Risk in go

[SmoothOper]

I have started to study some of Lee Sedol's style. Beyond his notoriety for capturing(and also losing)very big groups, it seems Lee Seedol has also an affinity for risk. I guess there must be some advantage to considering risky moves that can't be read completely.

[TheBigH]

Hugely aggressive, risky play is a psychological attack on the opponent.

[Solomon]

I guess there must be some advantage to considering risky moves that can't be read completely.

You're making the assumption that Lee Sedol didn't read the moves completely...

[Phoenix]

Lee Sedol seems to believe in luck as a part of Go.

There's a small excerpt here.

[Kirby]

I'm sure risk is a factor in go, but Kim Myungwan even said at a workshop that I attended that Lee Sedol was known to explore a greater depth of moves - reading out moves that even some other pros did not.

So while I'm sure he's encountered luck (if luck exists), I think there's evidence that his luck can at least somewhat be attributed to his reading skill.

[xed_over]

(if luck exists),

sure it exists -- just look at your other thread -- you played a move you knew shouldn't have worked (or maybe you just misread it yourself), and your opponent didn't respond correctly.

you gambled. you got lucky

[Monadology]

(if luck exists),

sure it exists -- just look at your other thread -- you played a move you knew shouldn't have worked (or maybe you just misread it yourself), and your opponent didn't respond correctly.

you gambled. you got lucky

'Luck' can be used in two ways. In one sense it can describe a good outcome that is, will be, or was unlikely. In another sense, it attributes some sort of probability shifting trend/force that someone possesses such that outcomes that are lucky in the first sense are thought to be more probable for that person.

I don't think Kirby was suggesting that unlikely good outcomes never happen, so I would wager that he meant the second sense of luck.

[xed_over]

oh, you mean when some scantly clad waitress blows on my dice that I'm going to roll a 7?

yeah, that doesn't exist.

[SmoothOper]

I'm sure risk is a factor in go, but Kim Myungwan even said at a workshop that I attended that Lee Sedol was known to explore a greater depth of moves - reading out moves that even some other pros did not.

So while I'm sure he's encountered luck (if luck exists), I think there's evidence that his luck can at least somewhat be attributed to his reading skill.

The difference is that many other professionals aren't even willing to consider some situations, because they are too risky, so there is potential for surprise.

[Loons]

Lee Sedol reads and isn't afraid to play what he reads.

[wineandgolover]

I read somewhere that the Korean pros were innovators of using probability in tournament games, due to their relatively short time constraints. The logic went something like this. "The game is even now, so with normal play, I have a 50% chance of winning. However, most of my opponent's territory is in one territory that I might be able to invade. I don't have time to read every variation, but it looks promising. If I invade and live, my chance of winning is 100%. If I invade and die, I am guaranteed a loss. I think the odds of living are 60%. Therefore my odds of winning are greater by invading than playing safely. In I go."

This approach involves risk, luck, or probability, whatever you want to call it. Go may be a game of perfect information, but humans aren't able to process perfect information consistently, even the best pros.

BTW, I am not claiming that the Koreans invented the idea of risk in go. I suspect taking chances when you are behind has always been a favored strategy.

[emeraldemon]

You're probably thinking of this "New in Go"

http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/WangXi_1.htm

[wineandgolover]

Thanks, Emerald. That surely seems to be the likely source, though I have no memory of visiting GoGod's site. Good stuff.