Ancient Pros Vs Modern Pros

[John Fairbairn]

By the by, I don't think the Chinese were building their canal while the Egyptians were putting up their pyramids - they had to wait a couple of millennia just to start and another couple of millennia in order to finish - and in Hangzhou not Guangzhou surely? Also Go Seigen was so unimpressed by the Shusaku fuseki that he flattered it by frequent imitation.

But the main point here surely has to do with why we go back to the examples of the past. There are some purely practical reasons in go that have already been mentioned (more collections of games of old players exist, they have attracted many commentaries, they form a common pool that everyone can discuss, etc). But there are also more abstract reasons, such as the one I mentioned earlier (?in this thread) about what Kobayashi Koichi saw in the games of Honinbo Sansa. Rather than the trivial aspects of joseki and fuseki styles, he learnt rather from Sansa's tenacity.

Similarly, in a book I was reading just yesterday, Yoda Norimoto (another truly world-class player) was explaining why he spent so much time in his teens and twenties studying the games of Yasui Chitoku. Although many people praise Chitoku for his totally ungaudy style that supposedly has the quality of tarnished silver, Yoda said he was interested instead in a much deeper question: how could Chitoku make moves like that and still win? And so he came to appreciate eventually that what underlay Chitoku's go was "self confidence". It was this that Yoda took away from Chitoku and helped forge his own style (and character).

I would contend that Kobayashi and Yoda were not going back to the past for trivial reasons such as having easy access to collections. And certainly not for nostalgia. Rather they were going back to people who had already proven they were able to get to the top of the pile, and they were looking not at their josekis and fusekis but at the human qualities which led to their success. Only then did they look at specific moves that best illustrated those qualities. In short, they were not following any old recipe, but a recipe for success. Their own success was thus built on the shoulders of Sansa and Chitoku.

There are actually very, very few players in the tiny world of go who have ever reached the top of the pile. One or two per generation, so fewer than ten a century? And they tend to be dead already. Furthermore, I would contend that the successful human qualities would tend to become easier to see in the more mature games of these players, and that knowing the context of a player's life (i.e. go history) would be helpful in eliciting his human qualities. Both factors point towards using collections of historical players.

[xed_over]

a prime example of this is Go Seigen's arrival on the Japanese scene, where he was probably unimpressed by the Shusaku Fuseki.

honestly, I don't know where you come up with such nonsense

[Bantari]

Personally, I think there are some good reasons to study old masters. Because why do we study Go at all? To get stronger, sure, but also because we have a deep appreciation for the game, we see its beauty. And old games can have a lot of beauty. They are certainly worst studying, if for no other reason than that.

But there is also a more pragmatic reason. It is true that a lot of the shapes, joseki, and fuseki from the old games are not popular anymore, some might even be seen as inferior today. So simply imitating them might not be the best thing to do. But how about ideas? I think the ideas in the old games are, by and large, still very valid today. And what's more, they are much easier to learn since they tend to be much more straight-forward. Today, pros often try to increase the complexity of their ideas to get the upper hand. I have a feeling that in the older days this was not always the case, and the ideas were much closer to the surface - and thus much easier to learn and follow. And then you can see many of the very same ideas, often in a more complex form, in the games of modern pros.

So personally, I find a lot of value in study of old games.
But of course, if you are only looking for patterns and moves to mimic, you might have a different point of view and older games might not be suitable.

[logan]

[...]

I would contend that the successful human qualities would tend to become easier to see in the more mature games of these players, and that knowing the context of a player's life (i.e. go history) would be helpful in eliciting his human qualities. Both factors point towards using collections of historical players.

The thing I enjoyed most from reading your biography of Shuei was reflecting upon the interpersonal mistakes and growth over his lifetime. I was happy to take a few tidbits away for myself.

[snorri]

"Go is characterized by enormous flexibility." -Yuan Zhou

When studying professional games by the "guess the next move" method, it can be easy to get complacent. After a certain period of time you get familiar enough with the popular lines that not much seems particularly surprising.

What is surprising to me when I go back and look at classical games is how poorly I am able to predict moves. It's not just a matter of not being as familiar with the older josekis---it's more than that. In some cases I think that the players simply had a different approach to the game, and it shows that there is more than one way to play high-level go. In fact, there may be as many ways as there are players.

For me, I feel it's important to see something different every time I think I understand something, just to remind myself how broad go is and how deep the gaps in my understanding are.

[SmoothOper]

By the by, I don't think the Chinese were building their canal while the Egyptians were putting up their pyramids - they had to wait a couple of millennia just to start and another couple of millennia in order to finish - and in Hangzhou not Guangzhou surely? Also Go Seigen was so unimpressed by the Shusaku fuseki that he flattered it by frequent imitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_(China)#Early_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuri

Whew! got lucky, they overlap, but just barely. My point is that analytical history works better when there aren't parallel versions, or shifting points of view, and for Chess this may be more true, after all not as many people play chess.

[tchan001]

1) Go Seigen was certainly impressed enough with old historical games to write a long introduction for Chen Zude's series of 14 books on ancient Chinese games published 2011-2013. And Michael Redmond was certainly impressed enough with the games of Huang Longshi to have his wife translate a Chinese book on the subject into Japanese for the Japanese audience (see this post).

