I was thinking about studying some pro games from my GoGoD database so I started by looking at a list of styles for professional players that John Fairbairn gave at http://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalPlayersGoStyles. Then I noticed a link at the bottom to "What is your style?" test at http://style.baduk.org

According to the test, my "style" is flexible (more likely, clueless ) and the last sentence of the evaluation stated that "You may improve your Go by studying different things, but I suggest paying attention on yose and positional judgment." Now I have yet to study anything about endgames, so that part is certainly accurate. But I wonder how many different responses are programmed for this test--flexible, territorial, influence, etc.--and how specific advice is determined (or not).

In any case, I would be interested in hearing from others what style they were assigned and what study advice they were given.

I'm fairly sure flexible means you got all the questions right.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

I also recieved flexible.

"Your style is influence-oriented

I bet you enjoy your games, but it’s hard to keep high winning percentage by playing for moyos only.
You may know that it’s easier to save the groups, than to attack and kill them.
Try to pay more attention on getting territory. Study games, played by Kobayashi Koichi, Yu Bin, Lee Changho, Paek Yeonghun and follow their ideas."

This is interesting to me, in that I'm trying lately to get better at using influence, so I'm looking for plays that emphasize central thickness ... I'm still terrible.

Wow, I really wish that I had gotten a list of players!

I'm just a scrub, but my personal opinion is that amateurs think way too much about their "style". I've said this elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure the only word that describes my own style of go is "terrible". Just try to find the best move on the board. Sometimes that will be a territory move, sometimes an attacking move, sometimes a defending move. Usually you will play every kind of move at some point in each game.

Even Takemiya, who has one of the most distinctive styles in go, never described himself that way. He always said he played the moves that felt natural to him. Maybe part of the problem is that many (most?) beginners go through a phase of underestimating the importance of influence, ignoring it to take territory early. But I don't think that's really a "territorial style", I think that's just poor play (which I myself am often guilty of). If you tell yourself "oh I have a territorial style" maybe you are just giving yourself an excuse not to look for the best move.

"Amateurs are bad so they shouldn't focus on X or Y or think Z" type comments are the worst.

I think you mix up style/intention and execution.

Playing terrible is not really a style unless you actively try to make bad moves.

But do you think pros worry about what style they have?

Sure, good moves and bad moves are not "style" questions. But move choices are seldom that forced, else computers would already be champions at Go. I know that chess grandmasters definitely have various styles--there was a huge difference in the play of world champions Mikhail Tal and Tigran Petrosian--which seems to come from natural predilections. I cannot imagine that the same doesn't apply to Go players. And yes, sometimes it can be deliberate. I noticed a comment concerning a game from the recent Lee Sedol vs. Gu Li match where one of the players was playing in the other player's style. (Don't ask me to explain, cause I wouldn't know. LOL) In chess I recall how Garry Kasparov switched to a solid positional style midway through his first match with Anatoly Karpov after falling behind, or how Bobby Fischer switched his whole repertoire for his match with Boris Spassky.

Professionals play to put food on the table; amateurs do not. Because of that, amateurs are free to worry about whatever aspect of go in whatever they want without fear that they won't be able to eat the next day.


I hate hearing comments like "As a kyu/amateur, you shouldn't be focusing on X aspect of play because.."

Yeah no, screw that. I'm focusing on it because I like it and I can afford to like it. Fuseki is my favourite part of the game and yet I constantly hear from people, or possibly just the people in my circle of go playing friends, things like "Gain 2 points in fuseki lose 50 in middle game." That almost completely misses the point about studying which part you find the most interesting for the sake of interest.

Have you looked at the test? I'm not sure that any of the answers are absolutely "wrong." To put it another way, if only one answer is right for each position, then it seems like it would be a test of rank rather than style. But I am certainly not strong enough to make such distinctions.

I think labeling myself is dangerous, because it narrows my view of myself and makes me resistant to change. Let's say I decide I am a territorial player (maybe a website told me that I am). I am playing a game, and I have to decide at a key moment between a territorial move and an influence move. I think to myself "I am territorial, I like territory", and so I pick the territory move. My self-imposed view of my own go limited how I play the game.

Maybe you think that's silly, that you'd never let some label influence how you think. But it's not just in go: have you ever met someone who is always losing or forgetting things, and says "I'm just a forgetful person", as if it was an immutable part of who they are?

To be fair, the style website that started this thread explicitly encourages players to break out of their current style, and if you use that as encouragement to think about the game in a new way, great.

I've often heard from weaker players I try to help out that they wanted to play a certain move because they're trying xxx "style". It's fine to pick moves you like when there are a lot of good moves on the board. However, defending bad moves because of style is not going to help. I think that's what the post was getting at that I agree with. Worry more about identifying the good moves and not worry so much about style.

I agree with the sentiment that hobbies should be fun. That said, many of the things people say about themselves just are not true. For example, many people say they like fuseki (not you...other people I've met) but barely spend any of their game time on it.

As for style, it seems to me that only very strong players have a style of play that goes beyond being merely submissive or reckless in different ways. What I have seems closer to an entertaining combination of personal foibles, idiosyncrasies, and desires. If that can be considered a style, then I suppose that everyone has a unique style that is as varied as the human race is.

When I think style, I usually think of questions like these:

Do you like territory or influence better?
Do you like moyo games? Do you like fighting games?
Are you more agressive or passive?


In this sense, it's pretty obvious we all have "styles"

Oh, when I took the test a few years ago I was "flexible" which iirc says something like "you are the best playing style". But just now I got "influence" (fancy that).

That's what a stronger player told me; I'm inclined to believe them because at least some of the possible moves are abjectly wrong.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

Perhaps that's why it said I should study yose. LOL I know I picked small endgame moves in a couple positions just because I usually do so in reality. (I spent less than 10 seconds per move in order to just give the move I "felt.")

I took it just now and got 'very flexible'. I'm not sure what the difference is between that and flexible.

My style is "passive"... Weird, since I always try to attack and cut everything, and I play very influence oriented sometimes.