How Reading and Reading are Similar

Introduction
I had a revelation that reading in go and reading books is much more similar than I originally thought. I didn't really see much of a connection between the two terms - reading was just what it was called when you imagined moves. No questions asked.

Now, I’m the type of person who enjoys a good novel. I’ve read some classics, some modern classics, and some things that might be regarded as trash by those with more sophisticated tastes. And I also have aspirations to someday be an author myself – though that dream may seem farfetched.

The challenges involved in becoming a published author are similar to those involved in becoming a top go player. Hard work and dedication - along with some natural talent - is all required and the approval of others is needed to truly find success. Good go is not played in a vacuum. Yet I find myself procrastinating on writing a novel and procrastinating when it comes to learning how to read well in go. Why, though? Why should I have a hard time with either of these things?

Mostly boredom, to be honest. Even so, I don't think reading in go should be seen as a boring chore. I had a bad idea about it and I hope to correct my thinking for the future.

Go as a Sport
I’ve heard of a debate between Korean and Japanese players about whether go is a sport or an art. In Korea they seem to treat it as a sport – it is all about being the best. In Japan, however, it is more like an art. Maybe it is some of both - yet I've also heard that it cannot be both.

If go is like a sport, then I want to be an athlete. I want to go out and train and play hard and win games and get stronger so I can beat better opponents and win more games. If I play enough then the stings of mistakes will heal over like muscle tissue – stronger than ever – and I will go on to victory.

Reading is for eggheads, right? So why would I read if I want to be an athlete? Some could argue that reading in go is basically the equivalent of playing on the field or, at the very least, that it is like a coach going through his play book. If you want to win you need to have a good playbook and you need to know it. You need to be able to execute the plays.

I’ve never found that argument very compelling. “You should read more because if you don’t you will lose.” The problem is, I’ve won games on very little reading. If I was comfortable with my current rank, or being a few ranks lower, I would skip this part because it seems the most boring. Whenever any athlete talks about going over a playbook before the game they are never excited. It is a chore. It is what they do because their coach says so. And who wants to do that? Scoring points is more fun than making sure you know how your coach wants you to play. So you messed up the play? Big deal, your team still won. And that attitude can get you places to a point – especially if you are comfortable never reaching the top.

Go as Mental Competition
There are also those who say go is like a mental arena. That reading is the real battle going on between the minds. That the game is so much deeper than the moves played because each move is a counter to a move that could be played 2 or 5 or 50 moves from now.

Go is sometimes referred to as “hand talk” – the idea being that with every move you play you are telling your opponent something. They can respond with the next move. And the game, as a whole, is a conversation. This would make go almost like a debate – another form of mental battle that can be more about what your opponent could say than what they actually do say – preventing them from making a strong argument by discrediting it before they do.

Perhaps with each stone you read you are having a hypothetical discussion with your opponent. You are trying to predict their responses. That would mean that when you say “my opponent will play here” you are basically putting words in the other player’s mouth and that is never good. So often I find myself doing this. “My opponent must play here! There is no other option!” And then I don’t read for other options, plan for my opponent saying this, and then I am left looking like a fool as my opponent says something completely different.

But we don’t play go for the sake of debate. Maybe in a grudge match between clubs or when sparing to try to prove who is the stronger we play go for the sake of debate. Usually, however, we play the game of go as a game – we play for entertainment.
The problem is, reading does not have immediate feedback. Playing without reading is like shooting the breeze with a friend. You may not say anything constructive, but it is a lot more fun than having a serious debate.

It seems like the boredom of reading should keep it forever out of our games. After all, we aren’t pro. We aren’t doing this for a living. We are doing this to have fun, so excuse me if I want to have fun playing a game!

Go as Entertainment
And that is where we come back to this idea – reading in go is like reading a book.

Most people don’t like reading until they do it. It is like this thing you know you should do, that some part of you wants to do, but that you don’t do most of the time. It take a rare person to be a truly regular reader. Yet for almost everyone, once you actually sit down and open up the book, you enjoy it immensely and wonder why it has been so long since you last read.
And reading in go can be the same way. It can be just as surprisingly fun as reading a book.

With each path you read you are coming up with a story. Each stone placed is a word or phrase and together they tell about an outcome in the game. It really is like reading a novel. The story is fake – it never actually happened. But if you’ve ever enjoyed reading a novel or playing the “what-if” game then why should it be so hard to find the same fun in reading out plays?

I definitely think this can be the case in the opening. Do I play a conventional 4-4 or a surprising 6-4? You have that option and the story of that game will branch from your choice. Do you approach the 4-4 or the 3-4? Do you build a framework or prevent your opponent from making a framework? Any of these could make a great story and it can be fun to play a game by yourself in your mind’s eye – I play a 3-3, my opponent plays a 3-4. Which way is the 3-4 facing? It is in the opposite corner, so it doesn’t really matter. I play a 3-4 facing my own 3-3. They play another 3-4 preparing to enclose the first and get a nice framework. What do I do? I approach right away low. Then they approach me high. If you play enough go you can envision this all easily. You can see the board right now in front of you. That game could exist – but it doesn’t. It is all in your imagination. All I’ve done is told you a story.

Go as Writing
And so when we read in go we can tell different stories to ourselves. Yet there comes that moment in every reader’s life when they take a new step. A big step. Putting pen to paper or fingers to keys to do an important extension of reading. The thing that makes reading possible in the first place – they go to write.

When we are better versed in reading books we can write better stories. Authors have given this advice for years – “What should you do if you want to be a good author? Read a lot of books.” And that is our game experience. As we play and review games we are reading books – go books that show us new possibilities.

Authors go through drafts – maybe five drafts, maybe five dozen drafts – before they release their final product. And each game we play is a collaborative novel. A first draft is okay – that would be a game without reading. I play the first idea I have. And someone experienced enough might make a good first draft with few errors. The more experience they have, the better their first draft will be. Yet if we want to write a masterpiece we need to be comfortable with the fact that it is going to take more than one draft.

And all of those novels I read before that. The classics, the modern classics, and even the trash. And my own writing – the novels I gave up on writing because they weren’t going anywhere, and the essays I turned in at school. They all come into play again. Not always tangibly, but they are all there helping me to write a better story.

Closing Thoughts
In my next game I will try to go about playing with a smile on my face. When I think “what if my opponent played here” I will read farther ahead, thinking about what story those moves tell. Is it one my opponent would want to share with me – a story that we can both agree is worth telling? I won’t know until I write down my move. Once written it will be a part of history – of a story being told right now about stones and influence and a desire to win.

So I'll try to come up with the best story I can. When reading, I'll imagine the truly best move for my opponent – imagine that their argument will be flawless – and then feel some sadness for them if they fall short. The book I'm writing with each game is collaborative. The greatest go games in history were not the one-sided slaughters of innocent kyus. They were the matches between top dans. Games where neither player neither player backed down until it was truly over.

I am neither a top dan nor a best-selling author, and I don't have more than daydreams about becoming either. That being said, reading is important to both. And maybe if I read more - read more in go and read more books - then just maybe...

Chinese Women's League Game - I got the moves a bit wrong, I wasn't supposed to jump. (You can't even copy moves right! )

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bm31 Tao Ran 1p (B) vs. Chen Yiming 2p (W)
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X X X X . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . X X O O O O O . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | 2 O O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 X 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]