Lose your first hundred games quickly

[Boidhre]

I recently was having a chat with Ed about this and he made an interesting point (and I hope he doesn't mind me bringing it up here). I've got around 200 real time 19x19 games played, (half of those while depressed) I'm still very much a beginner in many aspects of my play especially psychology (though I am being told that I've made a breakthrough by my club mates and have gotten suddenly stronger recently since I came back after my forced 2 month break). A key weakness in my play that's been pointed out to me by a few dan level players is simply a lack of experience. Ed's point was that 100 is ballpark, that it might take 300 or 500 games before the basics really start to begin setting in in one's play depending on a variety of factors like memory, learning style and so on. I thought this was a very good point. I figure learning to play go to a reasonable level, say mid sdk level, is a matter of experience, be it through games, problem solving or whatever. That bad moves (slowly) get expunged by you seeing the results of them on the board once or (in my case) many times. One needs the painful lessons in order to improve, which brings me to a second idea, the need to play outside your comfort zone in order to improve. I think staying in your comfort zone and sticking with known good moves is possibly the easiest way to stagnate. Or at least that was my experience on during my turn based phase where I played the same big moyo game each time, and while I was winning games against people my own level I wasn't getting anywhere in the club against people much stronger than me.

The third point is how you lose those games. About half of my games were at the club where for a very long time I was 12+ stones weaker than everyone else resulting in every game being a battering by someone who knew more, had experienced more, could read better and who could tear my positions to pieces quite easily for months. I think this resulted in an overly solid style of play from me, safety first but only tentatively attacking because my attacks so often turned into large losses. I'm only beginning to lose my fear of white stones in a high handicap game.

So, I'm interested in other people's experiences in this, especially people who've had long periods of rank stagnation or periods of psychologically problematic approaches to go (e.g. being too passive or the opposite playing too many overplays because one was getting away with it too much in your regular games). Or who just had a long or short "utter beginner" phase. If you've experienced depression in your go journey I'd be fascinated to hear your story.

[EdLee]

Many of the cliches about Go, like it being a marathon, not a sprint, etc. are true.
I'm coming up to my 10th year mark, and I'm still very much a beginner.

[Boidhre]

Maybe we need to distinguish between beginner and beginner then Ed eh?

[jts]

I think it's important to remember that "lose your first 100 games quickly" is a (funny) reply to "how can I get better at go?" The humor comes from the fact that the poor 30k was probably expecting some shortcut.

However, once you've accumulated enough experience you can start to investigate alternate routes. Playing is still good, but studying theory, memorizing pro games, joseki, and problems all work for different people. Taking the first step is the same for everyone; after that.....

I guess the basic reason I repeat the proverb is to impose a moratorium on thinking about rank. Ranks are basically meaningless for the first 100 games, because the beginner is improving so astonishingly and unpredictably quickly. After that, it begins to start to make sense to view a stagnant rank (let's say, the same over 100 games) as a sign that one must redouble ones effort if one wants to improve... Maybe. But before game 100, such thinking is forbidden.

[Alguien]

(IMHO) I replaced those hundred losses with a much larger amount of games watched.

For years I didn't feel like playing but enjoyed watching games. When I eventually started playing I went "directly" to about 7k IGS in maybe twenty games or so.

From that point my improvement has slowed down a lot, but bat's videos changed my way of thinking about the game and between those and some other interesting lectures I moved up to 5k DGS.

I don't think I've lost more than 50 games in my life. I've never even seen a real goban (my first one should come in the next few days ).

However, my next objective is to eventually reach 1d KGS. And I'm sure I'll lose hundreds of games before reaching that milestone.

[EdLee]

Boidhre, I'll take the italics.

[SoDesuNe]

I'm around 1k on KGS since september last year, so you could say, I stagnate pretty much. But on the other hand, I did not do a lot to improve.

One thing, I experienced is that I reach 1k pretty much effortless now and by that I mean, I play mainly Blitz and don't read thoroughly. This of course costs a lot of games but it still is enough to be 1k.

I consider two things very important to become a stronger Go player: Work at a lot of Tesuji problems and play a wide variety of opponents (even games and giving and taking Handicap). That way I think bad habits will not have such a high chance to solidify.

And I can definitely second Alguien. Watch stronger players (8D+) play and with time it will have an effect on you, same goes for replaying professional games.

[EdLee]

That way I think bad habits will not have such a high chance to solidify.

