| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Consistency vs. Balance http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3846 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Kirby [ Thu May 12, 2011 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Consistency vs. Balance |
I'm wondering about the "balance" between "consistency" and "balance". I've heard from various people, Yilun Yang included, that it's important to be consistent. Yilun Yang, for example, mentions various types of openings: territorial, moyo, and fighting. And he says that you should play in a manner consistent with your opening. But what confuses me is the idea of balance tied in with this. If I play a moyo game, maybe I'm playing a lot of 4th line stones, for example. Should I be doing this the whole game, or should I try to "balance" and make some definite territory along the way, too? Should you go all out with a particular style of play, or do you mix it up a bit to be "balanced"? |
|
| Author: | SoDesuNe [ Thu May 12, 2011 9:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
I guess those words are just another meaning for "direction of play". If I have a very center-orientated opening, it would be not a good idea to start an invasion which will lead to my opponent chasing me through the center, thus making it all Dame. On the other hand, if my opponent has a very center-orientated opening, it would be a bad idea to invade and make small live on the third to second line while giving him an even stronger wall. Just two examples I encounter very often and then almost always fail to apply ^^ |
|
| Author: | palapiku [ Thu May 12, 2011 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Consistency is about purpose; the book "Direction of Play" talks a lot about this. Your moves should not contradict the purpose of the earlier moves. Balance is more of a high level tactical / shape thing, in my mind. It's about "how" you do things, not "what" you do. For example if you were to punch somebody, consistency dictates that you shouldn't change your mind halfway through and pat them on the head instead. Balance refers to the actual physical balance as you punch - you shouldn't be leaning, and your body should be well-coordinated. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu May 12, 2011 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Kirby wrote: I'm wondering about the "balance" between "consistency" and "balance". I've heard from various people, Yilun Yang included, that it's important to be consistent. Yilun Yang, for example, mentions various types of openings: territorial, moyo, and fighting. And he says that you should play in a manner consistent with your opening. But what confuses me is the idea of balance tied in with this. If I play a moyo game, maybe I'm playing a lot of 4th line stones, for example. Should I be doing this the whole game, or should I try to "balance" and make some definite territory along the way, too? Should you go all out with a particular style of play, or do you mix it up a bit to be "balanced"? I cannot speak for Mr. Yang, but I think that both consistency and balance are important. However, I do not think that consistency applies to style. Player's styles differ, but should you stick to your style if that means making what you think is an inferior play? For instance, if you invade on the 3-3 against a 4-4, does that mean that you should later invade the resulting framework instead of reducing it? IMO, it is important to make plays that are consistent with your previous plays, so that your plays work together. And that often means playing for balance. |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Thu May 12, 2011 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Quote: I'm wondering about the "balance" between "consistency" and "balance". I've heard from various people, Yilun Yang included, that it's important to be consistent. Yilun Yang, for example, mentions various types of openings: territorial, moyo, and fighting. And he says that you should play in a manner consistent with your opening. Lack of consistency is certainly mentioned a lot by pros as a major fault of amateurs. But I think you are misunderstanding what is meant in this case. At least in the examples I've seen, what is being criticised is starting something and not finishing it. For example, you make an outside wall and it could really to with an extra move to cover a defect or create some eye shape. But there's a tasty move elsewhere, so you break the thread and play there instead. Bad, you have to finish what you started so you must defend your wall. If you invade, you have to live - not move elswhere and pretend you've left some aji. Make group on the side - leave it only when you've ensured it has a safe base. If the fabric of your game consists of lots of broken threads, even if they are all consistently red threads, the cloth will unravel. A cloth with tied threads will not. If you finish one part neatly, you can even change thread colours and possibly even create a delightful picture on your loom of a GO BOARD. That would be one example of balance, but actually consistency (of this type) is also itself an example of balance - local balance in which all the necessary parts are put together in the right way. I infer that you are instead viewing consistency in the sense of playing the same way all the time. That is something totally different, unbalanced and bad. Not even Takemiya Masaki is a one-trick pony. Style is much overrated by amateurs. Too many treat it as the latest must-have accessory, irrespective of whether it fits or whether they need it. Style is the iPad of amateur go. |
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Thu May 12, 2011 10:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Thanks for all of the comments so far. I particularly cracked up at the capital GO BOARD excerpt from John Fairbairn's post. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu May 12, 2011 11:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
John Fairbairn wrote: Lack of consistency is certainly mentioned a lot by pros as a major fault of amateurs. But I think you are misunderstanding what is meant in this case. {snip} If the fabric of your game consists of lots of broken threads, even if they are all consistently red threads, the cloth will unravel. 
