I tried to read the Kajiwara book "direction of play" but found it too abstract.

For example, in a game commentary, he analyzes several joseki that could be played in that specific board position up to 30 moves ahead. Then he chooses the best one and says "since this joseki gives the best result, this is the right direction to play". The whole book is full with this kind of commentary.
He finds the best move in some way, then says that it is the correct direction.

It is nice to read but does not teach me any practical methods or examples on how to perceive the correct direction of play in my games. If I could read several joseki up to 30 moves ahead and then choose the best one, I probably would not need that book anyway Such an abstract concept should be explained in a simple way with simpler examples.

Can someone suggest a clear and simple book on that topic?

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Finding the best direction of play is not so simple that the whole subject can be dealt with in a few easy examples... Anyway, the book by Kajiwara is indeed written at a pretty high level. Maybe a book like "Attack and Defense" by Ishida A., "In the Beginning", or even "501 Opening Problems" would be more suitable for you?

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

Thanks for the suggestion.
I read "Attack and Defense" and it is indeed wonderfully written. But as far as I remember it does not cover the concept direction of play. I may be mistaken though, I will check again.

You are right, the topic is too difficult to be dealt with some simple examples. But in fact what I was trying to say was not "simple examples" (even though I wrote it that way:)), but examples that help understanding the concept of direction of play alone, without mixing other difficult concepts.

What Kajiwara does is showing you the right move based on other concepts and then saying that the move is good also because it is the right direction. What I want instead is an explanation the other way round.

Like for example, in that position the direction of play should be that because this shape spanning on the third line is weaker than that shape and influence of these stones will help in that direction, the direction of this shimari is not efficient because blablabla, etc etc etc. Examples like that would explain the concept itself and would not mix the already complex topic with other complexities like choosing whatever joseki etc.
But it is also quite possible that such a book does not exist at all.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Have you looked into Opening Theory Made Easy? Not sure if the direction of play you're referring to is just fuseki or surrounding all play.

Something you might consider that is similar, but with less depth of analysis is Whole-Board Thinking in Joseki. It's in a problem-book format, but analyzes briefly why each answer is correct. Though still referring a lot to joseki (obviously), finding the individual move in the joseki is much like a fuseki 'white to play' problem, where you can entirely derive the correct answer based on the position. Something else that makes the book approachable is that problems are grouped by similar situations. For example, two very similar boards are shown as problems, and you are asked to select 'a, b, or c' on each. Because of the direct comparison, you can look at it and say 'Oh, the direction of play between the two is different because in this board white has an enclosure in that corner, while in the other board white only has a star stone. This said, I'm not all of the way through the volume of Whole-Board that I have, though I devoured Direction of Play. I wouldn't say that I've really digested the lessons in Direction of Play, but I made it through my first reading, and am waiting a while before I try again.

Another thing to try is focus for a whole game on considering alternatives. Even in the first few moves, think 'What if I approach that 3-4 instead of taking a corner' or 'What if I tenuki from this joseki? Where would I want to, and how would it affect things?'

Aside from these, if you find a good book on the subject, I'd love to hear about it. =D

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

Sounds interesting. It's a book from Yilun Yang, right? Not exactly what I am looking for but is likely to contain related information and can be interesting to read indeed. Only if I had more time




What I mean is surrounding all play, at least until yose. I would even say that I am more interested in mid-game fighting than opening. But you are right, that it is mostly perceived as an opening concept. Although according to Kajiwara, it also gives valuable hints for mid-game.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Every stone wants to be a hero.

As Kaji says, you have to listen to your stones. I'm not joking. Maybe speaking metaphorically, but I'm serious. Poll each stone. Ask it what it wants.

The concept of efficiency is important here. Pick any stone, consider what position would be neccesary so that that stone would be operating at maximum efficiency. Consider what neighboring stones would be needed. That is the direction.