2) The problem with comparing the achievements of ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Polynesian is that the technology developed for each of these cultures was greatly influenced by the needs dictated by the locations of each culture. Different places required different solutions to solve the problems existing in that location. Whereas the location of the game of go wherever and whenever it is/was played in is mainly the same 19 X 19 grid which we still use today no matter which country we play go in.

[SmoothOper]

1) Go Seigen was certainly impressed enough with old historical games to write a long introduction for Chen Zude's series of 14 books on ancient Chinese games published 2011-2013. And Michael Redmond was certainly impressed enough with the games of Huang Longshi to have his wife translate a Chinese book on the subject into Japanese for the Japanese audience (see this post).

2) The problem with comparing the achievements of ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Polynesian is that the technology developed for each of these cultures was greatly influenced by the needs dictated by the locations of each culture. Different places required different solutions to solve the problems existing in that location. Whereas the location of the game of go wherever and whenever it is/was played in is mainly the same 19 X 19 grid which we still use today no matter which country we play go in.

From time limits to counting, there are regional differences. Anyway, where was that thread, where Fairburn lamented the lack of narrative in modern Go due to lack of established superiority... I digress.

[pwaldron]

It's best to ask why you care if modern pros are stronger than ancient pros. If it's an academic argument held over beer at the local go club then carry on. But you're way off if you're asking the question because you're deciding whether to study games from three hundred years ago.

Top level pros from any era are/were strong, far stronger than anyone on this forum. At worst they're a few points off of the pace of today's champions. That's certainly a level I'd be happy to play at. Study any pro games that you want; all study will pay off.

[tapir]

This is similar to modern artists, who aren't just willy-nilly making incomprehensively ugly works, but rather are reacting to and building upon centuries of tradition.

Are you sure?

There exists an astonishing number of revered artists, who sell incomprehensively ugly work (or decent looking serially produced design) with a load of bullshit theory, which goes for profoundness and turns out to be ever the same theosophy on a closer look. That is the art market is diametrically opposed to Go. In Go you can't subsist on bullshit theory - it has to work on the board as well. And I seriously doubt every modern artist is able to paint the hair of virgin Mary like Lucas Cranach and ...

[daal]

(The question is not whether modern pros are stronger or would beat their ancient counterparts, but rather whether it is worthwhile to study the classics or not. One reason that it makes sense for top pros to do so is that it offers them a context in which to evaluate and understand modern moves.) This is similar to modern artists, who aren't just willy-nilly making incomprehensively ugly works, but rather are reacting to and building upon centuries of tradition.

Are you sure?

There exists an astonishing number of revered artists, who sell incomprehensively ugly work (or decent looking serially produced design) with a load of bullshit theory, which goes for profoundness and turns out to be ever the same theosophy on a closer look. That is the art market is diametrically opposed to Go. In Go you can't subsist on bullshit theory - it has to work on the board as well. And I seriously doubt every modern artist is able to paint the hair of virgin Mary like Lucas Cranach and ...

You might agree that upon reading your comment, that even if it is not the case, much of it certainly sounds like uninformed prejudice. The basis of prejudice is on the one hand contempt, but on the other, an unqualified but often undeniable observation. In this case, you observe that much of the language used to describe modern and contemporary art is hogwash. I tend to agree, and would respond with a prejudice of my own: Words are not the artist's forte. Much of what we read about art is not written by the artists themselves, but rather by people whose business it is to promote an artist's work, and bullshit (on a high level) sells.

This does not however counter my assertion that the artists are "reacting to and building upon centuries of tradition." This takes place not by learning the same techniques as their predecessors, but by learning how their predecessors responded artistically to the questions they were faced with. Unlike go, where the basic premise has never changed, art exists in the context of constantly evolving culture, and be it religion, science or advertising that determines their focus, artists cannot just continue doing the same thing.

The context of my comment about artists (added to your quote in parenthesis) is that it is in fact worthwhile for professionals, be they go players or artists, to learn from their predecessors. While you may be right that some artists use abstruse rhetoric to market their work, my impression is that their work does not tend to have been produced within a knowledge-vacuum, but rather that it might just look that way - particularly to those who themselves are unaware of the history of art. People have been calling art ugly since the cavemen started making it.

[tapir]

There seriously went something wrong in the history of the arts when some avant-garde artists tried to blow up the art circus by quite consciously doing anti-art and upon realizing that even this anti-art has potential as a commodity kept doing the same thing without revolutionary pretence. The joke was always on the audience.

And yet, when an audience willingly gazes at an empty canvas, it isn't necessarily foolish, it just isn't interested in art.

Unlike the art market Go is intolerant to pretence, dishonesty, confidence tricks... you can't win during the review. I sincerely believe Go should be advertised like this. Brutal honesty in a dishonest world.

More to the topic: Study the masters old and new. Actually, I believe studying games with unfamiliar fuseki and old-fashioned joseki may be the best opening study. Without the superficial familiarity you are actually forced to attempt to figure out why they did, what they did. I study Takagawa Kaku, when I study at all, these days.

[tchan001]

There are still people who study fine art and learn from the masters just like there are people who study the game records of masters of the game of go.

As to studying ugly modern art pieces, you can also choose to restrict yourself to studying game records of kyu players for your inspirations.

[snorri]

If it's an academic argument held over beer at the local go club then carry on.

On the other hand, the question of why are there aren't more go clubs with beer and what can be done about this dearth is an entirely practical one.

[tchan001]

I wouldn't want beer spilt over my kaya board nor my slate and clams