For a beginner, which pro players to study first?

[tekesta]

Replaying pro games is an essential component of every serious player's study régime. I can say this from experience; ever since I've begun to replay pro games my understanding of Go has increased some. Now, my question is, is it better for the beginner to replay games by historical players such as Shūsaku, Honinbō Dōsaku, and Honinbō Shūei, or to replay games by modern pros such as Lee Chang-ho, Nie Weiping, and Awaji Shūzō?

I am inclined to believe the former choice is correct; for some reason I find it easier to understand the games of Shūsaku than that of today's pro players. Perhaps knowledge of Go has advanced so much since Shūsaku's time that, despite the sheer amount of reading that went into every one of his games, compared to games by today's players the style of play therein appear rather ordinary. Would this mean that, as a beginner, I would get more out of replaying games by historical players than replaying games by modern pros?

Perhaps I will need to reach mid-dan level in skill to have even a superficial understanding of games by today's strongest pro players. Much obliged in advance for your comments.

[moyoaji]

I would recommend checking out Batt's Go Picks. There are 10 sets at the moment, so plenty of games and he tends to pick ones that are easy for amateurs to follow. They are usually exciting games and I've loved studying them myself.

Here is the most recent episode: Batt's Go Picks #10

[oren]

The answer is whoever you want to. Studying any strong players will be useful. Studying modern pros will be more useful for joseki at least, but I don't think that should deter you from studying any players you like.

The important thing is to enjoy the games. I like having in depth commentary like you can get from gogameguru.com.

[emeraldemon]

I think the best thing you can do is play through a few games from several different pros and see if there's a particular style/player who really appeals to you. It'll be much easier to study games if you really enjoy following them and liking the moves.

Personally I really love the endgame mastery of players like Lee Changho and Park Yeonghun; they make it seem almost effortless, playing an easy game and always just staying one point ahead. It's like watching a magic trick somehow. (Park Yeonghun is probably my favorite pro, although he hasn't been winning as many things lately).

Sensei's Library has a (probably inaccurate and outdated) list of pro players styles that you might find interesting to browse:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalPlayersGoStyles

[tekesta]

I can't really say... I'm addicted to Shūsaku and Dōsaku at the moment, particularly the latter. I heard that Shūei is a popular choice among pros, so I will be looking into his games. Among modern players, Lee Chang-ho and Yu Bin are my favorites.

I don't play for pure territory, though. Neither do I try to play cosmic. I try to be flexible more than anything else. At the moment I'm shedding my timidity little by little and adopting a more attack-oriented style.

I'll find my own style soon enough. Just need to keep playing and studying ♪

To expound on the original question, for a beginner who has just begun to learn the game and wants to develop a firm foundation (let's keep in mind that the importance of shape in jōseki is not yet understood, among other things), would it be better to start off on classical players such as Shūsaku and Dōsaku, or any of the modern day players will do?

[oren]

To expound on the original question, for a beginner who has just begun to learn the game and wants to develop a firm foundation (let's keep in mind that the importance of shape in jōseki is not yet understood, among other things), would it be better to start off on classical players such as Shūsaku and Dōsaku, or any of the modern day players will do?

Any player will do.

[SoDesuNe]

After replaying quite a few pros I can say that my favourite players are Honinbo Dosaku and Shuei, Go Seigen and Chen Yaoye. I always get excited when replaying their games. And as others have mentionend, that's the key.
So, really, start anywhere you like, it doesn't really matter as long as you do : )

I wouldn't recommend ancient chinese like Huang Longshi or korean players, though, because they start with a complete different opening layout.

[RBerenguel]

After replaying quite a few pros I can say that my favourite players are Honinbo Dosaku and Shuei, Go Seigen and Chen Yaoye. I always get excited when replaying their games. And as others have mentionend, that's the key.
So, really, start anywhere you like, it doesn't really matter as long as you do : )

I wouldn't recommend ancient chinese like Huang Longshi or korean players, though, because they start with a complete different opening layout.

I love Dosaku's games as well, but... They are always so hmm... messy!? How do you make sense of what's actually going on?

[SoDesuNe]

After replaying quite a few pros I can say that my favourite players are Honinbo Dosaku and Shuei, Go Seigen and Chen Yaoye. I always get excited when replaying their games. And as others have mentionend, that's the key.
So, really, start anywhere you like, it doesn't really matter as long as you do : )

I wouldn't recommend ancient chinese like Huang Longshi or korean players, though, because they start with a complete different opening layout.

I love Dosaku's games as well, but... They are always so hmm... messy!? How do you make sense of what's actually going on?

How do I ever make sense of pro games? =D I just let me mesmerize.

[logan]

For a beginner, I suggest focusing on players with a more solid/steady style. Any of the following fit this criteria, and you can find more.

Yasui Chitoku
Honinbo Shuwa
Honinbo Shusaku
Suzuki Tamejiro
Hayashi Yutaro
Sekiyama Riichi
Takagawa Kaku
Shimamura Toshihiro
Cao Dayuan
Shao Zhenzhong
Zhou Heyang
Yamada Kimio
Yi Ch'ang-ho (1993-2001)
Pak Yeong-hun
Kang Tong-yun
Chen Yaoye

As for studying go from different periods I think there are many things you could consider. But I'd like to mention just one main similarity and two main differences.