A simple example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . B . b . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

We all know that corners are better than sides which are better than the center. For the marked black stone to be used at maximum efficiency, it should be used to control the corner. In other words, it wants to control the corner. So the direction is around 'a' or 'b'.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Doesn't it also want to extend to both sides? I'm working my way through "Direction of Play" and "Whole Board Thinking" right now, so I'm trying to absorb this information. In the following diagram, is A or B more efficient? What if Q16 was white?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . a . . . . b . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . B . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . a . . . . b . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . B . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

In this position (assuming white had both star points below, I would follow with the marked move. It plays high, leaving lots of potential up top while threatening to extend south. I'm sure there are other playable options, but this fits well with my way of playing.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . B . . . . b . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

This seems extremely urgent, disregarding the rest of the board.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

I think here there should be a distinction between an extension and a shimari. The shimari is a natural progression for this stone, making the corner solid and also radiating strength outwards if necessary.

The extension is an alternative move, along either side:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . B , . . . . . ,
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . a b . . . . . .[/go]

a or b here, for instance both have a good relationship to the 4-3 point. Alternatively:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . a .
$$ | . . B , . . . . b ,
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .[/go]

a or (less commonly) b here are also good extensions - making the chinese formation shape. The extension in either direction is a moyo making move, building a framework. The shimari is a territory move, playing steadily to see what the opponent does. I think that this is the main, and important, difference in moves.

It isn't very common to make the long extension one point further than a, as the gap between the stones is then rather large. That doesn't make it wrong, but the Chinese shape is the more 'obvious' thing to play.

To answer your specific question, the shimari or extension are both fine (though, again, the extension would often be one space to the left to make a chinese fuseki shape). If Q16 were white, making a shimari would be more common. Black would also have other options like approaching white's stone (e.g. to aim at the mini chinese), or playing something else entirely - it would be hard to find a move that's actually very bad as long as you have a plan in mind. Neither of the moves is 'more efficient', they have different purposes, and are both excellent moves towards these particular goals.

I tried reading "Direction of Play" seriously at around 7k and all it did was send me on a losing streak. Somewhere near the beginning he says something along the lines of "Direction of Play is the best way to think out your next move, in fact it encompasses all other theory, but it's difficult because first you have to have a firm grasp of all of the other concepts of Go."

I eventually ditilled my takeaway to a few simple concepts mostly relating to how to develop star points which recently I have been revising (taking a lot more enclosures).

Moral: I would shy away from trying to think in terms of direction of play until we are closer to dan level.

Although I like what Joaz says about listening to your stones and trying to make the happy.

I can't really add much to Joaz Banbeck's very sensible distillation, but as the translator of the book maybe I can make some comments that people can use to adjust their own perspectives.

First, this book has been (to me) surprisingly popular and well regarded. I'm surprised because the term direction of play is extremely rare in Japanese literature. I mean rare to the extent of close to vanishing point. It's probably subsumed in other things, but there is the possibility we are pursuing a chimera. As a phrase, it sounds very enticing, almost as if it's the instant solution to all our problems. But Kajiwara was well known as a very idiosyncratic teacher. The phrase may have been his own, and it's a fluke that it has had more resonance in the English-speaking world than in Japan.

If the phrase "direction of play" does have special resonance, the man responsible is not me but Stuart Dowsey who first suggested it to me. The Japanese actually means "direction of the stones" which is not nearly as euphonious but is obviously more accurate. Whether that matters I'm still not entirely sure. Direction of play suggests something dynamic (where to play the very next move). Direction of stones suggests less immediacy - where to play additional stones in future - but also covers more nebulous effects such as influence (nb proper influence not thickness/walls). In the many years since I did that book I have observed problems westerners have had with static/dynamic concepts such as katachi/suji. Typically westerners seem to reverse the Japanese nuance for some reason I haven't yet fathomed. There is an argument for doggedly trying to convey the Japanese nuances, but there is also an argument for going with the flow and accepting that westerners are just more comfortable with their own Weltanschauung.

