How to play as white in handicap games?

[Ember]

@ Bill Spight:

I recall a game where I felt disrespected and got angry. I was a new, and weak, 3 dan and took 2 stones from a 5 dan.

He took territory in one of the two open corners, and I made a wall. In the other open corner he made a weak group running out into the center. At that level, we would consider that group to be alive, but attackable. And I did press an attack. Then at some point, to my surprise, he did not respond in the center, but made an invasion that looked to me to be an overplay. He managed to live inside while I made another wall. Then I renewed the attack. Then he made another surprise invasion. Again, I was unable to kill it, and ended up with another wall. Maybe it happened again, at this point in time I do not recall. But finally his weak group ran into my original wall in the diagonally opposite corner, and his large group died. So I had big win instead of a big loss.

I was still upset. How dare he think that he could just invade at will! But, truth to say, he had lived very easily. Maybe his invasions were not the overplays I had thought that they were.

Thanks for sharing this experience of yours. Of course, different levels of understanding can create very different views on just one game of Go and games like these can be eye openers if one is open-minded and able to look at it free of the emotions you might have had connected with that game. Unfortunately however, I'm a very emotional person... So, at times, I'm having a hard time to keep myself under control, especially when I'm faced with situations like these.

Kicking a man when he is down is poor form. OTOH, winning a won game is not so easy. A coup de grace may be the best course. I remember a game where my opponent just kept playing on, while I kept thinking, "Why doesn't he resign?" Finally, I made a slip and he turned the tables. How embarrassing!

You're absolutely right, winning a won game is not that easy, there is always the possibility to make table-turning mistakes until the very end. A coup de grace you are launching at your opponent even might be one of them as well as not doing it when you get the chance. Although I personally do not approve of playing on when you know you have lost and can only win if your opponent makes a big mistake (we could now discuss for which side this was an embarrassing win/loss. ), it's something you stumble upon very often and it's a good training to keep your focus until the very end.

In the last round, however, I got another 1dan player. I played actively, like before, but I was massacred all over the place. Whenever I attacked, he just ignored that move

Well, White is supposed to tenuki.
[...]
White is supposed to kill Black groups. Often that is the only way to win when you give four or more stones.
[...]
White is supposed to reduce or invade.

Yes, I know that, but I'm not used to being ignored all the time - not since I've played as 15-20kyu, and that's been a while I played at this level. It's like you want to talk to your husband/wife about something important and all he/she says is "banana". This is irritating.

It is not clear to me that White did not treat the game as a teaching game. He did give you pointers afterwards.

To me, it just felt like another kick in the guts. First of all, I didn't ask his opinion because second it was such an obvious flaw in this game that there was simply no need to say that. That's why for me (!) it sounded pretty arrogant and not like a pointer (please keep in mind, that I was in a very bad state, emotionally, and it still upsets me at this very moment to write about this situation). Also, this sloppy way he adressed this matter was another point, let alone, that it was simply not a helpful comment at all. If he had pointed at something constructive that hadn't been so obvious as for example how I should have played in one of these corner situations, then this would have been a different story. That would have been more teaching game-like. But who am I to judge? I cannot look at all of this objectively because of this emotional state of mine. For me, it was still a good lesson not on how not to play as black, but on how not to play as white. But that's about it (although for me, this is also a good thing to decide on).

Now, I do not know whether your opponent disrespected you or not, and it is not for me to judge. And I do not approve of what bridge great Terence Reese called slap-dash tactics against weaker players. And certainly you cannot be blamed for your feelings. You took quite a beating. Your story is a reminder to those of us who give handicaps that winning isn't everything, that we should be considerate towards our opponents and exhibit good sportsmanship.

I didn't want to say anything against loosing - as soon as you put a stone on that board (and you're playing with a komi of 0,5 and the like) someone is bound to win and someone is bound to lose. What I wanted to say with that story is that the way in which you reach your goal is important, too.

@ Polama:

[...] Sometimes he seals you in or kills you and you lose, but that's go.

I absolutely agree on that.

So if your opponent was ignoring your attacks and responding by killing your groups, it sounds like you were (probably inadvertently) 'stealing' sente. You owed a move, but were taking initiative elsewhere.

