study/effort.

Peaceful moves do not work particularly well in handicap games. If it's calibrated correctly, the stronger player needs to play to his ability and make use of his advantages, and that's often better reading and instincts in complicated environments. I play some unusual, fighty moves in high handicap games not to 'trick' a weaker opponent but as sign of respect, that I need to play my best to win this. In an even game I try to pull ahead even when I'm already leading, because I respect my opponents ability to turn the tables. If I'm already losing and have a group my opponent can kill, I want him to demonstrate that error so I can learn from it.

Sometimes we overlay our own fake rules on the game. A "proper" go game is all about fighting, or is all about peaceful jostling and a long endgame, or must be corner-side-center, or doesn't involve any trick plays. And then when an opponent violates that rule, we feel demotivated or mad at them, like they did something wrong. But none of those are rules of go and we should appreciate the reminder that this too is go. That if we want to be the best we can be, we need to be able to counter tricks and fight and play an accurate endgame and everything else. There is absolutely rude behavior, but I don't think there are rude moves (maybe mirror go ).

I'd be grateful that a stronger player offered to play me a teaching game and not impugn their motives. But that's just me.

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

Your definition of fun may not be the same as my definition of fun. Sandbagging and kicking beginners to the curb was certainly an enjoyable past time of mine in Go.

No matter where you go and what you do, the moment the group of your peers becomes big enough there will always be some jerks who have fun "sandbagging and kicking beginners to the curb." I have absolutely no clue as to the motivation of such people, but my experience tells me that they are everywhere to one extend or another. This is really unavoidable, especially in a semi-anonymous setting of the internet. Sad, but true.

The trick is to find and enjoy people you like, who behave nicely, instead of getting upset about those few jerks.

And all this bad stuff? You just let it slide and move on. Life is short, and they are not worth the bother.

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

There are a couple of things mixed up in that statement. First, stronger players generally do encourage and teach weaker players and want them to improve. Second, go has a reasonably good handicapping system so that players of different strengths can have reasonably close games. Third, ranks and ratings are averages, and may not reflect the proper handicap between any two players. If you play the same person a lot, you should adjust the handicap according to wins and losses, not ranks or ratings. Fourth, go is a game of territory, but it is not a game of dividing up territory. There is no territory on the board until the end of the game. In practice, a player may be able to stake out and defend certain territory, but territory is made and solidified through fighting. Trying to stake out and defend territory is too slow; you will fall behind a competent opponent.



That is why we have handicaps. A win by 200 points indicates a high handicap, higher than most people find interesting, even if it makes for a relatively even game. If there is that much difference in skill, the higher player generally gives 9 stones and wins. The margin of victory is meaningless.



To repeat, the margin of victory is meaningless.




Since they are much stronger, how can you tell? There are players online who like to beat up weaker players, but they usually pretend to be weaker than they are.



As has been pointed out, his uneven games against you had little or no effect on his rating. (Especially as he had a lower rating the next day. ) I do not know his motivation, but I doubt if he found those games interesting. He may well have regarded himself as being generous with his time. Since he left you feeling confused and discouraged, he was not a very good teacher, however.

When I was starting out there was a 2 dan who played me regularly and only gave me a 7 stone handicap. He creamed me for months. I was grateful to him then, and I still am.

Good luck!

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

You seem to make a blanket statement, while I think this depends on the context.

Wrt to the game result, and if this is the only thing you care about, you are right. So for rank determination and torunaments - sure.

Wrt the enjoyment of the game, and maybe the learning value, being completely overpowered by 200 points certainly feels less satisfactory than having a relatively even game which you lose by 0.5 points. For guessing on a proper handi the margin of victory can also be interesting to know. There migth be other reasons and other contexts.

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

What you're describing isn't "margin of victory", but quality of game.

Bill is correct that the margin of victory is meaningless. A simple example is a capturing race involving two large dragons. The game quality might be quite high, and both players might be evenly matched. But the end result of losing a large capturing race could easily be a lot of points. In this scenario, though the margin of victory is high - probably win by resignation or by a huge number of points - the quality of the game might have also been quite good and satisfying.

Quality of game is independent of this. If an advanced player is trying to crush a beginner, it's possible that neither the beginner nor the advanced player gets much out of the game. This is the type of scenario we'd like to avoid. So we can conclude from this that margin of victory is meaningless, but quality of game is not.

Let's play high quality games.

_________________
be immersed

True, but this is not what the OP is describing, from what I understand.

So, as I say, it depends on the context - and all that you say is that the margin of victory is not the *only* metrics in the contexts I provided. But for some contexts, I would not call it "meaningless". Or no 10k would ever have any reason to be proud of losing to a 1d by "only 3 points" - and I would call this an achievement. If a 10k lost to 1d by 200 points, I would call it normal. So there is a difference in some contexts, at least to me.

