So I've been toying with this idea for a long time but now I'm becoming pretty adamant about it. I feel like anytime I win a game by more than 1 moku, I actually should count it down as a loss simply because my play was clearly inferior. Not inferior to my opponents, inferior to Christ's. I picture Jesus playing Go and as the ultimate player (given that he did invent the game and everything) I strive to play just like him. I don't believe that Jesus would ever beat someone by more than a 1 point moku. Jesus understands that beating your opponent by more than this means that you overplayed and would've been bested if playing against a stronger player. I strive to always play like water. This means to always take the path of least resistance and to always be flexible. Water is actually invincible. You can't destroy it. No matter what you do to it, it just adapts to it's environment, changes forms if need be and continues on. As in Go, the player with the most flexible plan will always win. You need to control 181 points of the board to win without komi and from now on, every game I play, my goal will be just that: to control 181 points, no more no less. Anything else is a loss in my book.

_________________
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...

Not sure I understand. So if the game is even, and your opponent makes a mistake that lets you capture 10 stones, what do you do?

I thought of such things. The goal is to win by 1 moku but you can't help if you're opponent doesn't know how to sustain his own infrastructure. What this does mean is that there may be times when I could kill an opponents group but choose not to because that would be over-play. It's a game of coexistence.

_________________
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...

What is a moku? Is it a coffee maker or something? No word like that in English.

Maybe that is what Jesus called a point? Anyone here speak Aramaic? I don't think that go had reached the middle east 2000 years ago so my speculation is probably wrong.

_________________
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).

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Hi Joel,

• Please read (again) forum rules, note 2, in particular.
• I agree with you -- you lose. Happy now ?

Jesus? What? What's going on?

_________________
be immersed

Thanks for the reminder Ed, however, I most certainly did not intend to begin a religious debate by any means. The point about Jesus being my ultimate Go mentor was just mentioned to help understand my point. I always strive to play perfect. That's it. You don't have to know Jesus from Adam's house cat to understand what I mean.

_________________
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...

If you strive to play perfect, and your opponent makes mistake that is bigger than a 1 point loss, what do you do?

_________________
be immersed

It depends, if he makes it earlier in the game than I fall back and play far more passively in order to better achieve a balance outcome. If it happens later then little can be done; your opponent has just spoiled a brilliant game...

_________________
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...

If your goal is to play perfect Go, you should be striving to win by more than 300 points against other DDKs.

Hmm, I don't agree, but I guess that's OK!

_________________
be immersed

I hope people disagree. That just means there's that many different ways to approach the game making the game that much more awesome! As for my new mantra, I play like water.

_________________
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...

On the contrary, I've gone back to playing against smartgo (a very weak app) and I attempt to beat it by only 1 point every time. This is true balance, in my opinion. You are entirely missing the point. One exercise I do is to play against myself and try to get black to control exactly 181 points every time.

_________________
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...

Illogical. The last person I knew called Jesus was a student who failed my class - for the second time. He was a nice guy, but I doubt he would have been to great at go.

_________________
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).

Make a mistake worth "bigger than a 1 point loss less one point"?

_________________
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).

The whole point is to say something like this: I believe that if the best player in the world were to play the worst player in the world, he wouldn't totally dominate him and kill every stone that the weaker player played, instead, he would stake out a winning position early on, and then would proceed to passively play defense and make only "fill in" moves rather than attack and would deliberately win by a point or two. This is the mindset that I believe I should approach every game with, regardless of the opponent. In other words, take the path of least resistance. Before the game begins, the easiest plan to follow would be a plan that aims to only control 181 points. A plan that aimed at 182 points would be a little harder to pull off. Therefor, go with the easiest plan, the path of least resistance, and plan to let your opponent have as much as he wants to take, just short of winning the game.

_________________
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...

Do you know how hard that actually is? The better player could have a perfectly laid plan which depends on reasonable but not excellent moves on the part of his opponent but then the weaker player makes a 30 point blunder in the late endgame. How are you going to recover from that and win by one point?

And just out of curiosity, why did your original post take about this object called a moku when your current post talks about points? Have you changed the subject?

_________________
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).

Lee Sedol would do this to me, because his fighting ability compared to mine is like a nuclear missile compared to a handgun. He wouldn't even have to attack to drop groups like flies. It's the same when I play kyu-level players even.