I do not have a record of that game because the thinking times were pretty short and I didn't record anything that day, but I clearly remember the situation after he had killed the first corner. He was threatening to control 1/4 of the board with one more move, so I didn't play on with that dead group within but invaded a three space extension he had near a corner of mine (we had exchanged a few moves here but I cannot for sure reconstruct the whole situation) to forestall this. He went on to kill said corner. Of course, I must have made a few mistakes and that invasion might have been the first mistake there but in this situation I was clearly not stealing sente at all. And usually I'm not that kind of player even, playing pretty slowly and solidly overall. (It felt more like what I wrote in response to Bill Spight: It's like you want to talk to your husband/wife about something important and all he/she answers is "banana". This is irritating.)

I actually view big kills in a handicap game as a sign of respect. I'm assuming the handicap is fair, and if I let you get away with things, I'm going to lose. That this mistake might be the last bad one you make. That even if I'm up by 20 points, you're capable of finding a clever move down the line reversing the game.

Big kills as a sign of respect? Actually, this sounds a bit strange to me. I mean, of course you take advantage of your oponent's mistake in a handicap game (always given, as you said, that it is a fair handicap against a weaker player), what would the possibility be like to lose your 20 points lead if you "just" (yes, this is hard enough) kept your focus? It is not very likely for that player to find such a good move to suddenly totally and unavoidably revert the score else (s)he would be stronger and would need less handicap, no? Going for the quick and big (depending on the game) kill - maybe with moves that wouldn't work if your oponent answers them proberly - sounds more like "quick and dirty" to me if you allow me to speak freely like that. But maybe I'm missing something here and you can clarify your point so that I can understand you better.

[Polama]

Big kills as a sign of respect? Actually, this sounds a bit strange to me. I mean, of course you take advantage of your oponent's mistake in a handicap game (always given, as you said, that it is a fair handicap against a weaker player), what would the possibility be like to lose your 20 points lead if you "just" (yes, this is hard enough) kept your focus? It is not very likely for that player to find such a good move to suddenly totally and unavoidably revert the score else (s)he would be stronger and would need less handicap, no?

That's why I view going all out as a sign of respect, because I think a player 4-9 stones weaker than me is definitely capable of 10-20 move sequences where they do better than me, and in Go that can be enough to kill a group, bring it back to life, etc. They probably have more blind spots then me, but different blind spots. I'm also not past hallucinating liberties and otherwise blundering. So much of the game teeters on sequences so far past our ability to read, that it's easy to get sucked into a fight that you can't win without seeing it coming. So if I can close out a game I'm leading, I leap at the chance.

Going for the quick and big (depending on the game) kill - maybe with moves that wouldn't work if your oponent answers them proberly - sounds more like "quick and dirty" to me if you allow me to speak freely like that. But maybe I'm missing something here and you can clarify your point so that I can understand you better.

There was a 6 stone handicap or so game I played black in (searched, but couldn't find the sgf...) Where a corner group of mine was killed. White informed me after that he had just been trying to create a shortage of liberties inside my group so he could build a wall around the group in sente, forcing me to capture the stones. But I misplayed and died instead. I agree that trying to 'bully' the weaker opponent is questionable, but attacking moves are often intended for other reasons. We attack to take sente, to settle our own groups, to form some territory, to profit in a chase. I can't speak for others, but when I get big kills as white in a handicap game, it was generally because I was searching for some smaller profit, and the opponent made a mistake.

[SmoothOper]

but attacking moves are often intended for other reasons. We attack to take sente, to settle our own groups, to form some territory, to profit in a chase.

I agree, the game becomes quite different if you can't do any of that, or if our opponent folds when you do.

[Ember]

That's why I view going all out as a sign of respect, because I think a player 4-9 stones weaker than me is definitely capable of 10-20 move sequences where they do better than me, and in Go that can be enough to kill a group, bring it back to life, etc. They probably have more blind spots then me, but different blind spots. I'm also not past hallucinating liberties and otherwise blundering. So much of the game teeters on sequences so far past our ability to read, that it's easy to get sucked into a fight that you can't win without seeing it coming. So if I can close out a game I'm leading, I leap at the chance.

