Now that I have graduated to playing primarily on 19x19 boards I feel that I have no idea of what I'm doing during the opening phases of the game. This lack of understanding of what I'm doing does me injury throughout the game. Sure, I put stones down on the star points or the 3-4 or whatever, but this is just monkey imitation of what I see other players doing. I still don't understand the why of what I do in these early phases. I've seen tons of joseki or tesuji or tsumego articles and even entire websites devoted to these topics but nothing about the humble opening.
Can anyone here steer me towards a decent book on the topic; or better yet (my budget being a bit tight) some online articles? I'm not looking to become a master of the opening game; I'd just like some sort of clue as to what I'm doing.
Only one book needed for a very long time: Opening Theory Made Easy
Second book if you want but not necessary in my opinion when starting out: In the Beginning - Davies
The first one is superb and the things you learn are also quite applicable in the early middlegame too.
Author:
SCWillson [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:34 am ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
Thanks guys! Those are something I can start with.
Author:
mlund [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:57 am ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
I'm also going to recommend "Fundamental Principles of Go" by Yilun Yang, 7P
The first chapter is great it terms of understanding what stones to play in the corners, what their positions are good for, and how to pick the correct direction of play in your opening. The rest of the book is awesome too, but that opening section was amazingly helpful to me starting in on 19x19, revisiting as I improved, and even dan-level players at my local club revisit that book every couple of years.
- Marty Lund
Author:
jts [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
Frequently when I'm offering teaching games or game reviews to players on KGS I find myself making the same diagrams over and over to explain basic points about the opening that they find confusing. Making those diagrams here with probably save me time in the long run...
If you think critically about these diagrams and internalize the message, it will be hard to continue to make beginner mistakes. It will be fairly easy to play a sensible opening.
The meaning of the first, second, third, and fourth lines.
[go]$$c Lines $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X X X X X X X X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . c c c c c c c c c . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , c c c c c , c c c . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . c c c c c c c c c . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | c c c O X c c c . . . . . c c c X O c | $$ | c c c O X c c c . . . . . c c c X O c | $$ | c c c O X c c c . . . . . c c c X O c | $$ | c c c O X c c c . , . . . c c , X O c | $$ | c c c O X c c c . . . . . c c c X O c | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c X O c | $$ | . . c c c c c c c c c . . c c c X O c | $$ | . . c c c c c c c c c . . c c c X O c | $$ | . . c c c c c c c c c . . c c c X O c | $$ | . . X X X X X X X X X . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . c c c c c c c c c . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . c c c c c c c c c . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
On the top, it should be clear that black has a certain amount of power in the center, and white has... nothing. No territory, no eyes, not really even anywhere to run. In fact, if it's Black's turn, black can put W in atari and chase the stones to the edge of the board. Stones on the first line run into liberty problems eaily; at best they get chased around and at often enough they just die. That's why the first line is the Line of Death. A trade where you get stones on the first line and the opponent gets stones on the second line is a pretty awful trade, and that's why one usually waits until rather late in the game to play first line moves.
On the right side, black has the same amount of power in the center that he had on top, but White gets one point of territory per stone. That's not horrible, but it's not great either. If the players make an even trade of second line for third line stones, the player with third-line influence is usually going to make more points. Not only does W not get a lot of points, but it's still possible for a large group of stones on the second line to die if they're surrounded, which let's Black bully White if she's chasing him around on the second line. So the second line is the Line of Defeat. If you consistently play on the second line and let your opponent play on higher lines, you're going to lose the game. Second line moves can be big, but normally they wait until later in the game unless they accomplish something very important.
On the bottom you can see that White gets twice as many points per stone when he has a position on the third line. This is a more reasonable exchange. When White takes territory like this, the flow of the game starts to revolve around the question of whether Black can make more points with his center potential than White has already grabbed on the side. The third line is the Line of Territory. Some players have very territorial instincts, and play on the third line a lot, and others prefer to play higher and close their opponent in when he invades.
On the left, of course, White gets 50% more profit per stone than he did when when played on the third line. Exchanging fourth line territory for fifth line influence is a very profitable strategy. If your opponent wants to make this exchange, you should normally be eager for it. The fourth line is called the Line of Victory for exactly this reason. Of course, when you play on the fourth line you can't expect your opponent to play on the fifth line; he can also come in under on the third line and take side territory. But that's a fair exchange too.
So the first rule of Go is to go easy on the first- and second-line moves, and to concentrate on the third and fourth lines.
I've labelled the first four lines here to make it easy to see what's so important about the corners. On most of the board, a fourth line move will threaten to make three points of territory relative to one of the sides, but has no particular relation to the other sides - i.e., it's on the fourth line in one direction, and (say) the tenth line in the other direction. In the corner, however, a stone can be on the third line in relations to both sides, or the fourth line and the third line, and so on. This means that stones in the corner can be more efficient at making territory (they have points "under" them in two directions) and at living (more room for potential eyes).
[go]$$c This is a label for the diagram. $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . X . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . X . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . X X X . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . X . . . , X X X X . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . X . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Here you can see how much more efficient it is to use a certain number of stones to make territory in the corner, rather than on the sides or (heaven forbid!) in the center. Of course, you won't normally have the chance to sketch out a nice square territory like that. The start of it will look something like this, and then it will get fully fleshed out by fighting, invasions, endgame, and so on:
Now, everyone understands how to make territory, because at the end of the game all living groups have some territory, so the value of the corners for gobbling up points is easy to see. What is harder to appreciate, until you learn to attack your opponent and come under attack yourself, is how easy it is to live in the corner.
