Territory vs. Moyo vs. Fighting Styles

[Kirby]

So I started taking lessons from Yilun Yang a bit, and one of the things I've noticed is his stress on playing a consistent style. He groups styles into territorial, moyo, and fighting styles, and says that you should play moves consistent with the strategy that you choose.

That's all fine, and I've even read it in a book before, but what made me curious was when I asked him which style was most suited for the way I play currently.

He said that, "Usually we play with territory style". Later I asked him if he meant everybody or just me when he said "we".

He said that it is much more difficult to play with other styles, so until I am very strong, a territory type style might be best...

What do you guys think of this? Should us weaklings try to play a territorial game? And if you should only play a moyo or fighting style game once you are strong enough, how do you ever get strong enough at, say, a moyo game if you never practice it?

[Dusk Eagle]

What do you guys think of this? Should us weaklings try to play a territorial game? And if you should only play a moyo or fighting style game once you are strong enough, how do you ever get strong enough at, say, a moyo game if you never practice it?

I would say that it's not so much that you "should" only play a moyo or a fighting style once you get very strong, it's more like us weaker players will be more successful with a territory-oriented style. Playing other styles can still be considered for the educational factor or just a personal preference, but it will take more effort to achieving a certain strength (say, for example, 1 dan) through a non-territory style than it will a territory style, at least if Mr. Yang is correct.

Does Mr. Yang advise that one's style for a particular game be chosen before the game begins? I normally, unless I am playing a book opening as black, wait to see which style the board seems to be suiting up best for before deciding on a true "style" of play.

Also, I've always thought of styles as more along the lines of "territory, moyo, influence" than "territory, moyo, fighting." Is an influence style game similar to a fighting style game from Mr. Yang's perspective?

[Kirby]

Well, so I don't put words in his mouth, I guess I can just give an example. When I play a diagonal opening, there are 4 small groups on the board, so he says I should work to keep groups small and split up.

And even on the 5th move, this has an effect. For example, if white has a 3-4 stone, and I am black and I've played a diagonal opening, I should do a low approach to the 3-4 instead of a high one, because it makes it a bit harder for white to settle.

Based on this, I have gathered that a fighting game means keeping the opponent's groups small and unsettled. But this is my interpretation.

[runaway]

I think that it's not the total strength that determines which path we take, but the way that we gain that strength.

When someone high approaches your komoku (and you want to play there and there aren't any special cases), you probably would attach under if you were territorial. If you were moyo, then an above attach or a loose pincer might be good. If you were fighting then you would do a close pincer.

That's how I see it.

I'm not sure, but although he's from szechuan, Gu Li should be territorial.

Gan Siyang is definitely a fighting style, his games are amazing.

And in one of Guo Juan's internet go lessons, she said that Takemiya has a moyo style.

If that's any help.

[CSamurai]

Well,

5k speaking, be prepared for wisdom of ants.

Myself, I've been more successful since I shifted to more territorial goals in my game. Not to disregard moyo or fighting or influence, but to always consider, Where Is My Cash?

Mr. Yang teaches a great many people, and he has attempted, in my opinion, to refine quite a bit of go knowledge into a pattern for amatuers to use to improve.

It is, in his opinion, clear, that territorial play is easier for amatuers to grasp. This is likely backed up by quite a bit of experience in teaching a great deal of people. I clearly lack the experience on way or another, but, anecdotally, focusing on territorial play has led to a fair increase in strength, even if it doesn't seem to have budged my stalled out KGS rating more than a k or so. Of course, some of that is the fact that I seem to focus on go in fits and starts, and I get rusty if I spend a day or two without playing, or don't play seriously for a week or so. I will say that at 5k, I always feel more comfortable giving up moyo and influence because I'm confident my opponent has little idea of how to use that strength effectively, and if I play solidly, I can always come back and abuse it later. I recently won a game, I think possibly on IGS where I let black build a 4th line wall across the entire right side, and built a third line wall myself. I felt comfortable, even though, had I done such a thing with a higher ranked player, I would have been fretting constantly about the excessive strength I had given up.

It may also be his opinion, though I hesitate to speculate, that in focusing on territorial play, you learn more about the fundamentals of go, and possibly that his 'rules', the heirarchy and they like, are more suited to application to a territorial system. All of these could contribute to the statement that 'we usually play territory.'

You're paying the man for lessons, so this gives a weight to his advice, it would seem disrespectful and wasteful to ignore so blunt a piece of advice as this, from a teacher you paid, and asked how to improve.

Of course, if you really don't like his advice, you could always search for a teacher who fits your 'style' better, if any of us amatuers can be said to have a style.

Just my two cents

CSam

[ketchup]

I play blitz, I play to kill. No matter what, it's the most enjoyable style. I'd like to do this with slower games too, but it's a lot more difficult. I guess you would categorize that as a fighting style, but all I really try to do is kill and make my stones work so I CAN kill.


In other words, I'd say you should do what you find the most enjoyable.

