Strong player: I want everyone to select where he or she would play in this position.
*Various people select*
Strong player: Hah, you're all wrong, the correct move is here!
*Stares of awe and amazement*
Strong player: Now don't you all want to purchase lessons from me so that you can play a move like this too?
Have you ever seen this before? It's a pretty common thing whether or not people use it to advertise, or to teach. It is one of the most ineffective teaching methods I've ever seen, personally, and it irks me how people continue to do it.
Whenever a sequence is inevitable, or there is only one move in a certain situation, such a thing is so uncommon that it's worth noting in pro commentary of pro games.
And yet, I see things like, "Guess the next move," or "Prokovich" games. With respect to those who started these threads, I don't think this is an effective practice tool at all.
What is the difference between a strong player playing over a professional game and a weaker player playing over a professional game?
The strong player has a knowledge of the standard, normal plays and various options that can occur in a game. He sees an unusual move and does reading and analysis to come up with why the professional played it. If it was a good move, then he has understood a bit more. If it wasn't, then he understands what to do against it.
The weaker players don't have this foundation of knowledge, and in a lot of board positions, I know that I found myself lost in what seemed like an ocean of uncertainty. If I saw a pro's move, I thought that the move was THE move to play for the situation, that clearly, the way of thinking and play sequence in this game was the most optimal.
But this is a clear fallacy. Take any opening/midgame situation between two pros, and change out the players for those with different styles, and you will have a different game.
In effect, by appreciating professional moves, you have learned nothing and gained nothing, because you can only build on the knowledge that you already have, using your own level of scrutiny. Reviewing professional games by yourself simply projects your reasoning onto moves that were not made by your reasoning, and yet people seem satisfied to do this.
I've noticed a lot of threads with things like, Play like a pro, Play like a dan player, Think like a pro/dan player, implying the need to change your way of thinking, your way of playing. This is not necessarily true! The fundamental thing about pro/dan players is that their underlying thought processes may not be so different from that of kyu players, despite everything you've ever heard. All they do is reject things that are bad according to their own reading and judgment, and then with their own personal preferences, choose from the options that remain. There is this misguided urge, I feel, to constantly change yourself, and call it improvement, when really, a change of style comes as a result of a change in knowledge and judgment, not the other way around.
If you've ever thought to yourself, "Man, I wish I could play like a dan player," or "If I could only think like x does, I'd be able to do y," then I made this thread with you in mind.
First off, I think one thing very much overlooked by people is that when people come up with a move, it is rarely the only one they think about. They often write off other moves that they don't think are as good, and then select from the remaining the one they like best.
What I want to do here is have people post an opening/middlegame situation, and I will discuss the options that I see, taking care to highlight what I perceive to be the pluses and minuses of each move, and then say what I personally believe is the best option, and why.
The goal here is not to instruct people on what to play, but to increase the scope of moves that they can see. I feel like that's a very big step toward improvement.
|
BaghwanB148.sgf [2.76 KiB]