It's been over a year since I last posted here. I thought I ought to let my friends here know, belatedly, that everything is well with me, that I haven't fallen off the edge of the world.

Just over a year ago life presented me with a chance to return to England, and to my old profession, namely classical singing, and I have been throwing myself into that with great success and progress. However, I don't have time to do anything with go other than play it occasionally, and I certainly don't have time to study it seriously. Besides, I am coming to the conclusion that I simply wasn't meant to be a high-dan player! I don't have time, either, to be messing around with pop music. It's okay, though, because I'm enjoying myself hugely with my singing.

One problem I have is that I don't like losing. By ceasing to study, at least I don't feel so emotionally invested in my results and my rank, and that helps me to enjoy the experience of just playing much more.

I don't play as Himiko on KGS or anywhere else anymore. I do play on KGS, but I'd like to keep my handles private.

Sayonara!

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

My reaction tends to be the opposite. When I get frustrated by a losing streak, I quit playing for a while and enjoy studying instead

First of all, good to see you, Tami.

My viewpoint is still a bit different. If you care so much about winning, and it's a brave thing to admit that, and all the hard work isn't helping you win, then you're studying the wrong things.

Good luck with everything!

Hi, I've found one way to battle the fear of losing. If I play faster games it means I can play more games when I have time to play, which means I don't get so attached to the result of one game.

What used to happen was that I played quite slow limits, which meant that I could only play one or two games at a time without becoming exhausted. If I lost, it was quite hard for me to let it go, because I might have to wait a long time before playing again.

Now, though, I'm getting a lot more fun out of playing. It's a matter of changing one's attitude - for me, by taking the game less seriously, I've found I enjoy it far more as a game, and strangely enough I've recovered a lot of the sense of wonder that I had when I was learning the game in the first place.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Have you thought of playing on DGS? There you can play lots of slow games at the same time.

_________________
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).

And also try out the new ☯GS where you can play both live and correspondence: OGS — Online Go Server — online-go.com

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

My main goal in go is currently to learn to enjoy it more. I want to let go of all the anxiety and negative emotion that has hindered my enjoyment of the game for so many years.

The strategy of playing quicker games has helped, for sure. After a while, I found that about 10 or 5 minutes plus sets of 30 seconds of byo yomi provided a good balance. With slower time limits, I tend to be indecisive; with very quick controls, I cannot read properly. The happy medium helps me to achieve a relaxed alertness that I really do enjoy. I like it when I am absorbed in the gameplay.

Absorption seems to be a good approach for studying, too. I have found that I when I attempt to memorise things, I forget them or confuse them quickly. Recently, though, I have spent a lot of time watching You Tube lectures (I like Bat's lectures and Nick Sibicky's, especially). Because they are entertaining, I tend to retain more, and can call upon it in my games.

Over-thinking appears to be a bad thing with respect to playing or studying: if one tries too hard to explain or rationalise every move there is a real danger of missing something more important. Sometimes, it can be better to take in ideas and let their meaning become apparent later, in light of new information.

I think this is why checklists and other approaches to playing don't work very well. A player can be so busy trying to apply this or that principle that they do not see what is going on on that particular board. You might be better off absorbing a lot of knowledge and then forgetting about it until a relevant situation arises.

IIRC, Jonathan Rowson gives an amusing example in Chess of Zebras. He gave a position to a student and asked him to choose a move and why. The move chosen was backed up very reasonably by reference to chess principles, but unfortunately student had failed to notice what was actually critical to that position, and so his move was unsuccessful.

What I'm trying to say is that my new theory is that if you concentrate on enjoying go, and make sure to encounter better play through looking at pro games or viewing educational material, then you will pick up much more than if you concentrate on "studying" go and "trying" to become better. The doing of anything for its own sake will yield faster progress than trying to become good at it because one covets a dan rank or diploma or other accolade.

In other words, making a strategy for becoming strong before you are strong seems nonsensical; becoming good at something seems to be a natural outcome of doing it a lot, and with an open mind. That would be supported by my experience in things that I am good at already, and maybe I will have enough spare time to find out if it will work with my go, too.

