I like playing games where I take large handicaps.

I was able to visit the local club a few times over the summer, and a few dan level players were kind enough to play with me. I was two or three stones weaker than my current rating at that point, so I played an AGA 2-dan with a nine stone handicap.

Not only was the game fun for both sides, I learned a lot by playing an opponent who would punish my poor moves. I learned to trust my reading. I learned to play thickly and watch out for any shortage of liberty situations. I learned to be resilient and keep playing when I made a mistake that cost me a group of stones. These lessons all arose in the middle game fighting, and I don't think I would have been able to experience any really meaningful fights without the handicap.

That said, I certainly wouldn't like to only play handicap games. They are a different type of game from beginning with an open board. As long as you can accept that from the beginning, I think they are an important instructional tool.

I also don't like to play handicap games and rarely end up playing them. If I'm teaching someone weaker, I'll give some if they want it. Online it's really easy to find someone your own level to play against.

But is is easy to find someone your own level to learn against?

_________________
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).

Yes, every game.

I play lots of handicap games, in fact about 40% of my games on KGS are handicap games, so I don't see what's so bad about them, both in giving and taking handicap stones.

I've played even games against beginning players, too, and it gets old fast if they keep being resoundingly beaten every single time. Not for me (I'm mean like that) but for them it's not much fun if I'm clearly just enjoying myself during the time in which they fail to resign. It's really a symptom of me being quite bored with a 100+ lead.

People who are new to go are heavily resistant to handicap stones, though. I don't really know what to do, there. I feel a bit like a 300 pound boxer who has a newbie ask him to "fight me seriously". There is a world of hurt in that choice, and even light punches will be too harsh. Maybe even poking.

Since go isn't anywhere near as dangerous to your health, I tend to oblige them, but that always ends with them being discouraged. I think it has to do with lacking humility, but I also think it's a shame I couldn't convince them to play regularly.

After the first few games, I do try to get them to accept handicap stones again, since I feel I've demonstrated a certain imbalance. Almost always, they continue to refuse. They don't like having a visible sign of their inferiority on the board, but it will materialize anyway.

I don't really understand how to "be gentle" while also satisfying an opponent's need to feel like it's a serious competition. It really feels like they're trying to gain some sort of social advantage instead of trying to play competitively. "Stop being difficult and let me win!" or "It's MY turn to win now!". I really dislike that attitude, but I'd rather cure someone of it, than see them wander off to look for someone more compliant.

I really don't see any point in playing even games against someone who's still a bit unclear on the technicalities and who has almost no experience of studying the game. They learn very little, and gain absolutely no confidence in their own ability. What keeps happening over and over is that I play a move they do not understand and then destroy something.

9x9 with 5 handicap stones really kills off a lot of potential shenanigans, which simplifies the game enormously. If there are fewer things that could happen, there are fewer things which could confuse a new player. Even better, 5 stones on that small board soon becomes too many, so a sense of progress can be given when one of those handicap stones goes away.

If it's NOT a beginner, though, it's very different. For one, they will recognize when it's past time to give up. Secondly, they won't think they have an honest, serious chance to win. They wouldn't expect anything other than a fairly harsh learning experience. That means there's a constructive attitude on both sides, with a clear purpose. The stronger player will endeavour to crush them like a bug, and the weaker player will try to survive for as long as possible.

I just don't know if that is as educational as playing with handicap stones. I suspect it's a much less efficient learning method, since it's far harder to discover correct moves in an even game.

I disagree that learning is fastest when the two players are of equal strength. I think that they simply exchange mistakes of that strength level and it is only by chance that one or the other discovers the path forward.

OK, handicap limits learning to specific parts of the game, but these are important parts of the game.

For the weaker player:
How to stay connected.
How to prevent the opponent from connecting.
How to make stones already on the board useful if yours or not if the opponents stones.


For the stronger player:
How to connect when that is difficult.
How/when to invade.
How to use aji.

Left for later (or separate study)are the joseki and fuseki of even games. Those you don't get from high handicap games. But note that in three stone games, you will (or should be) studying even game joseki as they may well apply.

Beginners, by which I mean people who have played less than a year, learn a lot very quickly, mostly by picking things up from their opponents. So a beginner who wishes to advance quickly should not play DDKs, except socially. Why pick up bad habits?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I have a friend who is almost a complete novice, who sometimes wants to play go with me, but adamantly resists taking a handicap. I refused for a long time, but finally tried the Capture Game with him. It turns out that we are pretty evenly matched in the Capture Game on a 7x7. With him taking Black, OC.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Really? Some slow moves together can already boil down to the loss of a stone. Even at my level I can witness or even play a pass move. Does the nature of the game change after that?

At high handicaps there is indeed no fuseki anymore. I think high handicap games are really for teaching purposes and teach technique & tactics in middle and end game. A fuseki oriented teaching game can start with handicap zero and stop when it breaks into fighting, to discuss the opening.

Low handicaps don't change the nature of the game. The better player faces some restrictions and the weaker player can expand more freely and learn how to maintain an initial advantage.