I agree it's important to do Go problems and play a variety of opponents,
but I have a different view on the conclusion.

From another thread (but I'm too lazy to find it now ): I think bad habits are like weeds --
the natural state is for weeds grow everywhere. It takes an active and consistent external force
to impede their growth. My observation has been: it's extremely rare for people to have
no bad habits, and those few are mostly the lucky ones who have had good pro training from the start.
Pretty much everybody else has bad habits, tons of them.

To have tons of bad habits is extremely natural;
to have almost no bad habits is extremely un-natural.

[phrax]

The third point is how you lose those games. About half of my games were at the club where for a very long time I was 12+ stones weaker than everyone else resulting in every game being a battering by someone who knew more, had experienced more, could read better and who could tear my positions to pieces quite easily for months. I think this resulted in an overly solid style of play from me, safety first but only tentatively attacking because my attacks so often turned into large losses.

I ran into a similar situation. Always playing against much stronger players caused me to play too slow (I'd like to say solid, but it was just slow). Although I wanted to learn, I was too focused on winning (as odd at that sounds). Something that worked for me is to pick a game and decide "I don't care if I win this game, I just want to play something big and exciting." (Variations: "Whoever wins this, it will be by resignation", "Something big must die") It's not an excuse to play stupid, but it takes off the pressure of winning. Then when choosing moves, I can take the most risky options, knowing there is something to learn (even if it sets up a loss-by-60-points). I don't mind getting my losses that way, at least I'm learning something.

[Mef]

Ed's point was that 100 is ballpark, that it might take 300 or 500 games before the basics really start to begin setting in in one's play depending on a variety of factors like memory, learning style and so on.

As others have mentioned, I think you are equivocating on the word "basics" here. The proverb about losing 100 games isn't so much about getting to know what many consider fundamentals for go, it's about just getting comfortable with basic mechanics of the game (live vs. dead groups, simple capturing patterns).

$$W Simple examples oft cited
$$ -------------------------------
$$ | . . 3 1 2 . . - . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . - . 2 1 . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . - . X X O . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . - . . X O . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Simple examples oft cited
$$ -------------------------------
$$ | . . 3 1 2 . . - . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . - . 2 1 . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . - . X X O . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . - . . X O . . .[/go]

The fact that both of these shapes require additional protecting moves can be explained, or if you have a new player think it through they will most likely be able to reason it out. If you really want them to remember it though, there's no better way than having them get caught by each of them 20 times in their first 10 games. It will be a more vivid lesson than any teacher could ever provide.

Much like in kitchen (or chemistry lab) you can let someone know "Hot glass looks just like cold glass"....until they get burned a few times it doesn't really stick...

Since you asked for personal anecdotes....a position very similar to one of my first 19x19 games on KGS (changed to make the diagramming a little easier, but captures the idea)...

$$W B blocks everywhere! W7 at marked point
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . 0 . . . .
$$ O X 9 8 . . .
$$ O O X 5 6 . .
$$ O . O B 3 4 .
$$ O . O 1 2 . .
$$ . O X X . . .
$$ --------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W B blocks everywhere! W7 at marked point
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . 0 . . . .
$$ O X 9 8 . . .
$$ O O X 5 6 . .
$$ O . O B 3 4 .
$$ O . O 1 2 . .
$$ . O X X . . .
$$ --------------[/go]

I'm sure most of us can see black is headed to disaster...I of course didn't know it at the time (In spite of the fact that I had played through tutorials explaining double atari, and had kind reviewers warn me of thin shapes!), but after a couple games of having this shape shredded I learned to take an approach other than "just try to block W at every move". Having it play out in my games was much quicker and more effective than any book or teacher could have been.

[Boidhre]

Yeah I think I got the message of the proverb mixed up.

[Coyote]

I would say it's better to not worry about winning for the first 100 games. Trying to make the best move knowing that you're weak at it isn't going to win you games. However, playing that move is the only way you're going to learn how to do it.

This I see most often when players don't invade when they should because each time they invade it fails.

[snorri]

Maybe we need to distinguish between beginner and beginner then Ed eh?

It reminds me of one of the comments in the discussion page for Benjamin Teuber's blog, "In a Korean Baduk School"

"Hwan Kuk Kang: For Mr. Kwon, we were both beginners, therefore it was clear that we couldn't have the basics yet."

This is in reference to a Korean 4d and a European 6d...