Thanks to Bonobo for mentioning OGS. I think it's come a really long way since last year. I think I will play there much more often in future than on KGS. My main dissatisfaction with KGS has always been the ranking system (although my current KGS rank is quite accurate, I believe). It works exactly as intended, but its effects on me have been somewhat negative. I prefer systems that enable you to move up or down quickly, even if they might not be as sound mathematically. From my days playing chess on FICS I know that I don't tend to worry about losing when I know that I might quickly recoup my losses on a better day. Similarly, if I win a lot of games and go up, it encourages me that I'm capable of doing better, even if I can't hold on to it for long. I respect the fact that other people have different preferences, but for myself I'm glad that OGS provides what appears to be a more fluid alternative. Anyway, from a user's point of view, having another excellent server available is definitely a good thing.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I know many people who are playing Go, table tennis or music for the pure joy of it and become only marginally better, because they stay in their comfort zone, where things are pleasurable. There are only a few people who come out of that comfort zone all by themselves and learn new things for the sake of it, without any need for positive feedback. The majority of people needs positive feedback, either in terms of a pat on the back by the teacher or by winning games (playing songs).

You cannot change your character: if you're an extravert, you'll need a lot of positive feedback. You'll keep checking your rank or winning percentage and become frustrated if it doesn't increase with enjoyable learning. That or make statements like "I'm 1k on KGS but probably more 2d in reality".



It would be nice if it were so, but I think there are limits to the natural way up. At some point there is deliberate effort needed, in training and in competition/performance.

Last week I heard a table tennis player compliment another player's coaching, who said that you should NOT remind yourself of lessons learnt while playing competition. Training should happen independently and will naturally grow into competitive habits. I didn't say anything but I disagree. I think you have to do precisely the opposite: consciously integrate lessons learnt into competitive action. The main reason why people get frustrated doing this, is that they focus on the wrong things. Go players study joseki and pro games, with marginal effect on their own play. What they should do, I've mentioned on my own "deliberate practice" page. Table tennis players focus a lot on topspin-block rallies, while the first shot is the serve, the second is most likely a push and the third is more likely to be a backhand push or open-up than a forehand topspin.

People should train the things that make a difference in match play and then consciously integrate training into match play. You can wait for your pleasurable training to unconsciously integrate into your game play but that will go much slower, if happen at all.

Yes and no. I certainly do practice singing in a very deliberate way, but I really get "into it". It's not so much that I think that my intonation will improve if I sing "ten b flats in a row all within 5 cents" every day for a month as "I wonder just how close to perfectly I can tune that note?" or "I wonder if I can tune a pure third or sing a syntonic comma?". I want to get out of my comfort zone, but funnily I enjoy being out of it, because it's exciting. My breakthrough as a cathedral singer came when I was awarded a choral scholarship to Lichfield Cathedral in my 20s. I was placed outside my comfort zone every day and a much higher standard was demanded of me, but many of the things I learned came together only in subsequent years. It was first data, understanding later.

I suppose with go you just have to say, "yeah, I'll try playing this situation as X suggests, even though I am not familiar with it and have always done it Y way before" or "I'm only familiar with Joseki A but in this case Joseki B looks more appropriate, even though I'd have to wing it a bit". In other words, improved performance needs you to let go of the fear of losing and to learn to enjoy seeing what happens when you take a chance.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Which seems to confirm that you are (also) motivated by prestige.



No. Deliberate practice is too often equated (and ridiculed by some) with studying concrete positions. Go is, more fortunately than unfortunately, an unpredictable game. You can't enforce a certain tsumego. You can sometimes force the L-group to occur. You can force a certain type of opening and choose a particular joseki but there's hardly any relationship to your winning percentage, i.e. the positive feedback is highly artificial.

You need to practice certain skills and mindsets, not positions. Currently I am practicing to keep the score during play, in order for it to become a habit. I'm also keeping my groups thick. And I'm learning endgame techniques. The assumption is that at this point in my go career, this will make the greatest difference. In the first stage, it was all about fighting spirit, and given the 17 game winning streak it was a wise thing to focus on.

In the meantime I am also practicing tsumego. I'm sure of its effect but it is less measurable, more of a long term reward. This is the kind of practice you refer to. I enjoy it, very much indeed. And indeed the joy is what keeps me going. Overall, I need something else too that keeps me going. The idea that I'm practicing precisely what helps me win, is that key motivator.

My approach to go has changed in two ways:

1) Study - slow and thoughtful. Play - paying attention.
2) Much less concerned with winning than with enjoyment. Recently, I've been winning a lot more often too

Currently I'm reading Fujisawa's Reducing Territorial Frameworks. Something that I have been gaining from it is a sense of how to play better by making skilful exchanges over the course of a game.

