Fuseki changes that make the usual books obsolete?

[matthiasa]

Could somebody please explain in simple terms how the fuseki changed in the recent years that apparently makes all the translated books outdated?

I'm EGF 4k and currently reading Get strong at the Opening, which I like a lot. Immediately before the book, I read the Direction of Play and kind of enjoyed it as well.

The Senseis entry about Get Strong at the Opening [1], however, states that many of the ideas seem "strange" in 2012. An EGF 3d friend of also mentioned that nowadays a lot ideas of the books are outdated. "Move 2 lost the game" is obsolete as well and where to play in the corner is not really important anymore. Apparently, the game of go is now a lot more about local fighting.

As I didn't feel strong enough to study trends in professional games and as I learn mainly from old books, whose solutions feel right, I have a hard time letting go of the idea of not having a big game plan. Mind you, I definitely don't follow through plans, but I like the concept

[1] http://senseis.xmp.net/?GetStrongAtTheOpening

[snorri]

Openings are always changing. Often it's just new research. Some recent changes are motivated by the high komi in modern games, but arguments have been made that shorter time limits in pro tournaments have an effect, too. A lot of the books in the "Get Strong at.." series were based on trends up to the 1970s or so. Whether a book is obsolete or not depends on your viewpoint and goals. If you want to understand pro fashion, you have to see modern pro reviews of modern pro games. Usually by the time it makes it to a book the pro world has moved on. A Korean pro I met who was pretty opinionated about this said that magazines like Weiqi Tiandi were useful, but that there's not much in English. He really seemed to think this was holding back Western go progress.

However, from a practical point of view your opponents may still use ideas from any era. That's why it's more useful to understand principles than specific variations.

For the English speaker, I recommend:

gogameguru.com: An Younggil's commentaries are pretty current and are on current matches

Baduk Tv English (available at gogameguru)

Guo Juan's lectures at internetgoschool.com: She often covers modern games and also has guest lectures who know what's going on in Chinese go.

gogameworld.com: I used to use this site a lot. It appears to have been revamped. Commentaries from modern pros on current games are available.

The last three sources are paid, though you can sometimes find free content on them as samples.

[macelee]

matthiasa,

A very recent game is a good example how top pros stop following some basic textbook 'rules'. The game is the Chunlan Cup final between Lee Sedol and Chen Yaoye.

Here is the game records: http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/34374

I want to give two examples:

1) the 3-3 invasion (this becomes very popular among pros recently, there's a separate discussion on this board here). The traditional wisdom is that one should not invade 3-3 so early in a game. One good reason is: the wall black can build outside is more influential if the board is still wide open. But apparently modern pros stop believing that (in this particular shape, they probably think that the territory in the corner is more important)

2) approach. The traditional wisdom is that one should approach from the side which is wide open (therefore having more potential for further development). Black, however, probably considered that attacking the white group on the top side is more urgent.

Having given the examples, I think that we amateurs should not be concerned by the changes. Following those old rules, we are almost certainly still playing reasonable and good moves, if not the best moves. Let's say the best move scores 100%, if you can play 80% every move, you are still likely to be the winner most times.

[SmoothOper]

It is hard to say, but there is a lag from the time the new ideas that top pros promote to the time they get passed down through the ranks, furthermore getting translated. Also many openings will get culled as having significant traps that weaker players won't be able to solve, and beginners sometimes won't be able refute certain lines of play, so different Fuseki are seen than are found at the top level. I think the emphasis on techniques come from the Lee Changho era, evidently Lee Changho didn't put much thought into his "Standard Baduke" Fuseki, but had an especially strong endgame. Right now Lee Seedol is popular, and seems to have some interesting Fuseki, but the literature hasn't developed.

[pwaldron]

I wouldn't worry about your books getting outdated. It's true that pros have moved on to try other strategies to try and scratch out a slight advantage. At our level it makes no difference; good go is good go and a pro-level fuseki from 300 years ago is still going to be miles ahead of most people's.

[HermanHiddema]

The Senseis entry about Get Strong at the Opening, however, states that many of the ideas seem "strange" in 2012.

Just to clarify, one person in the reviews section of this SL article gives the opinion that many of the ideas seem strange.

