Global Reading Strategies

[DeFlow]

Now I think of it, "Reading Global Strategy" is a topic that encompasses all aspects of Go. How local sente sequences can change the whole board position to allow you to make another sequence work for you globally. Developing territory, thickness for attack or moyo with these sequences. How strength of groups of stone vary and interact with eachother.

If we discuss about global strategy, then we are discussing about playing go at it's best. There are so many (stylistic) choices of sequences that are viable, depending on your and your opponents strengths and weaknesses.

[snorri]

Something tells me that this has been discussed before, but I am having trouble finding the thread my intuition tells me exists...

I think Bill Spight talked once about "lines of play" vs. tactical reading, but maybe that was in GD not L19. I can't find it now. In any case, there are some differences and experience helps more with the former.

Occasionally one sees a pro recommend the study of pro games to improve the lines of play aspect. I think Li Ang 3p was one. Maybe it's because it helps to have a big vocabulary of ideas. One might think large scale as in: I know a bunch of ways to reduce over in this area, but they're all gote, so...can I find a sente sequence somewhere else that I can play first that will make one of those reduction techniques better? Then maybe a plan starts to form.

Setting up a splitting attack is a global reading thing. In that case, I think it's maybe too hard to expect specific moves from your opponent. You may conclude, well, if I play here, she'll have to run out. I don't know which haengma she will use, but it doesn't matter because whatever she does I'm going to play over here and get something going. Ok, that's my plan. Wait. Does she have a clever way to avoid running out? etc. until you run out of time for your next move.

With short time limits I just assume my opponent will play the simplest, basic instinct responses. After all, I'd feel pretty foolish if I wasn't ready for those. Yet, it is surprising how many times I miss them. If the reading depends on the specifics of the move (e.g., this tesuji or sequence) vs. a general idea (like running out) then maybe there's just not time to consider everything.

[Phoenix]

The way pros seem to go on about, in their words, is that as they play they see variations of play. They'll find one they want to go through with, and if it's not favorable (or the right timing) they will keep this variation in the back of their mind until the situation changes to their advantage.

Which is rarely random. They choose moves based on actuating their aims.

In this way, they don't need to flit all around the board and read every area between each move. They understand that the whole-board situation changes with each and every move, and thread that delicate balance while keeping an eye on their target.

They also keep other variations they've pre-read in their mind. They ask themselves questions such as "What will my response be if this group is threatened?" They find a good way to stabilize it, then play somewhere else, because there's always the chance they can exploit that area otherwise if the group does not come under harm. We've all read "This stone isn't as weak as it seems because if (attack), [variation]".

From there they play with deep and complex strategy, and keep an eye on the variations that will help complement their whole-board layout when the time is right.

[snorri]

i suggest you to practice counting.

I really strongly second that. Not only does counting force global evaluation, but counting also forces you spend time thinking from your opponent's point of view. One of the best pieces of wisdom I got from one of my teachers is that weaker players don't spend anywhere near enough time thinking about what their opponent wants. They're only thinking about their own plans.

When your opponents start saying, "hey, I was going to play there" a lot, you know you're on the right track...

Global thinking also includes considering territorial exchanges. These trades can be less tactically complex, but harder on the positional judgment, so maybe instead of trying to read everything globally, maybe try to find simple, profitable trades. Be like Takagawa...

[phrax]

One, when making global decisions I am concentrating on aims. ...Later I want to attack that so I can do this over here to build support... ...That move will be sente later so I can aim at a moyo over here... I'm strong but in danger of falling behind so I can be severe here...

This is similar to the approach I take. I look at several local situations, having an idea or two about I'd like to accomplish locally. (By local, I can even mean a quarter to half the board). Then I try to play urgent, then big moves. When I make the moves I try to get a move to serve multiple purposes, or at least not wreck purposes in the process. It becomes a balancing act of what goals I feel are the most important. And it may go without saying, but my localish goals change over time as the game progresses.

[Wessik]

This is my two cents:

In my experience, reading a global position is done differently than reading out tactical variations. For one, I do not pick random spots on the board. Instead, I am much more likely to let the shapes and structures on the board influence broader strategy. At this level, general concepts and strategy are much more useful than fast and hard tactical evaluation. Because of this, full board analysis makes much more use of right brain intuition and "fuzzy" thinking, where local search problems are almost all left-brain tactics.

Hope this helps,
Wessik.

[Kirby]

Thank you for all of the responses. In particular, I think the tips about counting were very good. I don't often count in a game, and perhaps that is why I find myself in this situation.

Thank you again.

[Fedya]

I'd be happy if I can even figure out which part of the board is the biggest. Either I play one move too many in a part of the board, or I tenuki one move too early. At least, that's how it seems a lot of my games tend to go.