So, suppose you're playing a 9 stone game in an informal setting against a much weaker player. It's fairly clearly a teaching game in your mind because of the rank difference. So as white, you're playing along, and you start getting near the endgame and you're already ahead by a bit. If you play good endgame, it'll be a blowout, at least 30 to 40 points. How would you proceed if your opponent doesn't resign? Is it better to bring it to their attention, or to just crush them and talk about it after, or try and keep the game relatively close? Should you have modified your strategy as white earlier?

I wouldn't tell them behind or anything. If they want to resign, that's always an option. I'd just play normally - not really trying to crush them, but not playing lightly either.

Then review the game with them, and tell them how they'd not lose by so much.

If the rest of the scenario is the same, but it's not a 9-stone game, just crush them and increase the handicap next time.

_________________
be immersed

Hi skydyr,

Many factors are involved. Including both White's and Black's attitudes,
personalities, levels, back histories, the environment, etc.
General guidelines, like Go proverbs, only go so far.
Then we must look at the exact situation and decide what to do.

For a 9-stone game, pro v. 3k is different from 20k v. raw beginner.

A White 20k with zero teaching experience (not just in Go but in life)
is different from a White 6dan with 20 years teaching experience.

A 15k with a history of playing too softly is different from
a 3k who overplays like crazy.

A good at fighting but terrible at yose is different from
one with an opposite set of skills.

A raw beginner who has not yet discovered about eyes is different from
a 6k as .

The exact, individual details matter. Tremendously.

This would be something to clarify in advance, I think. Otherwise, you can't tell if the other player consider's it a teaching game. They may expect you to play your best game -- and that may be the most informative, educational experience you could provide.

Playing a good endgame in the sense of increasing the margin of victory might involve testing the opponent's life and death skills by making speculative invasions. IMO, unforced errors are the best for teaching purposes, so I would avoid trying to induce errors.

But suppose that, as the dame get reduced in local skirmishes, the student fails to make a protective play? As a rule I would do as my teachers did for me, which is to tell the student to take his play back and make the protective play. Other teachers might prefer to deliver the coup de grace.

Another thing to do, which was also done for me, is to stop the game when the student would lose by 20 points or more, even with perfect play.

I do not believe in making bad plays just to keep the game close. After all, as teacher I am supposed to model good play.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I a true teaching game it is up to the teacher to decide how to best help the student improve and then do so. If that is stopping them from playing half an hour of endgame in a doomed game then do that. If it is creating subtle opportunities for them to stage a comeback, then do that. Etiquette doesn't really matter in teaching games to me other than treating your teacher with respect. As long as you (the teacher) are trying to help your student improve you are doing your job.

As a side note, I want to say there is a definitive difference between a high handicap game, and a teaching game. I have noticed that some people tend to equate them. When you play a teaching game, you should give little thought to winning and much thought to helping your student improve.

I think you have an excellent point high handicap is not necessarily a teaching game. That should generally be discussed ahead of time. Clarification is good.

_________________
Walla Walla GO Club -(on FB)

We play because we enjoy the beauty of the game, the snap and feel of real stones, and meeting interesting people. Hope to see ya there! お願いします!

Anthony

I asked myself a related question at some point during the past two years or so. Several new players at our club made clear that they did not want to use handicap stones or at least did not want to put as much handicap stones as needed. While I prefer playing with the proper handicap since this makes the game close and more interesting for me as white, I have no problem with lowering the handicap if I feel that insisting on playing with more handicap stones would deter the weaker player from coming back to the club or if black just wants a change from handicap games, has learnt some new opening he wants to try, etc.

The problem was that some of these players really felt that they were entitled to putting less stones than normal handicap. Some of them did not believe that I could beat them with x stones, some just did not realize how dull the situation would be for white and kept playing until the very last dame, others...I dont know.

At first I handled this kind of games by playing not too hard and winning by 20/30 points. Side effects of this were that the games (especially yose) were dull and also that a growing number of players started boasting of their "achievements". For instance, a player I could beat at 9 stones would insist on playing at 6, then lose by 20 points and seeing that the game was "close" insist on playing at 4 stones.

Seeing this, I realised that
1) this constant downplaying of my playing abilities by players far weaker than me was irritating, probably more than it should have been if I were a better balanced person
2) this kind of games was not fun for me and apparently did not make them improve

Seeing this, I then made a point of playing these games in earnest (well not exactly but you see the point). This had two positive consequences, 1) the games were more fun than before for me since I kept looking for weaknesses instead of just playing easy and 2) as the winning margins for white widened the "arrogant" players started to realize how much they would have to study if they wanted to improve, which most of them did.

What about high handicap games with more than nine handicap stones for example a game between a 10k player and a 2d player? Many weaker players don't want to play with such a high handicap but now nine stones, high as it is, gets into the boring zone for white. A smaller board is a possibility to resolve this situation but many weaker players feel it is demeaning to have to play on a smaller board. In this level of handicapping I don't think avoiding a "teaching game" is possible. And some dan players refuse to play anything but teaching games with high handicaps.

I think Ed said it well above there are many factors to consider. There is no one correct answer. Just have to navigate different personalities.

_________________
Walla Walla GO Club -(on FB)

We play because we enjoy the beauty of the game, the snap and feel of real stones, and meeting interesting people. Hope to see ya there! お願いします!

Anthony

1. When I was weaker than 15k, I certainly did not consider 30-40 points a "blow-out". Usually, I wouldn't even be sure that I would lose. I think that if you didn't agree on an etiquette beforehand, you should play until the weaker player knows that he or she has lost.

2. It is kind of annoying if the weaker player insists on taking four stones instead of nine stones, but not label it a teaching game. My own policy is to play "kindly" the first time and talk about it if the player wants to do it again.

3. One thing I like a lot and which better players almost never tried with me is to play a game and simply explain what you see, what you think and why you choose this move. This makes it much easier for the teacher to adapt their moves and information. It's quite a difference if a player does not play an urgent defensive move because they simply forget to check the status of the group or because they misread it or because they think they need to sacrifice it.

yeah, weaker players do not usually know how to count or estimate. besides, I've seen games where an expected 30 point loss, suddenly turned into the 30 point win.

we usually tell beginners to never resign
(unless they are playing a stronger player )



What exactly is a "teaching game"? Does simply labeling it as such make it so? How is one 4-stone game different from any other 4-stone game against the same opponent? Do you try to play "slack" moves, or setup special situations to test your opponent?


now THAT's a teaching game