|
|
| Author: | RobertJasiek [ Thu May 12, 2011 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
While consistency (meaning something like "same style / goals on all parts of the position") and balance (meanings from 'close game' to 'haengma') are, at the moment, pretty ambiguous concepts used differently by different players, the following other concept can be grasped much more precisely: John Fairbairn wrote: what is being criticised is starting something and not finishing it. For example, you make an outside wall and it could really to with an extra move to cover a defect or create some eye shape. But there's a tasty move elsewhere, so you break the thread and play there instead. Bad, you have to finish what you started so you must defend your wall. If you invade, you have to live In my coming book, I call the strategic concept described by you here an 'investment'. If one makes an investment, then one should fulfill it before playing elsewhere. |
|
| Author: | Chew Terr [ Thu May 12, 2011 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Misquoting because I'm feeling silly~ John Fairbairn wrote: If the fabric of your forum consists of lots of dull threads, even if they are all consistently READ threads... More seriously though, thanks to Kirby for asking and to everyone else for responding. As was pointed out in my Malkovich against Joaz, this is a big flaw of mine, so I'm appreciating the opportunity to learn more about it and what I can do about it. |
|
| Author: | daniel_the_smith [ Thu May 12, 2011 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Consistency is not a goal in and of itself. Good moves will all be consistent, yes, but consistent moves are not necessarily good moves. If you make a mistake, you want to be inconsistent with it as soon as you notice it was a mistake-- unless the moves which make the best of a bad situation happen to be consistent with it. Often, this is the case, but not always. However, it follows from my first paragraph that inconsistent moves are definitely not good moves. If you've made a bunch of inconsistent moves, then at least some of them were mistakes. So, I think when a stronger player says, "Your play is inconsistent," we should mentally continue that, "...therefore you've clearly made a mistake", and not, "...therefore you should try to be consistent." Disclaimer: Right before posting this, it occurred to me that by "consistent" perhaps some people mean "works together well with all the stones that are already on the board"-- which, to me, is just another way of saying "is a good move." Above, I assume consistent means "follows the plan that your prior moves started". But maybe I'm the only one that reads it that way. |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Thu May 12, 2011 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Quote: In my coming book, I call the strategic concept described by you here an 'investment'. If one makes an investment, then one should fulfill it before playing elsewhere. That reminds me of something I came across long ago in the days when my brain worked a little and I was an economics correspondent. My memory of it now is hazy, but I think I was trying to dig down to the real meaning of the Japanese souba, which is a very common go term - a concept even. Although no-one appears to have pinpointed it in English by giving it a good translation, I was fascinated once to see Wang Xi (considered maybe the brainiest of Chinese players) pinpoint it for Chinese readers as a characteristic of Japanese play, and he contrasted it with the different approach used by Korean and Chinese players. I think I described this once on New in Go, and I'm fairly sure it's also in Go Companion, so I'm not going to repeat that here. The point I want to make here is simply that it is, at root, a financial term, but one that just doesn't seem to fit four square in the modern financial world, which is why it intrigued me. I could make a similar point about deiri and miai, which at heart are accountancy terms. "Investment" is also a very common term in Japanese go, though not as a special concept. Eventually I found an ancient book in the university library which, I felt, pointed to the real origin of souba. It turned out that Japanese merchants in early Edo were already pretty nifty when it came to analysing market trends, and one reason was that they had developed candlestick theory. This was a way of charting price movements using simple symbols, black or white columnar rectangles (candles) with "wicks" sticking out both ends. In a vague way they could be called bar charts, but they convey much more information and more clearly. But their real advantage was that the merchants had recognised certain patterns (groups of adjacent candles) as reliable indicators for future price movements, and had given many of the patterns fancy names. The theory was taken up not so long ago in the West, and I believe it is still widely used, and much expanded. The relevance here is that I saw instantly how the candlestick charts make an excellent model for charting a game. Each group can be represented by a candle body (black and white in this case being subverted to go usage), and the wicks (and their length) represent possible gains and losses. The size of the group is shown by the candle body, of course. In itself that is a rather useful summary of a game's situation, because it can be done quickly and it is easy to follow. But the real value would be in recognising patterns (and also patterns of patterns) over time. Souba would then be the sum of the evaluations thus made. I imagine a dictionary would tell you that souba means, say, the current market price. OK as far as it goes, but the real point is that it is not simply the passive result of supply and demand but rather the result of a positive assessment based on lots of evaluations (a quotation, in fact). This is, of course, also the go usage. I never got round to trying out