All periods have their own foundations -- openings and early middle game ideas -- from which their go is built and their games unfold. You'll have to learn the foundations from whichever period you study. In this regard, you can choose players from any period.

One difference is that older periods have a more narrow foundation, while newer games can call back to old ideas and use their current ideas. This makes learning older periods easier, because you're focusing on a more narrow slice.

A second difference is that recent periods have a more relevant foundation to modern and contemporary play. This makes playing against the majority of current players and following current professional games easier.

[tekesta]

For a beginner, I suggest focusing on players with a more solid/steady style. Any of the following fit this criteria, and you can find more.

Yasui Chitoku
Honinbo Shuwa
Honinbo Shusaku
Suzuki Tamejiro
Hayashi Yutaro
Sekiyama Riichi
Takagawa Kaku
Shimamura Toshihiro
Cao Dayuan
Shao Zhenzhong
Zhou Heyang
Yamada Kimio
Yi Ch'ang-ho (1993-2001)
Pak Yeong-hun
Kang Tong-yun
Chen Yaoye

I will be looking at these. I'm beginning to believe that, at least for the beginner with some experience in playing actual games and solving problems in fuseki, jōseki, and chūban (as well as shikatsu and tesuji), replaying games by modern pros can be very informative.

As for studying go from different periods I think there are many things you could consider. But I'd like to mention just one main similarity and two main differences.

All periods have their own foundations -- openings and early middle game ideas -- from which their go is built and their games unfold. You'll have to learn the foundations from whichever period you study. In this regard, you can choose players from any period.

I know that the games of Shūsaku and Dōsaku were played during a historical period in which komi was not given to White, so holding Black was advantageous and White had to be aggressive in her global development. Now that White gets komi, it is Black who has to be aggressive in global development. As well, the taisha, avalanche, and other large-scale jōsekis typical of 1800s and early 1900s Go are not in common use nowadays.

One difference is that older periods have a more narrow foundation, while newer games can call back to old ideas and use their current ideas. This makes learning older periods easier, because you're focusing on a more narrow slice.

A second difference is that recent periods have a more relevant foundation to modern and contemporary play. This makes playing against the majority of current players and following current professional games easier.

So, if I am not wrong, this means that - at least in the case of the serious student - it is not absolutely necessary to begin one's study of Go with games by historical players, but rather it is good, maybe better even, to replay and study games by modern pros?

From what I remember, Go Seigen once replayed the entire collection of Shūsaku's games as known back in the 1920s. This allowed him to understand the way Go was played in Japan at that time; the forms typical of Shūsaku's time were still the norm back then. Would it still be possible to glean anything useful from Dōsaku's and Shūsaku's games, even though hardly anyone plays in that style any more? Go Seigen has had immense influence on the development of Go after World War 2, so his games are a must for anyone studying modern styles of play.

I would not take this as any sign that Edo-era Go styles are making a comeback, but I believe this might be of interest to those reading here.

http://gosensations.com/?id=2&server_id=1&new_id=1227

[DrStraw]

Well, I have to say that I never really enjoyed studying pro games. Sure, I've played through lots of them, but not really studied them. So I don't know that it is essential unless your goal is 7d or above.

I would say to find a player whose style appeals to you and play through those, absorbing as much as you can. Then, after a few years pick another player with a different style. My favorite was always Sakata, but I am sure that is not to everyone's taste.

[jts]

No one has mentioned what I find to be the most basic point of advice - don't pick players, pick openings. If you are currently trying to focus on one or two openings (like Orthodox or Chinese) or opening ideas (like 3-3), either keep an eye out for games with that opening or do a pattern search to download some. You'll find it easier to wrap your mind around the fuseki because you've seen some of the ideas before, you'll get to develop what you see because you'll get to put the opening into practice between studying games, and you'll get to the point of having actual insights about various moves more quickly. IMHO.

[tekesta]

No one has mentioned what I find to be the most basic point of advice - don't pick players, pick openings. If you are currently trying to focus on one or two openings (like Orthodox or Chinese) or opening ideas (like 3-3), either keep an eye out for games with that opening or do a pattern search to download some. You'll find it easier to wrap your mind around the fuseki because you've seen some of the ideas before, you'll get to develop what you see because you'll get to put the opening into practice between studying games, and you'll get to the point of having actual insights about various moves more quickly. IMHO.

This makes sense. An epiphany for me, actually. At the moment I'm using mainly the Chinese fusekis. I often see my opponents use nirensei and sanrensei in my games, so I'll have to learn how those work.

[Phoenix]

I only offer this as personal opinion.

When I started, it became clear to me quite quickly that I couldn't understand 95% of what was going on in a pro game. Despite this, I memorized a few of Shusaku's games (it had been pointed out in HnG that he was the best of the best ) and simply played them through and tried to get the feel for the 'flow of stones' (again, HnG-induced).

As it turns out, I soon began to beat my friends by ridiculous margins in our games. As it turns out, I did unconsciously learn a bit about 'direction of play' and important/unimportant areas, big and small moves, etc. Mostly, I learned to play with much better shape. Shape being a factor in efficiency (and therefore in winning), it ended up helping a lot. I feel I still carry the advantage this original 'push' to this day.

Just an idea.