Fair enough. Although I do believe that (always given that it is a fair handicap) you overestimate a player 4-9 stones weaker than you a bit (if such a sequence happens, it is only one out of very many where you as the stronger player should always get out at least a bit more out of it than your opponent). Of course it is ok to take a chance whenever you see one coming up, else you wouldn't stand a chance against the handicap. If black kills himself, well, that happens and you definitely shouldn't refrain from playing the finishing blow or the like. What I really wanted to argument against and what we both agree on is that

[...]trying to 'bully' the weaker opponent is questionable[...]

Now we reach that interesting point in this discussion to talk about when the bullying starts. I didn't want to say anything against attacking moves where you have a plan like closing in in sente, splitting your opponent or the like - this is the game and what makes it interesting! However, what I for my part dislike is only attacking without really having a plan apart from "Killkillkill!!" and just hacking away at someone with unreasonable moves that actually cannot possibly work. If your only plan is "I'll try to kill the group by playing there - although I know it won't work if he answers correctly. If it won't die it's not a problem, there are three more corners I can try, someting is bound to die". I think this is especially true when you're already past that point where you have more than caught up with your opponent and are already leading. That's what I originally meant with "Know where to stop", you don't have to go all out at this point anymore. Keeping sente and getting (most of) the big endgames usually is usually enough to wrap up the game. Of course, if in the game suddenly a chance arrises for you to kill a group and finish the game - finish the game. But harrassing someone like I just explained in this paragraph in my opinion is bad style and not very helpful for either player (in the sense of learning something).

[Polama]

Now we reach that interesting point in this discussion to talk about when the bullying starts. I didn't want to say anything against attacking moves where you have a plan like closing in in sente, splitting your opponent or the like - this is the game and what makes it interesting! However, what I for my part dislike is only attacking without really having a plan apart from "Killkillkill!!" and just hacking away at someone with unreasonable moves that actually cannot possibly work. If your only plan is "I'll try to kill the group by playing there - although I know it won't work if he answers correctly. If it won't die it's not a problem, there are three more corners I can try, someting is bound to die". I think this is especially true when you're already past that point where you have more than caught up with your opponent and are already leading. That's what I originally meant with "Know where to stop", you don't have to go all out at this point anymore. Keeping sente and getting (most of) the big endgames usually is usually enough to wrap up the game. Of course, if in the game suddenly a chance arrises for you to kill a group and finish the game - finish the game. But harrassing someone like I just explained in this paragraph in my opinion is bad style and not very helpful for either player (in the sense of learning something).

Yup, I can certainly understand that feeling. Personally, I like playing the bloodthirsty, because if you survive the onslaught you tend to end up in a great position, but I can definitely see it being deflating in a handicap game. I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't helpful for black - you can never practice life and death too much - but it is a bit one-dimensional.

I guess my point was that it can be hard to tell the difference between speculative attacks that lose points if they fail, and constant pressure that's met with a mistake by black. For example, if you threaten the life of my group, and I can threaten the life of a larger group in response. It's often better to do that, carry out a threat in sente for a couple points, and only then go back and defend. In a handicap game it can be very hard to make up ground if your opponent settles all his stones, so it can be worth aggressively undermining his bases early, so you can have something to attack in the middle game. Or invading in too small an area just to sacrifice those stones for outside thickness. These can all appear to be just senseless violence to the weaker player.

Your experience was different, there are certainly 'bullies' out there. The experience I wanted to share was that as white I've had people get frustrated with me, that I was constantly probing and attacking and undermining their position, but my perspective was that I was offering up ways to divide the board, and they kept choosing the inferior offer.

[EdLee]

I'm not used to being ignored all the time <snip> This is irritating.

He ignored some of your moves. Did you study the properties of those moves ?

• Your moves had nice follow-ups so locally (or even globally) you should've profited since he tenuki'd;
• Your moves did not have nice follow-ups, so that even though he tenuki'd, he did not suffer big local (and/or global) losses;
• There's probably a continuum in between the above two.

