Joaz's quote sums it up quite nicely. Here are a couple of other random thoughts on this...
In a game, you can play mostly by intuition like this too and it gets easier to do so the more fluent you become in Go. If you're strong enough, you may not even play any 'bad' moves in a particular game, but you'll also miss quite a few opportunities to play 'strong' moves. Instead, you'll mostly be playing 'normal' moves. (let's just accept my very loose definitions of bad, normal and strong moves for argument's sake)
There's nothing wrong with normal moves and probably 80-90% of the time, a normal move is also one of the best moves. A strong player will usually come up with that sort of move within seconds and being able to do that, and play normal moves consistently, accounts for a large part of a person's Go strength. When more than one normal move is available, the choice is dictated by a player's style.
After that, time is spent; first making sure it works and next looking for something better. So these are the two things that you give up on when you don't or can't spend much extra time.
But the point is that playing strong moves (or giving your partner an opening to do so) is usually what decides games. And since you never know when you'll strike gold, you have to search on every move. It's not efficient, but it's important nonetheless.
In addition, based on research on learning from other fields, my belief is that playing a game where you exert yourself by trying to do better on every move helps you learn much more than playing on cruise control does. This (in my opinion) is also the difference between blitz and slower games. Or solving problems quickly vs slowly, which is basically the same thing.
I'm not saying there's no value in blitz games, or fast drilling of problems. My experience is that they seem to help improve fluency, but overdoing it also seems to be damaging, because it teaches you to think in overly shallow ways. Bill Spight has also mentioned this sort of thing when talking about what he called 'overlearning', and I believe he's read papers about that, but I haven't, so I'm just relaying my personal experience here.
It differs from player to player, because some people mainly play fast games and some people almost never do, but an individual's ability to play well under different time conditions can vary wildly.
For example, in my case, I tend not to play many fast games anymore because I find they don't help me improve much. So I'm relatively weak in blitz games. On Tygem I play as a 7d in 30 min games, but on another account (which I sometimes use when I can't find a slow game) my level is more like 5d, because I make mistakes or miss opportunities to properly counter unreasonable play. This is also why it's important to review your games, because you will spot stronger moves (and learn from it) during a review. Two stones at this level is quite a huge difference and I may be an extreme case. I think it illustrates the point I'm trying to make though.
|
)