The comparison with chess is not valid for me but I'm not an expert on Chess. I've always felt that removing a piece changes the game in an ugly way. There's something amiss that can't have been removed in a natural way. An extra stone in Go doesn't appear to be wrong in the same ugly way.

A matter of taste, I guess.

Small board go (capture game or real game) also removes the opening stage with respect to full board go. In my opinion handicap stones basically do the same. But small board go has the additional advantage of ending the game much sooner, allowing for fast iterations and learning of the basics. I applaud small board go (with stone counting ) as the major initial teaching device. Handicap games on large boards will tend to lure the teacher into winning mode, using trickery of sorts, leaving the pupil more upset and clueless about what happened and moreover somewhat humiliated by the advantage he could not exploit. Of course a good teacher won't do that. On small boards, the difference is made by who masters the basics better. No pro can beat a novice at 5x5 if the novice already gets the idea of liberties and eyes.

The constant comparison I've seen between chess and go is that there is an advantage in go in that you can put down 2 or 3 handicap stones and still play a game of go, whereas if someone gives odds in chess it's not really chess anymore.

I think not everyone means the same thing when they say there is no fuseki in handicap go and the differences often get exaggerated. If you study fuseki simply as set patterns to be memorised then of course they don't apply anymore, but all of the underlying principles do apply to low/mid handicap games and imho can sometimes be a lot clearer. The opening is shorter but that means players get to see how just a few early decisions shape the mid game instead of trying to decipher repurcussions from the mess of conflicting ideas that is a kyu fuseki.

Also, I feel like you have to achieve a certain level of proficiency before handicaps matter anyways. Simply because if you can't hang with the stronger players fighting style, he'll just out play you. If I played a game against a 10 kyu with four stones (which is apparently a huge handicap), I feel like I would still get beat. I may be in the game for longer than I would've lasted otherwise, but with a superior understanding, particularly in contact fighting, the stronger player will eventually catch up by killing a group or whatever. It's kinda like, if you're racing someone in a marathon, getting to start out a mile ahead should be a significant advantage. However, if you're 100 pounds over weight and you're racing a real athlete, you can start 20 miles ahead and still lose. In other words, you have to be able to hold your own before an advantage is actually, well, an advantage.

_________________
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 played a lot of handicap chess, and I don't think it changes anything. Everyone I play for the first time gets to pick between a Horse or a Bishop off the board, and they always accept after I tell them it still isn't enough to make it fair.

Sometimes I play the computer on its best level and take away a piece or two, and it's quite fun.

_________________

Here's a Chinese chess puzzle that is really fun to try and solve:

Only 6 pieces present out of 36.

_________________

This is an illusion. A 10k is not far from a 14k in strength, at all.
In terms of tactics they are ahead, sure, and it's well known that it's better for white to complicate matters so as to take advantage of its higher reading ability (This is true for any rank!). But overall they are not so much stronger than you.

A few points:
- It's really good to have some regulars to play with and simply work out how much handicap you need against *them* instead of worrying about rank. If 4 stones isn't enough because your groups die too much, take 5. 5 not enough? take 6. Two wins, remove a stone, two losses, add one. You'll find your comfort zone for playing those people soon enough, and then work your way up.
- At first focus on learning to play solidly. e.g. try to make groups that won't die: keep yourself connected, make a base, try to not leave cutting points, try to make eyeshape. Every time you get cut off when you were trying to keep connected, or otherwise got pushed around, try to get a review for that part of the game, either here or with other stronger players. You'll learn a lot about making good shape. This will translate into strength in even games as well.
- Don't run into every fight white tries to start. You really don't have to. You can afford to defend more than white does. If you don't know how to defend in a specific position, ask afterwards.
- Don't overestimate the higher ranked players. You may think they know what they're doing but they're only playing slightly less bad than you. Just because they're invading doesn't mean an invasion is a good idea. Just because they're attacking your group doesn't mean they can kill it, etc.
- Losing by a high margin means a big difference in points, not necessarily a big difference in strength. If the game is completely one sided, the handicap was not enough. If there are 1-2 losing moves then you're really not that far from beating this person if you work on your biggest weaknesses. Even if the game was lost by 30 points.

Good thoughts, very encouraging.

_________________
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...

Haha, my earlier post may have silently implied that one should "oppose" handicap stones.

Maybe to try to sum it up:

First of all, the handicapping system is great. The wording of this thread may not reflect the actual meaning the writer intended to convey.

Secondly, in simple terms, and especially if there is a considerable gap in ability, you are basically being done a favour more than the stronger player (put softly-- actually, you may hurt the stronger players go over time just from frequently playing weaker opponents (handicaps can supposedly make it worse)).

So you should basically put yourself in the stronger players position. What I meant earlier was that if a player with a lower skill level came up to me and asked to play an even or no-komi game, AND (this is an important and) sincerely wants to not out of any egotistical desires, but purely because she or he wants to feel the "full force" of my Go (if it's not an insult to go players around the world to say my Go has any kind of force ), or to train their even game fuseki, or any other innocent reason, it would be hard for me to continually refuse (especially if that person has been considerate before, for example, taking hanicap stones for games previously without kicking up a fuss).

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.