[Bill Spight]

matthiasa,

A very recent game is a good example how top pros stop following some basic textbook 'rules'.

Remember that the textbooks follow the pros, not the other way around.

The game is the Chunlan Cup final between Lee Sedol and Chen Yaoye.

Here is the game records: http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/34374

I want to give two examples:

1) the 3-3 invasion (this becomes very popular among pros recently, there's a separate discussion on this board here). The traditional wisdom is that one should not invade 3-3 so early in a game.

This is a misunderstanding of the traditional view. The problematic 3-3 invasion is the one without a previous approach to the corner. If this 3-3 invasion is new, what is new appears to be that the Black stone on the right side is on the far 9-3 instead of the 10-3. The basic idea of this invasion has been around for a long time.

2) approach. The traditional wisdom is that one should approach from the side which is wide open (therefore having more potential for further development). Black, however, probably considered that attacking the white group on the top side is more urgent.

Approaching from the open side in this case looks like what pros used to ridicule as playing where the stone makes the loudest sound. (They still do, BTW. ) Kyu-ish understanding is not traditional wisdom. The approach from the left side invites a White extension on the top side, which helps the White formation there. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for Black to make use of his thickness in the top right. To make use of that thickness the approach cum invasion on the top side is urgent, as indicated. Remember the traditional wisdom, "Urgent plays before big plays."

Pros of old even sometimes made this type of approach-invasion without supporting thickness. IIRC, Honinbo Shuei did so in the late 19th century.

This is not to say that old ideas in the opening have not been refined or even discarded. But old ideas that are not in vogue are not necessarily inferior, nor are they necessarily understood as well as they once were. I learned go over 40 years ago; is my first thought in that position, and is my second thought in the other, based upon the traditional wisdom of those times.

The New Fuseki was revolutionary in its time, but emphasizing the center in the opening was popular several centuries earlier. The Chinese Fuseki was apparently a new idea in the mid to late 20th century, and the mini-Chinese evolved from that. However, the mini-Chinese appears in games and textbooks as early as the 18th century. Times and styles change.

[Phoenix]

I have trouble with this trend where people say that ideas from books such as "The Direction of Play" are outdated. If you read the book, you'll find patterns and plays that are simply not played today. That much is certain. But you can still evaluate the board based on evaluating local positions, taking into account the whole board situation, and finding the most efficient move which is also sensitive to future development potential.

Sure, we find new, better moves as research is being done. And in order to become strong it's important to realize that following this 'direction of play' may be done in a much more indirect manner (instead of slamming a stone on the biggest side left, you might probe somewhere first). There are many parts in Kajiwara's book where situations arise in which a situation, and a move, overrides his principles directly. Nothing is absolute in Go, and one would rightfully expect an 8-dan pro to know this.

The basic principles are essential in Go. Then, there are a lot of guiding principles which can greatly enhance your game. Then there's the realm of technique, new moves, etc, which work very well in a certain context. It doesn't mean that pros no longer look to the bigger side in the opening, no longer try to squeeze value out of every stone played, no longer make small sacrifices to gain sente, no longer try to construct a moyo, no longer attempt to keep their opponent's weak groups unstable, no longer try to get tedomari, etc.

Some things are here to stay. For a while, anyway. And learning about Go will only make you stronger (if not now, then eventually).

[macelee]

This is a misunderstanding of the traditional view. The problematic 3-3 invasion is the one without a previous approach to the corner. If this 3-3 invasion is new, what is new appears to be that the Black stone on the right side is on the far 9-3 instead of the 10-3. The basic idea of this invasion has been around for a long time.

I don't agree. The Chinese opening has been there for decades. But the pattern of invading 3-3 only becomes popular very recently. In fact I quickly searched my database and found 39 games with this pattern, all but 2 were played in 2012 and 2013. If as you said the basic idea was there for a long time, how come professional never tried that in real games?

2) approach. The traditional wisdom is that one should approach from the side which is wide open (therefore having more potential for further development). Black, however, probably considered that attacking the white group on the top side is more urgent.