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

To me, losing to someone 9 stones stronger by any margin doesn't matter, 5 points, 50, or somehow 500. They're so superior that after they're winning the game by move 20 or whatever, they can afford to relax and take the game easily. They don't have to win by the largest margin, just win.

There is someone who can beat me in 6H. In these games I naturally have a large starting advantage and he starts fights quickly and wins them easily. I then ask him, "When we play even games, why don't you play like you do in handicap games? If it works out for you well in games where I begin with 6 stones on the board, surely you'd win much more easily in an even game like this."

His response: "That would increase the margin of my victory, but playing normally in an even game would increase the probability of my victory."

Well, kind of. But as we probably agree on, this depends on the context - that's why I think "game quality" is a better indicator.

I'm reminded of a game I played a few months ago. My opponent was probably a bit stronger than me. He gained a big advantage in the opening, captured one of my groups, and the game was basically over. I kept playing, and I played some moves that absolutely should not have worked. In the end, somehow I captured a large group of his, and had a chance to win. I made a mistake in endgame, and lost by 0.5. For sure, this was a wild game. It was fun. But was it a game I played well? Absolutely not. The game quality was poor, and by fluke, I ended up bringing it to a 0.5 point game - this was only because of a very simple mistake by my opponent.

Looking back on this game, it's not one that I'm proud of. The result was a 0.5 point loss against an opponent that was stronger than me. But the game quality was trash.

Examples like these indicate to me that the point difference at the end of the game is meaningless. What matters is game quality.

_________________
be immersed

I once won a game by about 200 points on the board. I was 3 dan or 4 dan playing against a player whom I normally gave 7 stones to, but in that game I gave him 100 points instead, and won by 100. It was not a fighting game. He built a large framework which I broke into late in the middle game. When I was a 3 dan I took a 50 point handicap from a 9 dan pro and lost by 100, 150 on the board.

Fred does not understand the vast differences in skill at go. He is a beginner, yet he appears to think that the only way a shodan could beat him by 200 points is to make bad plays. Not so. Even giving a 9 stone handicap it would not be unusual for the shodan to win by 200.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, I can live with that. Game quality. Actually, this is pretty good, thanks.

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

A game of go is a conversation. You can try to hold the type of conversation that you want, but you have to have a willing partner. Just as the terms of polite conversation vary from one culture to the next (or even from one group of friends to the next), so too will the expectations for a game of go. You can either learn to appreciate cross-cultural conversation or find like minded people to talk with.



Without seeing the games in question, it's hard to tell if this statement has any validity. As others have mentioned, games with high handicaps require the other player to play more aggressively than normal. And there is nothing in the rules (or etiquette) of the game that says a player must play corner, sides, and then center. Certain servers also lend themselves to an all out fighting style; again, different cultures play differently. But you CAN learn from the moves the person is playing. Perhaps you aren't learning about "proper" fuseki, but you can certainly learn about life and death. Every game you play is an opportunity to learn. A game that you lose is generally a better opportunity than one you win.



This seems to be assuming the worst about the potential player. You could be correct, but perhaps he (or she) wanted to offer a teaching game to a new player. Maybe they just wanted to play a game and didn't care who the opponent was. If you don't feel comfortable fielding requests from different players, most servers have an automatch feature that will find an opponent around your level. IGS certainly does, which is what I assume you were playing on if you ran into a 1k+.

Strange openings can even be successfully applied in high dan games, as demonstrated e.g. in one of HayLee's videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wto_OpMe4Ak

I joined the DGS 19x19 ladder tournament specifically with the intention of finding weaker players to try to teach. Some people don't want to continue after the game, or even chat during the game, but several do. I have found a few people who wish to continue playing games after the ladder game is finished. If I did not challenge these people in the first place we could not continue. Sometimes I win by a lot, sometimes not so much because I don't push to win by as many as possible. But it seems like we enjoy the games regardless.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Fred you touched on several aspects of the game.

One thing I like about GO is the traditional respect and courtesy that go along with it. We have a 2 Dan player, in our Club, and he routinely bests, me with 9 stones. He never gives up even if he is behind and always fights to the end. (At which point he has made up the difference : ( )

But he is always willing to replay and discuss my shortcomings, look at other options, and so I never take it as an insult. He is generous in being willing to share his knowledge, time and experience with us lesser players. I try to do the same with players weaker than I.

One thing I have noticed with the club, is how different personalities perceive losses, advice, teaching etc...
What works with one does not always work with another. Perhaps since GO is an intellectual striving, one has to be particularly gentle and perceptive to other people when teaching. Peoples egos are very tied into it.

So play on, enjoy, and remember even sandbaggers benefited you with a tough game.

_________________
Walla Walla GO Club -(on FB)

We play because we enjoy the beauty of the game, the snap and feel of real stones, and meeting interesting people. Hope to see ya there! お願いします!

Anthony