It's a learning opportunity. Which best describes your moves he ignored ?

If he ignored your move and you profited from his tenuki, then you were compensated --
he gained something (somewhere else) from his tenuki, and you gained something (locally and/or globally) from his tenuki.
You should've been satisfied or even happy with this trade. So what's the problem ?
If it was a fair trade, or even a good trade for you, why would you feel irritated ?

If he ignored your move and he profited from his tenuki, but your move did not have nice follow-ups (no "bite"),
then you can look at your move and study why it was ignorable. If your move was a mistake, you can learn from it.

What can you learn about yourself and your Go from these moves of yours and from his tenuki moves ?
If you can channel your irritation/anger to improve your Go, it is productive;
if your irritation/anger does not help you improve yourself or your Go, then it's not very productive.

Tenuki is part of Go. There are good tenukis; there are bad ones. Learn from all of them.

Focus on your moves (and his). Focus on improving your moves, your Go, and yourself.

[EdLee]

To me, it just felt like another kick in the guts. First of all, I didn't ask his opinion because second it was such an obvious flaw in this game that there was simply no need to say that. That's why for me (!) it sounded pretty arrogant and not like a pointer (please keep in mind, that I was in a very bad state, emotionally, and it still upsets me at this very moment to write about this situation). Also, this sloppy way he adressed this matter was another point, let alone, that it was simply not a helpful comment at all. If he had pointed at something constructive that hadn't been so obvious as for example how I should have played in one of these corner situations, then this would have been a different story. That would have been more teaching game-like. But who am I to judge? I cannot look at all of this objectively because of this emotional state of mine.

As Bill already mentioned, we were not there, so it's difficult to assess the situation -- we don't know if he was being disrespectful or not. However:

• In general, especially after a tourney game, it's best not to comment on the game or specific moves unless your opponent specifically requests it --
  that is, both of you first agree to a review.
• If you are still very upset "at this very moment to write about this situation", you yourself nailed it
  that you probably "cannot look at all of this objectively because of this emotional state". You probably need some time to first calm down.
• His intentions matter. Putting aside the fact that you did not ask for his opinion (first point, above),
  if he meant well and sincerely wanted to help you with your Go, that is one thing.
  But if he just wanted to make himself feel good or just to make you feel bad, that's another story. (Again, we were not there to assess the situation.)
• You felt it was "such an obvious flaw" -- but apparently, it was not "obvious" enough that you missed it in the game.
  How then was he supposed to know whether it was so "obvious" to you ?
• Even if he meant well, he should've first asked you whether you wanted a review (first point, above).
• Even if he meant well and both of you agreed to a review, it's still possible his presentation would rub you the wrong way.
  Now we're talking about communication skills, teaching skills, presentation skills, social skills in general, etc.

[EdLee]

Respect for your opponent. Only because you might be able to kill everything on the board, do you really have to play like that?

The previous posts already touched upon some of the related issues -- bullying, etiquette, intentions, communicating skills, social skills, etc.

To add to that list:

• Look at it from his perspective. What if he feels he is being respectful to his opponent (you) by playing his best moves (if that means to kill everything that is killable) ?
  That not playing his strongest moves would be dis-respectful to you ?
• What if he lacks the ability (or skills) to not play his strongest moves (kill all that is killable) ?
• Remember in that one episode in Hikaru, Sai wanted to be gentle with Akira, but Akira's moves gave Sai no choice but to "sever his head" ?
  Certain board positions really give us no choice but to kill a big group (a big cap race, for example).

(Again, we were not there. Difficult to assess the situation. But, as we learn from Go,
we want to zoom out and also look at the bigger picture. So these are just some more ideas and possibilities.)

[Bantari]

Respect for your opponent. Only because you might be able to kill everything on the board, do you really have to play like that?

The previous posts already touched upon some of the related issues -- bullying, etiquette, intentions, communicating skills, social skills, etc.

