I used to play tennis too, Every weekend for 2 years I had a lesson with my trainer, practicing form,

"Pushers" is what they'd call them, as I recall. They win by virtue of just being able to endure.

Frustrating as hell to play, but you have to appreciate their sheer will. .

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Apart from people who can play flawless basic or highly technical styles, I have enormous respect for people who play incredibly greedy and manage to make it work. Just something very exhilarating about managing to make something that shouldn't work work. A prime example from the Go world being the guy from the recent-ish Battousai lecture who opened Tengen all the time and was 7 dan on Tygem. I was grinning the whole lecture and the four space extension had me in fits.

It was mystifying to see people deride it as something you should not do. It may not be "proper play" but it is clearly strong, hard to counter (but still counterable and leads to an actual game) and fun as hell to play (for the guy who does tengen anyway). Why the hell would you not play that way? I mean, obviously you'd have to have a working knowledge of a "proper" game so you don't crumble after your stuff gets exposed, but it takes a professional to do that in the first place.

There's something similar in the Starcraft community, where people basically worship the idea of a long macro (=economy focused) game and have a marked dislike for "cheese" (all-in play that wins or loses on the spot, especially when done very early in the game) or very technical pushes which are generally regarded as gimmicks. Yet they work on a professional level, test different skills than the macro game and serve to keep the opponent honest over the course of the long set. You're just as much going to run into trouble when you meet foes with impeccable defense, but that doesn't mean they should not be played.

From what I've seen Go players seem even more averse to these kinds of things than players of Starcraft or some other games. Is it just the idea of there being one "proper" move and the opponent playing anything but his best guess as to what it is being insulting, even if he plays better in a very greedy or hyperaggressive style?

It seems the only player listed as a "power go" player in sensei's library list of professional styles is "Wimmer, Manfred: Grinding power go", though other players seem to be listed as "powerful"

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

In the context of "Grinding power go.", I think it would mean something else perhaps a very thick mechanistic style. Evidently he invented a Joseki, so that is pretty cool.

If a player plays hoping to elicit a dumb mistake, but never makes an overplay, then they are better than I am.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Ah yes, not it is coming to me. Power Go = Large Scale Joseki

Reminds me a bit of Tal. These type of players are very, very dangerous to play against. Of course, I would relish the complexity of the game, and really not be sad if I lost.

_________________
My plan to become an SDK is here.

I admire tough play when it's being backed up by reading and good judgement.

However, I would never admire a player who eg unfavourably takes territory in exchange for too much thickness and then immediately plays too close to thickness, but sometimes wins anyway because other 2ds are also bad.

Also, in battousai's lecture that player plays conventionally badly against a random pro and gets annihilated beyond belief for it with no really interesting moves being played, even though he could often "make it work" against other amateurs to the tune of being c. 7d tygem.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

This style I used once, when I was 1d, in an H3 game as Black, where a big nadare joseki filled a quarter of the board. I suggested to repeat such in another corner, but my opponent woke up:(

In even games, usually I would not call using a large scale joseki "power go" just because of its scale.

Bad "joseki" moves can be detected, for example, by evaluation of the resulting position: consider difference of numbers of played stones, territory and influence and consider those strategic concepts in the positional context with significant impact, then use these values and facts to apply my general evaluation method. The detected value type would be "favourable for a player", here: the opponent of the bad moves.

Alternative 1: Only sometimes tewari or "local positional judgement" (see Joseki 2) can give the answer.

Alternative 2: Make global positonal judgements after the bad moves or after other (hopefully better) moves. Then compare. This, however, often is an overkill because 1) more than one positional judgement is necessary and 2) the differences of territory and influence need to be determined, too. Instead of simply forming their ratio and identifying the value type as in my method, also the whole rest of the board needs to be judged for territory and influence etc.