Why did black play this move?

kirkmc · #1

I was playing through some Go Seigen games today with SmartGo Kifu, and I came across this one. I'm totally confused as to why Fujisawa played move 211. Did he really not see the threat in the corner? Or was it just a "hallucination" as they sometimes say...? (To be fair, I didn't see the threat in the corner, but I'm just a kyu player, and I wasn't spending a lot of time looking for the next move.)

topazg · #2

It looks to me like it must have been a hallucination. After that point, Black didn't really try much other than notice his lack of ko threats before resigning, so I suspect he must have missed it in all his excitement to find something big and clever in the middle.

Magicwand · #3

because he was losing and sometimes ko fight will force opponent's mistake.
basically he was looking for a point to resign and not finish the game.

Ribab · #4

What happens if black plays m9?

Magicwand · #5

Ribab wrote:

What happens if black plays m9?

black group in the bottom is dead.
and black need to kill white group on top which is not enough to win.
so he resigned

entropi · #6

I still don't understand that move. What do you think he hallucinated? When black played n7, the bottom group was not dead, instead the m3 white group was dead. Even if there was no trouble in the corner (or even assuming he overlooked the trouble in the corner), what does n7 actually achieve if for example white simply answers at m8?

John Fairbairn · #7

The move and the fight are fully explained in 9-dan Showdown (page 233). 211 was believed to be played either to gain time as he was in byoyomi, or to set up a resignation scene. There were no hallucinations. Black could have captured the white stones at the bottom, but he judged he'd be behind and so fought a big ko out of desperation. The whole lower fight was rated too hard for amateurs to read out anyway.

For the benefit of others, this was one of Go's most famous games ever: "The one with the three brilliancies" (Game 7 of his second match with Fujisawa. The game record above is incorrect. Fujisawa was still Kuranosuke, not Hosai.

kirkmc · #8

John Fairbairn wrote:

The move and the fight are fully explained in 9-dan Showdown (page 233). 211 was believed to be played either to gain time as he was in byoyomi, or to set up a resignation scene. There were no hallucinations. Black could have captured the white stones at the bottom, but he judged he'd be behind and so fought a big ko out of desperation. The whole lower fight was rated too hard for amateurs to read out anyway.

For the benefit of others, this was one of Go's most famous games ever: "The one with the three brilliancies" (Game 7 of his second match with Fujisawa. The game record above is incorrect. Fujisawa was still Kuranosuke, not Hosai.

Huh, I didn't even think to look in your books; this game just came up randomly, and I didn't bother to check if you (or others) had commented it. Thanks.

Bantari · #9

John Fairbairn wrote:

or to set up a resignation scene.

This concept has always puzzled me.
When you feel you need to resign, why not just resign? Why do you need to 'set the scene'? Why make weak moves just to... what?
Can somebody explain?

Joaz Banbeck · **#10**

Bantari wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:

or to set up a resignation scene.

This concept has always puzzled me.
When you feel you need to resign, why not just resign? Why do you need to 'set the scene'? Why make weak moves just to... what?
Can somebody explain?

For some Asians, it is an asthetic issue. The game needs to be complete. To just up and resign may make sense to you after you have counted, but the really good 'place to resign' is one that makes sense to anybody.
For someone like you or me, raised in a society that values individualism - maybe too much, some might say - it seems pointless. A game of go is just one person vs one person, and who cares if anybody else likes it. But to a person raised in a heavily group-oriented society - like the Japanese, for example - the game is not just two people, but two plus many observers. And those observers must be shown proper respect. The game must be obviously resignable to all observers.
To finish a game that only some people can understand implicitly separates the obeservers into to groups: those who can understand it, and those who can't. This is humiliating to those who can't. A proper Japanese gentleman whould never do that. He would ensure that a work of art is equally understandable by all.
The closest that we might find in our culture is if a museum had some space that was accessible only by stairs. The proper western gentleman would never have his artwork shown there where some people would not be able to see it.

Bantari · **#11**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Bantari wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:

or to set up a resignation scene.

This concept has always puzzled me.
When you feel you need to resign, why not just resign? Why do you need to 'set the scene'? Why make weak moves just to... what?
Can somebody explain?

For some Asians, it is an asthetic issue. The game needs to be complete. To just up and resign may make sense to you after you have counted, but the really good 'place to resign' is one that makes sense to anybody.
For someone like you or me, raised in a society that values individualism - maybe too much, some might say - it seems pointless. A game of go is just one person vs one person, and who cares if anybody else likes it. But to a person raised in a heavily group-oriented society - like the Japanese, for example - the game is not just two people, but two plus many observers. And those observers must be shown proper respect. The game must be obviously resignable to all observers.
To finish a game that only some people can understand implicitly separates the obeservers into to groups: those who can understand it, and those who can't. This is humiliating to those who can't. A proper Japanese gentleman whould never do that. He would ensure that a work of art is equally understandable by all.
The closest that we might find in our culture is if a museum had some space that was accessible only by stairs. The proper western gentleman would never have his artwork shown there where some people would not be able to see it.