Approaching from the open side in this case looks like what pros used to ridicule as playing where the stone makes the loudest sound. (They still do, BTW. ) Kyu-ish understanding is not traditional wisdom. The approach from the left side invites a White extension on the top side, which helps the White formation there. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for Black to make use of his thickness in the top right. To make use of that thickness the approach cum invasion on the top side is urgent, as indicated. Remember the traditional wisdom, "Urgent plays before big plays."

Again I don't agree. And it's not nice to call a different opinion 'Kyu-ish understanding'. Go is attractive partly because it can accommodates lots of different styles and allow people to try different ideas. Again, from the 39 games I examined, only 3 pro players decided to invade at the location of immediately. Some decided to approach the other corner first, and there were indeed examples people approach from the other side. Based on these data, I argue that may be a key point, but not necessarily the most important point on the board.

[SmoothOper]

matthiasa,

A very recent game is a good example how top pros stop following some basic textbook 'rules'.

Remember that the textbooks follow the pros, not the other way around.

The game is the Chunlan Cup final between Lee Sedol and Chen Yaoye.

Here is the game records: http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/34374

I want to give two examples:

1) the 3-3 invasion (this becomes very popular among pros recently, there's a separate discussion on this board here). The traditional wisdom is that one should not invade 3-3 so early in a game.

This is a misunderstanding of the traditional view. The problematic 3-3 invasion is the one without a previous approach to the corner. If this 3-3 invasion is new, what is new appears to be that the Black stone on the right side is on the far 9-3 instead of the 10-3. The basic idea of this invasion has been around for a long time.

2) approach. The traditional wisdom is that one should approach from the side which is wide open (therefore having more potential for further development). Black, however, probably considered that attacking the white group on the top side is more urgent.

Approaching from the open side in this case looks like what pros used to ridicule as playing where the stone makes the loudest sound. (They still do, BTW. ) Kyu-ish understanding is not traditional wisdom. The approach from the left side invites a White extension on the top side, which helps the White formation there. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for Black to make use of his thickness in the top right. To make use of that thickness the approach cum invasion on the top side is urgent, as indicated. Remember the traditional wisdom, "Urgent plays before big plays."

Pros of old even sometimes made this type of approach-invasion without supporting thickness. IIRC, Honinbo Shuei did so in the late 19th century.

This is not to say that old ideas in the opening have not been refined or even discarded. But old ideas that are not in vogue are not necessarily inferior, nor are they necessarily understood as well as they once were. I learned go over 40 years ago; is my first thought in that position, and is my second thought in the other, based upon the traditional wisdom of those times.

The New Fuseki was revolutionary in its time, but emphasizing the center in the opening was popular several centuries earlier. The Chinese Fuseki was apparently a new idea in the mid to late 20th century, and the mini-Chinese evolved from that. However, the mini-Chinese appears in games and textbooks as early as the 18th century. Times and styles change.

That game is interesting from what I have understood, the invasion/approach joseki is fine, but blacks choice of joseki direction (b9) would be considered wrong. The typical reply would to be to allow white to connect underneath then build a moyo (b11 @ R16). This way black lost territory in the corner and the white group on the side gained access to the center, not to mention white being able to attack blacks upper left group and gain territory and influence.

[logan]

Hi,

Here are just fifteen game records of only Shuei showing what Bill was talking about. You should be able to find more upon further research.

1893-09-03
1893-12-03
1894-02-04
1897-06-20
1897-09-19
1898-03-20
1898-06-19
1898-10-24
1898-12-08
1899-01-15
1900-06-28
1903-01-18
1904-01-17
1904-08-23
1904-10-14

P.S. I'm only a little obsessed with Shuei

[Bantari]

I can attest that these ideas have been there a long time.

When I started playing Go, in the late 70s or so, I played moves like that a *lot*. Pros simply finally got to studying my play from that period, and learning from my games. If you think this is 'unusual', wait till they get to my late 80s games - then you will really see fireworks!!!

But joking aside, pros always try to play something 'unusual' to get an edge - its a cut-throat business of theirs. Especially now with so many hungry young players rattling their swords. But a lot of it is not new, just refined and dusted up, regardless how many 'serious' games can one find in any odd database. Some ideas might be new, but this trend of 'pushing the boundaries' can be observed in pro play for ages. Very rarely there is a real breakthrough which invalidates old ideas, most leads ultimately to old ideas being enhanced.

