Quote:
I remember in one of Inseong's lectures at the US Go Congress this year basically pointing out that a lot of bad moves are "good" in that they have some value. It's just that when you choose that little bit of good value, you might be giving up a bigger value somewhere.
There is a more fundamental way of looking at this - a pro way, not mine, but I'll present it in my own way.
Pros like to make lists of "bad moves". One of the best was made by Kita Fumiko for the Chuo Ki-in in 1923. The significance of the date is that this is effectively when populist go writing began. It was evidently thought that this was one of the first major topics needed to address the masses. Kita said the categories of moves she listed were used by pros in reviewing their own games. They include thank-you moves and slack moves, but quite a few others. Other pros have made such lists, categorised in different ways, and some give sub-lists (e.g. Kobayasho Satoru's "Five Envies" (e.g. invading just because it looks like your opponent may get some territory there otherwise).
I have summarised these lists in Go Wisdom appendices, so there is some English available on them. But there was also a long series in English by a (?French) amateur that appeared in something like the British Go Journal. Can anyone help me out there? What was different about this series, as I recall it, was that the author tried to pinpoint the psychological reasons why we make and moves. Most of us make many bad moves because we play too fast. But why do we play too fast? That sort of thing.
But, irrespective of the categorisation or the length of the lists, it is very easy to
understand bad moves (e.g. I played too fast and blundered; I filled in my own liberties; I played a move that helped my opponent - a thank-you move). Because these moves are so easy to understand at almost any decent kyu or dan level, they are easy to eliminate - on paper. In practice, some of emotional or psychological hang-ups or deficiencies that cause them may need to be addressed first.
But if we take that as a doable given, we are left with the Sherlock Holmes kind of dictum: if bad moves are eliminated, what must be left are all good moves.
But there are good moves and very good moves and so on ad infinitum.
Obviously game-deciding urgent moves come first, and, by definition almost, all other moves must be bad. We are in blunder territory here.
But most of the time we do have a choice. How is that choice made. The usual criterion is that a move that has two purposes is better than a move that has one purpose. A move that has three purposes is better than one that has two purposes. And so on ad infinitum.
A move that just takes territory - typical beginner play - can be turned into a better move that also threatens the opponent's base, and that too can be made even better if it prevents bullying by the opponent.
Pro comments very often highlight the goodness of moves that have more than one purpose. A famous example, much discussed in many commentaries, is move 18 by Go Seigen in Game 1 of the Kamakura match. The point was that even Go was unsure where to play. So what he did was to create a move that had more than one purpose - rather too subtly for many of us, perhaps, as his thinking was to create a tedomari/miai situation (one purpose) and to start building a territorial framework (second purpose). There was also an aspect of timing - if he didn't play this move now he might never get it (third purpose). And, finally, Go had a fourth purpose - his move was a probe.
Many multi-purpose moves are easily overlooked because they use umbrella terms. For example, Honinbo Shusai was very fond of tsume (checking moves). These are inherently dual-purpose because by definition they combine a checking move with an extension (the extension element may sometimes be stressed by using the term hirakizume). But Shusai was fond of pointing out that a tsume could also be a probe or a base-making/threatening move. In short it was multipurpose.
Another kind of move, more of a concept than a specific shape, is something I have harped on about here a few times before. This is the Chinese concept of zhao ying or call & response. I prefer to call it a lighthouse move, it being a move in some central point that shines out to all friendly groups tossing about on the stormy wide ocean of the whole board. It is very common in old Chinese literature, and part of the reason must be that it helps massively in keeping groups connected. That is hugely important in old Chinese go because of group tax. But the concept applies in modern go, only there it doesn't have a name. You just see varying phrases such as "this move offers a helping hand to the groups below."
We actually see zhao ying hidden away in a term I chose for a concept in Honinbo Shuei's style of play highlighted by many pros. This is Shuei's L shapes in the centre. These magari moves obviously act as zhao ying moves and so are multi-purpose to start with. But in Shuei's hands they have additional purposes: turning the direction of play (in his favour, of course), escaping long term, providing thickness for the endgame, and so on. As I say, even other pros admire these moves.
But I have highlighted zhao ying also because I believe it is the simplest, and may even best, way to view very many AI moves. In Kirby's first example where he said he played a peep (H18 below; two purposes? - settling his group and attacking the opponent's group), katago came up with a zhao ying move as below:
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X O . O X . . . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O X O O X . . O O . . . O . X . . . |
$$ | . X O O . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . X X O O . O . . 1 . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X O O X X . X X , . . X . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X O O . X O X . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X O X . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
This White 1 helps settle the White group and attacks the Black group. But it also (importantly) offers succour to the weak White group in the lower right. It even helps the White group in the upper left, as with normal endgame play this can easily turn into a one-eyed group. Since a zhao ying move is often an umbrella move, this is adding not just one purpose but several in one package. For example, It also separates Black. In addition, it is setting White up (in combination with the White groups below) to be thick in the endgame.
Even if I may not have thought of this move myself, I find it very easy to understand once played. I think this would apply to most players, at least if you start thinking in this "purpose-full" way.
It is easy, quick and hyper-useful to think about the purposes of moves. We may not do it in the subtle way Go Seigen did it above, but we can get much value out of the exercise. Furthermore, although we get no help from AI as to purposes, we do get a rich harvest from pro commentaries.
Commentaries tend to highlight just a few moves, but really we should be listing the purposes for
every move. Apart from speeding up the learning process, I posit that this process provides sharp focus and also promotes the mental discipline that we need to avoid the kind of bad moves and blunders that appear in the various lists.