Let me explain. Fujisawa's examples often show situations in which a reducing move helps the opponent to make his territory solid, but in exchange for influence or aji in another direction. For many kyu players, I think the result from correct play would appear somewhat disappointing. I believe the reason is that when many make a "reducing" move, what they are really hoping for is to "destroy". However, if you change your viewpoint and consider that the sequence may indeed solidify what was an area where the opponent had the lead, but give you something that you didn't have before, then you can begin to see the result as level or even a gain.

In a game, you're constantly making exchanges with the opponent. Good play is not necessarily about spoiling everything the opponent has, but about making these exchanges in ways that accumulate to your advantage over the whole course of a game. Moves based on envy or greed must lead to eventual downfall, because they will cause long-term global losses.

Take the cap over the 3rd line as one example. In my experience, the response of butting straight into it from below is a very popular response among SDKs. Indeed, Fujisawa says "there is nothing tricky that White [the capper] can try" and he also notes that it denies White aji and limits her options. So why does he go on to say that this move is not something "one plays unless one has to"?

The trouble with such a move is that it is not very aggressive, and allows White to play elsewhere. What Black gets from the exchange is frequently not enough to justify allowing White to get a stone on the board for free. White typically retains sente and improves her overall influence. Black becomes more solid in a direction in which he was already leading. In other words, the result may be interpreted thus: Black was forced.

However, it can be difficult around my level to appreciate this: all too often in the past, I have reacted to the butt by following up my cap with an overplay. Hopefully, my perception and reactions will become more mature in light of my studies.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I'm frustrated. Please could I have some general advice.

My problem is knowing what to do in the following situations:

1) When opponents initiate middle-game exchanges prematurely

2) When opponents keep leaving a weak group behind to take big points

The kind of thing that I mean by (1) is when your opponent plays a shoulder hit or capping play against an extension, but at a very early stage. In general, should I regard such plays as a form of kikashi, to be responded to and then left until the situation clarifies?

As for (2), I frequently have my attempts to build up frameworks interrupted by what seem to be premature invasions. The opponent typically ends up with a weak group, but I never know how to judge whether to continue attacking it. For instance, a very common scenario is when the opponent comes into my area, I threaten to deny him a base, and then he makes a two-space extension and leaves it as is. A two-space extension, in itself, is not alive, but I'm often at a loss as to how to follow up play against it. If I play an extra move to add pressure, he may take a large play elsewhere; and even if I play a severe move such as peeping underneath to remove the base or playing a shoulder hit I find my attack rarely has killing power.

Similarly, and again under (2), sometimes an opponent will come into my area by playing on the fourth line, and then will abandon the stone. I want to attack it straight away, but often he gets way ahead by ignoring me.

As I say, I'm hoping for general advice; even the proposal of some kind of heuristic. My biggest concern is not so much unfamiliarity with specific lines (although I admit I obviously have much to learn there), but rather with knowing how to time procedures.

Thanks if you can help!

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Hi Tami

There will be other, better responses. Here's mine.

1) when an opponent caps or shoulder hits my opening stones and I feel it is premature, then I'll reinforce in the direction of my preference. If there is no clear direction of preference, then perhaps my opponent's middle gamish move is not so ill timed after all. I also think it is a minor issue. You should not expect a major advantage from such ill timing by the opponent, neither should you feel terribly forced when you oblige. I would think these moves are incidental to the opening process.

2) the inability to attack an invasion is another matter. Now I know that you ask for generic advice but I'm afraid that we will either have to urge you for specific cases to comment on, or remain at the unhelpful level of "attack".
One thing though: if your opponent indeed can make a two space extension after you first deny him a base, it seems like the space inside the framework is huge. Perhaps your frameworks are too big and as such not real frameworks. A move that makes miai of extending both sides with 2 spaces means 9 points of width!

Anyhow, cramped 2 space extensions should be harassed by common capping & placement techniques. Post an example, if you can.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B X . . . . . . X
$$ X . . . . . . X
$$ X . . . . . . X
$$ X . O . . O . X
$$ X . . . . . . X
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ ---------------[/go]

In this situation, the problem looks more like "White to live" than "Black to kill". So there must be particuliar aspects in the situations you talk about, inverting the problem statement.

One short comment about 2. After your opponent invades you have sente. You can play to pressure the invader and he can defend. You can then play another move and he might defend again. It seems your problem is after perhaps a few moves of you applying some pressure he doesn't defend but tenukis to a big point and you can't gain adequate compensation from following up your attack on the weak group. Now there is a simple way to avoid this: do not play the move which he tenukis, but play a big point yourself. Before you play your moves against his invasion, think "If he tenukis, what will I do and is it good enough?". If the answer is 'no' then tenuki. If he then plays to secure his weak group you can play another big tenuki. (This is assuming his tenuki was a reasonable move, it could well be an overplay and you just failed to attack effectively afterwards: we need examples to tell which case it is).