And two more important points:
1. The fact that pros try other ideas now does not mean that the 'old' ideas are bad, by no means!
2. It is yet to be seen if any of the 'new' ideas are actually viable instead of just being a quick experimental side-step soon to be discarded.

So I personally would be *very* suspicious of people saying stuff like 'old fuseki books are obsolete' - they are either full of donkey goo, or trying desperately to get noticed by saying something outrageous. Especially since most of the general ideas, if not actual moves or patterns, are still widely used and visible - even in games like the one given in this very thread. The fact that experiments are also made in other direction as well is more of an enrichment than negation.

[Bill Spight]

This is a misunderstanding of the traditional view. The problematic 3-3 invasion is the one without a previous approach to the corner. If this 3-3 invasion is new, what is new appears to be that the Black stone on the right side is on the far 9-3 instead of the 10-3. The basic idea of this invasion has been around for a long time.

I don't agree. The Chinese opening has been there for decades. But the pattern of invading 3-3 only becomes popular very recently. In fact I quickly searched my database and found 39 games with this pattern, all but 2 were played in 2012 and 2013. If as you said the basic idea was there for a long time, how come professional never tried that in real games?

Still, that is not the 3-3 invasion that traditional wisdom deems problematic. With the Chinese Fuseki there is an extension to the 9-3, and, as I said in that case this particular 3-3 invasion appears to be new. If pros are reassessing it, that does not mean that they are going against the traditional wisdom against a premature invasion at the 3-3. With a closer extension the 3-3 invasion after an initial keima approach is one joseki.

2) approach. The traditional wisdom is that one should approach from the side which is wide open (therefore having more potential for further development). Black, however, probably considered that attacking the white group on the top side is more urgent.

Approaching from the open side in this case looks like what pros used to ridicule as playing where the stone makes the loudest sound. (They still do, BTW. ) Kyu-ish understanding is not traditional wisdom. The approach from the left side invites a White extension on the top side, which helps the White formation there. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for Black to make use of his thickness in the top right. To make use of that thickness the approach cum invasion on the top side is urgent, as indicated. Remember the traditional wisdom, "Urgent plays before big plays."

Again I don't agree. And it's not nice to call a different opinion 'Kyu-ish understanding'. Go is attractive partly because it can accommodates lots of different styles and allow people to try different ideas. Again, from the 39 games I examined, only 3 pro players decided to invade at the location of immediately. Some decided to approach the other corner first, and there were indeed examples people approach from the other side. Based on these data, I argue that may be a key point, but not necessarily the most important point on the board.

I stand corrected.

However, traditional wisdom decidedly does not advise against .

[jts]

P.S. I'm only a little obsessed with Shuei

By the way, logan, are you the same logan who made the contentious comment on the Get Strong at the Opening page? To wit,

As is the nature of the opening, it's always changing with the times. This book's emphasis is with the sanrensei, Chinese, Shusaku, and moyo/influence openings. In 2012, many of the ideas emphasized in the book will seem strange. However, even if this weren't the case many solutions are too narrow. But keeping an open mind, and not taking many of the solutions as gospel...it can still be a worthwhile book.

If I'm thinking of the right book, this judgment seems excessive.

[Polama]

Another observation is that competition tends to expand outside the confines of the game itself into a metagame of playing your opponent. I regularly play an individual who always plays mini-chinese given the chance. So I play to prevent it in our matches, to force the battle into a direction he hasn't studied so diligently. This happens between players and also within a population of players.

From my limited observation, there seems to be a tendency for a particular continuation to become quite popular and then drop off the map completely in professional play. Presumably one color was having noteworthy success with that direction. This forced the professionals to examine the continuation in more detail to find better responses, or the best way to avoid that branch altogether. If you suspect your opponent has been actively studying this continuation, then choosing it is giving him an opportunity to make direct use of his study. It's possible a refutation was found, but it's also possible that the continuation looks as even as any other, but now that it's been studied deeply there's less opportunity to gain an advantage in the well worn path.

Thus it may be that a move goes out of fashion not because it is inferior to the other choices, but because is it slightly disadvantageous in the meta-game of what your professional opponent is likely to know and expect. Hence this cycle of moves going into and out of vogue.