To add to that list:

• Look at it from his perspective. What if he feels he is being respectful to his opponent (you) by playing his best moves (if that means to kill everything that is killable) ?
  That not playing his strongest moves would be dis-respectful to you ?
• What if he lacks the ability (or skills) to not play his strongest moves (kill all that is killable) ?
• Remember in that one episode in Hikaru, Sai wanted to be gentle with Akira, but Akira's moves gave Sai no choice but to "sever his head" ?
  Certain board positions really give us no choice but to kill a big group (a big cap race, for example).

(Again, we were not there. Difficult to assess the situation. But, as we learn from Go,
we want to zoom out and also look at the bigger picture. So these are just some more ideas and possibilities.)

I think there is a misunderstanding here.
In my opinion, the source of irritation is not that White makes the best possible moves, but that he does not! Instead, he makes the trickiest possible moves, ones that he would never dare play against stronger player, but he knows he can get away against weak player. And while the strongest possible moves would assure a win by some margin as well as provide large educational value (not to mention show respect) - the trickiest possible moves are more contrary, although usually win by a larger margin. It is this perceived lack of respect that is irritating, I think.

Having said that, as others mentioned, there might still be value in learning from such moves.
But it is not a pleasant experience for the Black player, so I understand the problem he has.

Another issue is - it is often hard for weaker player to distinguish between the good and the tricky. Although usually there is some good feeling about the flow of the game.

[EdLee]

I think there is a misunderstanding here.
In my opinion, the source of irritation is not that White makes the best possible moves, but that he does not!

Interesting. May I ask how you came to this opinion ? It's possible I had not read all of Ember's texts so far and I missed something.
But again, we don't have the game record or the moves,
and we were not there, did not hear the conversation, nor the tones of voice --
difficult to assess the situation.

[oca]

This is a handicap game I played as white ... well, in my dreams...
I was actually black and just got blown away... (but learned a lot)

MOVE arg... My beautifull wall got broken !
MOVE sniff... connect and die
MOVE white 107 - didn't know what to do to help my L group
cut at white 121 - didn't know how to manage that kind of invasion...
and so on...

[EdLee]

Hi oca,

Basics problems:

• Basic shape problems.
• Bad habits.
• Bad shapes.
• Broken shapes.
• Don't see ataris.

[oca]

Basics problems:
- Basic shape problems.
- Bad habits.
- Bad shapes.
- Broken shapes.
- Don't see ataris.

EdLee, Thank you so much for show me these problems, very valuable to me.

This bad habit (playing the marked stone instead of a)

$$
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X O O . .
$$ | . . B a X O . X
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X O O . .
$$ | . . B a X O . X
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------[/go]

is really clear to me now thanks to your examples.


On move 28 "Do you see the connect-and-die problems for W at (a) ?"

Well... not sur I really see it... May be something like that ? trying to reduce place for a base and to close all ways to the center so that I can kill the white group ?

$$W
$$ | . . . . X . . 4 . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | X X X X X O . X . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | O X O O O 1 . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . X . . 4 . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | X X X X X O . X . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | O X O O O 1 . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

MOVE 36 : may be that instead of at directly ?

$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X O O . O . X X O O 1 2 X . . . |
$$ | . X X X X O . X O . . X X O 3 . . . . |
$$ | O X O O O . . O X . . . . 5 . . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X O O . O . X X O O 1 2 X . . . |
$$ | . X X X X O . X O . . X X O 3 . . . . |
$$ | O X O O O . . O X . . . . 5 . . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

[joellercoaster]

THanks for this, EdLee! These are exactly the kinds of thing - basic shape, cuts - I am getting beaten up on at the moment. This is really helpful.

[EdLee]

Hi oca and joellercoaster, you are very welcome.

This bad habit (playing the marked stone instead of a)

$$
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X O O . .
$$ | . . B a X O . X
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X O O . .
$$ | . . B a X O . X
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------[/go]

You have to be very careful:
There are situations where the tiger's mouth is correct!

$$W
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . X O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 . X 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . X O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 . X 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
$$------------------------------------[/go]

It has to do with the specific local and global situations.
If it is important for B to have the stone at -- for example, it affects the left side --
then the tiger's mouth could be a good and correct move!
( I put the dimmed out areas on purpose. )

In your particular game above, some of your tiger's mouths were bad habits.
But this not always true!!
Go is super super specific!!