This is an interesting explanation , except that there are countless cases where pros resign games in situations which make even strong spectators scratching their heads. How about the story of Otake simply resigning because he made a weak move? Or because he was behind by one point in early endgame, or something like that. I would assume that I could count as an 'average' spectator, and many times I really don't understand why a pro resigned.

There might be something to what you say... I don't know. Need to think about it.

Any other theories?

Magicwand · **#12**

i also look for a place to resign when i play.
if i know i am losing by few point and no other way to overcome that margin i choose more complicated perhaps overplaylike move.
either i resign or i get another chance to win.

how is this theory?

Bantari · **#13**

Magicwand wrote:

i also look for a place to resign when i play.
if i know i am losing by few point and no other way to overcome that margin i choose more complicated perhaps overplaylike move.
either i resign or i get another chance to win.

how is this theory?

Hmm...
On a pro level - this assumes a hope for a cheapo - a silly mistake on the part of your opponent.
Do you think this is a plausible theory?

Magicwand · **#14**

Bantari wrote:

Magicwand wrote:

i also look for a place to resign when i play.
if i know i am losing by few point and no other way to overcome that margin i choose more complicated perhaps overplaylike move.
either i resign or i get another chance to win.

how is this theory?

Hmm...
On a pro level - this assumes a hope for a cheapo - a silly mistake on the part of your opponent.
Do you think this is a plausible theory?

actually it is true.
nobody can read all variations so before resign they can verify their losing by playing moves that might not be optimal.
i am sure you play same way.

Bantari · **#15**

Magicwand wrote:

Bantari wrote:

Magicwand wrote:

i also look for a place to resign when i play.
if i know i am losing by few point and no other way to overcome that margin i choose more complicated perhaps overplaylike move.
either i resign or i get another chance to win.

how is this theory?

Hmm...
On a pro level - this assumes a hope for a cheapo - a silly mistake on the part of your opponent.
Do you think this is a plausible theory?

actually it is true.
nobody can read all variations so before resign they can verify their losing by playing moves that might not be optimal.
i am sure you play same way.

You are right, I do.
But I thought pros were above such pettiness.
At my/our level it is plausible to hope for a silly mistake.

Joaz Banbeck · **#16**

Bantari wrote:

Magicwand wrote:

i also look for a place to resign when i play.
if i know i am losing by few point and no other way to overcome that margin i choose more complicated perhaps overplaylike move.
either i resign or i get another chance to win.

how is this theory?

Hmm...
On a pro level - this assumes a hope for a cheapo - a silly mistake on the part of your opponent.
Do you think this is a plausible theory?

It is plausable. I heard it directly from a pro. Tadashi Sasaki 8P was giving a simul in LA last year. After I lost - despite a substantial handicap - in the post game review he noted that when I was behind late in the game I should have played way more aggressively. I pointed out the obvious problem - that he was too strong everywhere. He said that it didn't matter. He said do it anyway, that to do otherwise was 'walking step by step into your grave.'

I don't know that it was exclusively a statement about tactics. It could have been about asthetics.

Bantari · **#17**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

It is plausable. I heard it directly from a pro. Tadashi Sasaki 8P was giving a simul in LA last year. After I lost - despite a substantial handicap - in the post game review he noted that when I was behind late in the game I should have played way more aggressively. I pointed out the obvious problem - that he was too strong everywhere. He said that it didn't matter. He said do it anyway, that to do otherwise was 'walking step by step into your grave.'

It is a different story, but very interesting, thanks.
In our case, the pro did not play 'more aggressively', but he played a move he knew was weak and silly (since John said it was NOT a hallucination.) So instead of what you say, play aggressively and hope for complications and some more chances, the pro dug himself even deeper into the hole, on purpose. John said that this kind of behavior could be indicative of 'setting the stage for resignation'. And this is what I don't understand.

What Magicawand says, and your theory - they are both good, but I am not sure they apply to the move we are discussing here and to the situation I am wondering about.

entropi · **#18**

I believe it's a cultural thing and might be difficult to understand for western people. Losing because of a simple "overlook" may be preferred over a well deserved loss and may (at least partially) save ones face.

Mike Novack · **#19**

I disagree slightly that an Eastern vs Western thing because not limited to go.

If you follow high level chess you will sometimes see the same thing. A move that if there is a game cvommentary will be described as "despair". Essentially the player has decided the game is hopeless and must resign but it's a mental thing that may take a move or two more before being implemented. Also described both in chess and go as "looking for a place to resign".

daniel_the_smith · **#20**

I sometimes play on for a bit in a hopeless situation just because I don't like resigning. :evil:

Why did black play this move?

Who is online