As for what to say about his comments, I think he's probably looking at things in the sense that you can go step by step. First learn how to use stones effectively territorially, then influence, and lastly fight all out. It will probably work for most people if they are able to focus on one part of the game, and then in the end come together. Essentially the student will use all of the experience gained to form a "style" of play most suited towards them(or you in this case)

[Kirby]

Yilun Yang is a very good teacher, but he has no monopoly on the truth.

Obey your master for now, you can always betray him later.

I don't have his Workshop Lectures but I think he expands on his views of territorial, moyo and fighting there.
Do you have them Kirby?

Yes, but there I don't recall reading that one style is better than the others for amateurs.

[topazg]

Yes, but there I don't recall reading that one style is better than the others for amateurs.

There's a big difference between "better" and "easier" - do we know for sure which he meant?

[CarlJung]

Playing your most successful style might not be the same as your most enjoyable style. If you enjoy wraking havoc on the board and fight evrything, by all means continue to do that. It might not lead to the highest rank but at least you are playing the way you like.

Btw, if two people both play territorial. Will they both be successful

[Bill Spight]

So I started taking lessons from Yilun Yang a bit, and one of the things I've noticed is his stress on playing a consistent style. He groups styles into territorial, moyo, and fighting styles, and says that you should play moves consistent with the strategy that you choose.

Since that advice is not about go, per se, I feel free in differing from Yang, except from playing consistently. By that I mean that your plays should work well with your previous plays.

As you know from my comments on your games, I think that your attempts to play a consistent territorial style led you to make some bad plays.

He said that it is much more difficult to play with other styles, so until I am very strong, a territory type style might be best...

What do you guys think of this? Should us weaklings try to play a territorial game? And if you should only play a moyo or fighting style game once you are strong enough, how do you ever get strong enough at, say, a moyo game if you never practice it?

I see nothing wrong with following your bent, and trying to make the best plays and best plans that you can. I. e., I would not worry about style at all.

[Bill Spight]

That being said, I have my own pet idea that to learn something it can be good to follow its historical development, i. e., the way that the community of players learned it. In go my impression is that would mean to start with a fighting style, then learn a territory style, then a moyo style. As Reti remarked about chess, sooner or later you have to fight, so you might as well start off learning how.

In my case I never developed a territory style. I used to joke that to beat me you should give me territory early in the game, because then I wouldn't know what to do. I started off with a fighting style, something you would never guess today. Then i tried to emulate Go Seigen and play for quick development. That led to a moyo style, not from trying, but when you go for quick development and your opponent goes for territory, you end up with moyo. Then he invades your moyo and you fight. Gradually I developed a thick style, and now a miai-ish style. (I like to say that I have a mysterious style, because often my opponent can accomplish his objectives and still lose. )

[Solomon]

All I'll say is this: style isn't something you force upon yourself in any way, it's just how you play. If the way you play doesn't feel natural, then that's not your style.

[amnal]

When someone high approaches your komoku (and you want to play there and there aren't any special cases), you probably would attach under if you were territorial. If you were moyo, then an above attach or a loose pincer might be good. If you were fighting then you would do a close pincer.

I'm sure what Yilun Yang says is useful and worthwhile, but it does sound like it comes with many hidden traps. I believe it is very easy to misinterpret what the professional means by 'territorial style' or 'influence style'.

For instance, attaching under 'if you were territorial' is a very bad reason to do anything! You should attach under becuase it is a good move, not because you're trying to stick to a predetermined style. If there are *multiple* good moves, then you may gain an advantage by sticking to those which work togther as a 'style', and this may be the easiest way for amateurs to play.

Even here, it remains true that it is far from the only way; in almost any given situation, even fairly early in the opening, professionals quickly choose different moves. I'm sure some of these will be of conflicting styles in the eyes of one professional or the other, but that doesn't make them wrong.

It feels like taking Yilun Yang's quoted advice at purely face value is dangerous, not that it doesn't make sense, but nothing in Go is that simple

[tchan001]

You know your moyo style is not going to work very well when you let your opponent play the diagonal opening.

[gowan]

In my opinion Yang was talking about what is easiest to play well. I've noticed a lot of players in the ddk to weaker sdk range like to play san ren sei, a moyo/fighting oriented approach, but they don't understand how to convert their moyo into points. They often win but usually because their opponent doesn't understand how to handle the moyo either. This is not the way to get stronger., and might be one reason people get stuck at certain levels. As for fighting, these players fight when their groups are weak or thin and, usually, it's a crap shoot who wins. Again not a way to get stronger. From a higher level perspective you really have to be able to handle any "style" because it isn't always up to you how the game develops. There used to be a style evaluation test online created by Alexandre Dinerchtein and his summaries said that a flexible style was the best. You have to be able to play in the way that is best for the game you are in. You can have a plan at the start, but circumstances change depending on what your opponent does, and singlemindedly insisting on playing a certain way could easily be selfdefeating. Consistency is important. Changing horses in midstream, even if your horse is still moving well, is a bad idea. You'll probably fall into the water.