There is a nice proverb "A sente move is one that you hope your opponent doesn't answer, a gote move is one that you hope he does". So if you play your move to pressure the invasion and hope he answers, and then get upset when he tenukis it probably means your move wasn't sente. (That's not to say gote moves are bad, but normally with an invasion you want the invader to end in gote).

Edit:

As for 1), how do you know that the opponent's play is premature?

As for 2), if you were weaker, I would say, Attack!, because you would need to develop your attacking skills. But now I expect that you know how to conduct a reasonable attack. So what it comes down to is your judgment vs. your opponent's judgement. There is no easy answer to that question.



In your judgement the invasion was premature, and then your opponent has ignored your attack and played elsewhere. If, after due consideration, you are in doubt whether to continue the attack, you must back your earlier judgement and do so. Do not second guess yourself. As Znosko-Borovski said in How Not to Play Chess, "Order! Counter-order! Disorder!" If you are proven wrong, you can learn from that. If you play against yourself, you get nowhere.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Hi Tami,

You're welcome to see also this discussion, starting at Post 53 .

Very early e.g. shoulder hits appear in professional games, like this.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O O O . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Another early shoulder hit on 3rd diagram here:

viewtopic.php?p=162997#p162997

To everybody who replied to my question from yesterday - many thanks indeed.

I am humbled by the time and effort that Ed, especially, must have put into his response. It's time to go back to school and try to find out what basics have slipped through my net of understanding.

I am also quite taken by Uberdude's remark about distinguishing sente and gote.

I shall think about what you have all said and report back.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I am curious which game this is, since White had played 9 stones to Black's 8 But the point is well made, and I think the answer to Tami's dilemma lies therein.

More specifically, I think her problem is in making phrases of the type: "The shoulder hit is premature". It's a common problem. It's to do with mixing strategy and tactics.

"Premature" is an evaluation word, implying judgement - strategy. "Shoulder hit" (or "cap" etc) is a word describing a local tactic.

Although an expert can get away with mixing the two, an amateur is better not doing so. An amateur should be careful to say unmixed things like "the shoulder hit is a forcing move" or "the erasure is premature". That clarifies thinking. So much so, that it can even change thinking. If we assume the example position above was correct and re-cast the shoulder hit there more accurately as a "probe", we would be very unlikely ever to label it "premature", and the thinking behind a response to it would go along very different lines.

This problem applies outside go. I saw an example recently at a taiji class. The teacher was showing a self-defence application for a move that was part of a well-practised standard form. Essentially, it was to have an attacker with a dagger stabbing down at someone, who was meant to respond by stepping aside, taking the dagger arm and pressing it, and the assailant, down to the ground. After the demonstration the teacher asked the pupils to pair off and practise. All went well in all the pairs except one where the defending woman was heard to lament "he's hitting me with the wrong hand!" She'd come up against a left-handed assailant.

The teacher then stepped in and demonstrated the same move but stepping to the left instead of the right. This prompted several pupils to point out that the move in the standard form appears only one side of the body, so they hadn't practised it. The teacher's response to that was "Exactly!" I gather most of the class only practise once a week in the actual class, whereas the teacher practises every day and does the form also in mirror-image and backwards (but not in high heels!).

But what really exasperated the teacher was the inability of the pupils to distinguish tactics and strategy. They knew the "joseki" for "he raises his right hand, I do this" but not the joseki for "he raises his left hand". They thought of the situation purely in terms of tactics. The teacher point out that instead they had to think in terms of "he is attacking me" (strategy). If the strategic evaluation of that was "I don't know the tactic of how to deal with that", the correct tactical response can be triggered automatically: "step back and take guard again". Not every response has to be a killer move. However, as the teacher pointed out, there were subtle advantages even in just stepping back (as opposed to freezing or running away). The assailant is likely to be disconcerted by the fact you know how to move and don't run away. Hesitation = bad shape. And you are now a step further away. He may be caught by surprise and continue forwards off balance, in which case you have another chance to apply a "killer move" (which would, incidentally, probably be something like: push him hard while he's off balance and then run away).

Until and unless you build up a large armoury of tactical weapons, your best bet is to stick to strategy. Actually, I think that's how most of us old timers play go anyway - it avoids the need for hard thought. Doesn't always work on the board but it makes it easier to sleep at night!