any candlestick patterns for go myself, but it wouldn't be too hard for anyone who is interested. However, this ties in with something I mentioned in another thread recently. I was trying to make the point that there is a certain chemistry between adjacent groups, and their overlap can be considered as being rather like solubility parameters. You could use an analogy of valences instead, but the more subtle concept of solubility parameters (a way of measuring how soluble one compound is in another) is more accurate, I think. You could possibly likewise represent adjacent groups by using three-dimensional vectors, and simple addition of vectors would work here, too, would it not? My intuition tells me that one area where the pros are much stronger than amateurs is in assessing how opposing groups will react not just when they come together but also when they simply approach each other. I suspect they have built up a library of patterns. In the case of Japanese players, I wonder whether their patterns are ultimately related to candlestick theory. I don't mean that they use charts, or have evn heard of candlestick theory, but souba and deiri may well be relics of a mercantile way of thinking about "counting" (souba-ing) the uncountable and unpredictable which pros in Edo terms perhaps picked up from their very frequent intercourse with merchants. These are just ideas for discussion, nothing too serious. |
|
| Author: | RobertJasiek [ Thu May 12, 2011 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Investments can be understood without mysterious candle charts: Investments are stones added to a local position since it was and until it will again be stable. Not all go theory is that simple. E.g., global positional judgement can require some number fun for counting territory. |
|
| Author: | Magicwand [ Thu May 12, 2011 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
i am thinking that Kirby is asking a situation where trying to have consistent influence will sometimes leave you with 0 actual point gain. and visa versa. balance: dont fall behind your opponent. consistency: play moves that doesnt negate the purpose of previous move. being consistent is good but you also must maintain balance of points and influence at same time. if your opponent is trying to build big moyo then you can not play low and claim that you are following consistency. same idea goes with points. it all comes down to reading skills IMO. every situation is different and you have to make a decision which variation will give you better result. reading and assessement skills
|
|
| Author: | hyperpape [ Thu May 12, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
John Fairbairn wrote: I think I described this once on New in Go, and I'm fairly sure it's also in Go Companion, so I'm not going to repeat that here. http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/WangXi_1.htm --very fun example.
|
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Thu May 12, 2011 5:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Magicwand wrote: ... it all comes down to reading skills IMO. every situation is different and you have to make a decision which variation will give you better result. reading and assessement skills Yes, I have to admit that I have been lazy. You have pinpointed a problem that I have: I have not sharpened my reading well enough. Especially lately, I have not exercised with go problems enough. I suppose saying any more would just be talking and making an excuse. |
|
| Author: | Mef [ Sun May 15, 2011 4:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
I fully entered this thread expecting at least one person to make a pun about "thick" or "thin" play with respect to consistency (= I've enjoyed reading the replies here, but I really liked how Magicwand put it concisely: Magicwand wrote: consistency: play moves that doesnt negate the purpose of previous move. A lot of good moves become bad if you don't complete the follow up, just like some bad moves would have been good except you've already made an earlier move that aims for something else. |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sun May 15, 2011 6:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mef wrote: A lot of good moves become bad if you don't complete the follow up Corollary: bad moves sometimes magically become good with the help of your opponent. 
|
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sun May 15, 2011 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
EdLee wrote: Mef wrote: A lot of good moves become bad if you don't complete the follow up Corollary: bad moves sometimes magically become good with the help of your opponent. Like this classic beginner's shape: |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sun May 15, 2011 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dusk Eagle wrote: Like this classic beginner's shape Indeed, see moves 16 and 17 here-- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3857
|
|
| Author: | entropi [ Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Consistency vs. Balance |
Does "being consistent" include anything more than "having a plan"? I guess no. Because if you have a plan, your moves will inevitably be consistent (unless you make a reading mistake somewhere), and if you don't have a plan, you need to be very very lucky for your moves to be consistent with each other. What I want to say is, you don't make a move to be consistent with your previous moves, but you make a move such that your future moves can be reasonably consistent with it. Therefore, if your plans take "balance" into account, there should never be conflict between consistency and balance, unless you make reading mistake. And if there is a reading mistake, then the idea of consistency falls apart anyway (e.g. imagine you notice that you misread a ladder and insist in playing it out just for the sake of consistency ).
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|