[go]$$c This is a label for the diagram. $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . X . . . X . X . X . . . . . . X X . | $$ | X X . . . X X X X X . . . . . . X . X | $$ | . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | X X . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . X . X . . . . . X X X X | $$ | . . . . . X X X X X . . . . . X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . X X . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . X X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]
When you commit yourself to living in the center rather than the corner, you're forced to devote nearly twice just to making sure that the group survives.
Speed
So, you remember above I said that you generally don't sketch out an entire, beautiful square territory first, and then move onto the second, and so on. Instead you sketch out the boundaries of the area you would like to claim, and then move onto other areas, letting fighting and invasions settle the exact boundaries later on. Let's see why this is the best policy.
While Black was staking out a detailed claim to the upper right, White has claimed most of the rest of the board. Compare and - the former slightly extends Black control in an area that already has four adjacent black stones, the latter stakes a claim to a new area of the board while potentially offering an extension to a white position in either the bottom left or the top left. You generally don't want to get stuck in a situation where your stones are so close to one another that they're redundant, while all of your opponent's stones are efficiently spread out.
All the books that are other people are recommending are useful, but if you feel like you're playing standard opening moves with no understanding of why, these are the most basic points that you want to understand. Focusing on the 3rd and 4th lines, and on the corners (where the 3rd and 4th lines come together) could be compared to pulling your stones out of atari, or making your groups live, or refusing to let your enemy break your shape. In any game there will come times when the right move is to sacrifice a stone, or a group, or a shape, but if you're feeling lost you can go far just by pulling out, living, and blocking. Likewise, you can go far by avoiding plays on the lines of death and defeat, emphasizing the lines of territory and victory, and developing corners before sides and sides before the center.
Author:
SCWillson [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
jts, thank you very much. I think you cleared up a lot of what was confusing me, and I will be copying those diagrams for further study. Thanks again!
Author:
coffeecup [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:10 am ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
I second "In the Beginning" by Ikuro Ishigure.
Other than an introductory book on Go, this is really the only other substantive book I've read for opening theory (or at all....). I've actually read it more than once cuz it's so good . It will help you get a good handle on exactly what it is you are trying to do during opening and ways to accomplish that goal.
But as a side note, I don't recommend memorizing any joseki or the like at this point. It is more important to get a feel for the game first. Instead of playing in the 4-4 point for your first two moves, try placing the stone in the middle of the sides or even the middle of the board. No doubt this is not a "good" move, but it will help you develop a game sense for why the corners are necessarily more valuable than the sides. There is a big difference from just reading and learning theory vs. actually feeling it come to life on the board. I remember playing some wacky moves when I just started out to get a feel for how an opening influences the mid game.
Anyhow, just be sure to review your games. There is no point in playing a lot of games to improve if you aren't actively learning from each one.
Author:
Archivist [ Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
I too, have a beginning problem.
Do just fine with creating my first few moves, and then --- W invades! I am sure that my replies are what cause my losses because somehow, I'm unable to stop them from cutting me into pieces, complicating a game that I could otherwise comprehend. I think direction of play is a lot of it.
Author:
gowan [ Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:38 am ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
Archivist wrote:
I too, have a beginning problem.
Do just fine with creating my first few moves, and then --- W invades! I am sure that my replies are what cause my losses because somehow, I'm unable to stop them from cutting me into pieces, complicating a game that I could otherwise comprehend. I think direction of play is a lot of it.
Sounds like you may be thinking some area is solid territory when it isn't. It is hard to make territory directly. If you surround an area that is actually territory, you are likely to be playing too solidly. Areas become territory through multipurpose moves; moves that solidify territory and at the same time threaten something else. You probably should welcome some of those invasions because you have an opportunity to follow the proverb to make territory while attacking.
Author:
xed_over [ Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:55 am ]
Post subject:
Re: Overwhelmed by opening
gowan wrote:
Archivist wrote:
I too, have a beginning problem.
Do just fine with creating my first few moves, and then --- W invades! I am sure that my replies are what cause my losses because somehow, I'm unable to stop them from cutting me into pieces, complicating a game that I could otherwise comprehend. I think direction of play is a lot of it.
Sounds like you may be thinking some area is solid territory when it isn't. It is hard to make territory directly. If you surround an area that is actually territory, you are likely to be playing too solidly. Areas become territory through multipurpose moves; moves that solidify territory and at the same time threaten something else. You probably should welcome some of those invasions because you have an opportunity to follow the proverb to make territory while attacking.
yeah, one of the things I learned (or am learning) -- and I forget from which book(s) -- if you have a large enough framework, you want your opponent to invade.
edit: oh, same thing gowan said (I didn't read it close enough)
and 
- the former slightly extends Black control in an area that already has four adjacent black stones, the latter stakes a claim to a new area of the board while potentially offering an extension to a white position in either the bottom left or the top left. You generally don't want to get stuck in a situation where your stones are so close to one another that they're redundant, while all of your opponent's stones are efficiently spread out.