Though I say this with caution, I think I'd advise the OP to forget about direction of play and concentrate on haengma (or suji) instead. They are not the same thing as DoP but haengma does embrace directionality. To put it in a nutshell, haengma requires you to ask iteratively: I've put this stone down - where should the next one go. Now I've got a two-stone group, where should the third one go, and so on. It sounds incredibly simple, and actually it is once you get used to it, but the precepts are often ignored in practice. As an example of one of the precepts, a tight move should usually be followed by an open move and vice versa - e.g. a kosumi or a nobi is followed by a one-space jump or knight's move. If you've had to make two one-space jumps in a row, there is a case to be made that you have got the haengma wrong somewhere, maybe higher up the tree. Another precept (which is worth stressing as this is where the dynamic element comes in - it is more than just pretty shape) is to stay ahead of the opponent's stones.

Where haengma becomes a little difficult is, ironically, in the direction of play, though in a different sense. There are times when your budding shape needs to turn corners. Japanese (and Korean) books quite often remind readers of what needs to be done by using the phrase "three-dimensional". That wouldn't be a phrase that would strike you as unusual in English but it seems rather more common in Japanese (in go) than in English. You might think that's trite, but I suspect that groups in a pro game look three-dimensional more often than in amateur games where groups often look like anorexic supermodels, and that may be one reason it is often easy to spot an amateur game instantly (T Mark might be willing to comment on that, as he has proven his ability to spot the difference with a reasonable degree of accuracy).

(You might want to argue whether it should be 3-D or 2-D, in which case I wouldn't have much patience with you. The Japanese is rittai. The useful metaphor's the thing.)

I don't know if this one is any better but you could try it:

https://www.yutopian.com/yutop/cat?prod ... tegory=PAE

Sorry, but I disagree. I think it's good to at least start thinking about this sort of thing early, so that by the time we are dan-level, we will have a firm grasp on the basics of directions. If nothing else, direction of play is easier to understand in some simple situations, like 'Should I pincer' or 'Which way should I block a 3-3 invasion'. Recognizing which side has more development potential will greatly influence the game to come, as well as your capacity for analyzing positions. If you don't consider 'Would thickness in this direction be helpful' then you don't know if a joseki that ends with thickness is fair, either.

(Sorry if I sound overzealous, but direction of play is one of the things I focus on most of all. I'm not great at it, but I hardly think it's a dead end, even at our level. I certainly do L&D too, and all that, but direction makes more sense to my brain than, say, deeper reading aspects or crazy joseki variations. Direction of play is strategy to my sense, whereas local play is tactics).

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

I agree fully with this, through not really knowing what 'focus on' means. To me, direction of play is whether to pincer or extend, high or low, large or small shimari. Since every player must face these decisions, they must hone their sense of direction of play.

It's fully possible that my definition is just different to everyone elses .

Yes, you're right. I meant my comment in the context of language in the book like: "Every move is a direction of play problem." That's the type of thinking that sent me on my losing streak. But sensibly thinking occassionally during a game "Ok, not sure what to do, what looks like the proper direction?" or "That play looks like wrong direction, if I keep my cool there should evolve a small lead for myself." can be a useful thought process.

In all likely hood we probably have similar thought processes where you use "Direction language" and I use "Influence(useful?), reduction, 'works with', weak group, etc." language.

Guo Juan's "Controlling Centre" lectures are pretty good for learning the direction of play, although that is centered around middle-game rather than fuseki.

Direction of play is a very hard thing to learn, and you only start to grasp the idea when you get to the low-mid dan level. I'd say for now to just drop that topic for now and work on stuff like attacking and l&d instead.

But...but...they are!

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Can you really learn to attack effectively without understanding the right direction of play in that given situation?

Thanks. At least the title looks promising, I will have a look and try to give some feedback here



That's very informative. In my native tongue I would say honey comes out of your keyboard Any specific literature suggestion for this haengma thing?

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.