How should I begin studying Joseki?

[paK0]

Well yes, there are exceptions for everything, but from what I've heard better players say you should not study the opening beyond the basic principles until you are about the strength of a titled player.

I think it was in "rapid chess improvement" where the author had some amateur games analyzed by an engine. Generally the win probability was often somewhat even during the opening, but extremely jumpy during the middle game, which means this is the area where most mistakes happen. This is also in canon with the advice you get online if you as what to do to get better. The most common answer is always: Tactics.

But personally I'm a mediocre player at best and haven't played in quite some while, so players of other strengths may disagree^^

[moyoaji]

Chess openings are anything but simple. Sure, you can get by with general principles, but sometimes the move that violates the principles is the correct move.

I believe that the idea here is chess openings are simple compared to the rest of the game. I would tend to agree that both chess and go openings are easier to understand than the midgame. Neither of these games are simple at any point when compared to more basic games.

It's like when people say that go is to chess as chess is to tic tac toe: they are not implying that chess is simple. They are saying that go is just that much more complex.

[Suji]

Chess openings are anything but simple. Sure, you can get by with general principles, but sometimes the move that violates the principles is the correct move.

I believe that the idea here is chess openings are simple compared to the rest of the game. I would tend to agree that both chess and go openings are easier to understand than the midgame. Neither of these games are simple at any point when compared to more basic games.

It's like when people say that go is to chess as chess is to tic tac toe: they are not implying that chess is simple. They are saying that go is just that much more complex.

Fair enough.

[Joelnelsonb]

Certainly! the ultimate idea behind any opening is simple:

• attack the center,
• get all minor pieces into action,
• castle the king,
• bring forth the queen,
• centralize the rooks on open files etc.

( formatted a bit )

Hi Joel,

That's already FIVE+ items, versus "one ultimate idea".

( Perhaps you don't mean one ultimate idea, after all ? )

Fair enough, let me re simplify: Get all your pieces into the action. Just like in Go how you can't afford to make slow plays, in Chess you can't afford to have pieces doing nothing.

[EdLee]

let me re simplify: Get all your pieces into the action. Just like in Go how you can't afford to make slow plays, in Chess you can't afford to have pieces doing nothing.

Yes, of course, but this amounts to saying "play good moves".
( Notice, also, you don't really mean ALL your pieces in action, either; you want to wait or postpone certain pieces, like some pawns. Chess, like Go, is so full of exceptions... very, very difficult to come up with "one ultimate concept" )

If you're looking for or advocating "one ultimate" anything in Go or in chess, especially for beginners, it's very very tricky.

[shapenaji]

let me re simplify: Get all your pieces into the action. Just like in Go how you can't afford to make slow plays, in Chess you can't afford to have pieces doing nothing.

Yes, of course, but this amounts to saying "play good moves".
( Notice, also, you don't really mean ALL your pieces in action, either; you want to wait or postpone certain pieces, like some pawns. Chess, like Go, is so full of exceptions... very, very difficult to come up with "one ultimate concept" )

If you're looking for or advocating "one ultimate" anything in Go or in chess, especially for beginners, it's very very tricky.

I don't know, I think "All moves must have purpose, don't let stones become meaningless" is a pretty good over-arching theme.

[Bill Spight]

If there is one person for whom go was easy, it was Go Seigen. At his prime, he not only trounced his opponents, he did so while using much less time. One reason that so many joseki of 100 years ago look strange to us now has to do with the influence of Go Seigen. Even such a simple play as in the following diagram was his idea.

$$W Small Knight's Response
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 1 . .
$$ | . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Small Knight's Response
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 1 . .
$$ | . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Ironically, many people advise against studying Go Seigen's games. Too hard to understand, they say.

[John Fairbairn]

If there is one person for whom go was easy, it was Go Seigen. At his prime, he not only trounced his opponents, he did so while using much less time. One reason that so many joseki of 100 years ago look strange to us now has to do with the influence of Go Seigen. Even such a simple play as in the following diagram was his idea.

No, it wasn't his idea, though it was an artefact of the New Fuseki era. Go actually came to it rather late (c. 1938) and it was only in the 50s that he declared it the best response, so presumably until then everyone found it a bit difficult.

Ironically, many people advise against studying Go Seigen's games. Too hard to understand, they say.

But, yes, it seems senseless to deprive yourself of the best model to follow. However, is it not even stranger that those who turn to other players claim to do so because they can understand them. An amateur kyu or even dan can understand the play of a pro? Which mushrooms do the rest of need to buy?

[Bill Spight]

If there is one person for whom go was easy, it was Go Seigen. At his prime, he not only trounced his opponents, he did so while using much less time. One reason that so many joseki of 100 years ago look strange to us now has to do with the influence of Go Seigen. Even such a simple play as in the following diagram was his idea.

No, it wasn't his idea, though it was an artefact of the New Fuseki era. Go actually came to it rather late (c. 1938) and it was only in the 50s that he declared it the best response, so presumably until then everyone found it a bit difficult.

Thanks, John. As I recall, Takagawa credited Go Seigen with the following argument that the Small Knight's response was good, despite the fact that it had been considered inferior to the Large Knight's response for well over 1,000 years.

$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . B . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . W . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . B . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . W . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

The argument is that, starting from the position with and , an obviously equal position, is a good move.

Ironically, many people advise against studying Go Seigen's games. Too hard to understand, they say.

But, yes, it seems senseless to deprive yourself of the best model to follow. However, is it not even stranger that those who turn to other players claim to do so because they can understand them. An amateur kyu or even dan can understand the play of a pro? Which mushrooms do the rest of need to buy?

Psilocybin is good, I hear. And fly agaric in moderation, as long as it does not kill you.

[Mike Novack]

OK, the last example we have been looking at is one where a general principle of go analysis is involved. Determine the value of a play by considering "suppose the moves had been made in a different order".

And yes, when presented on that basis (by a top pro) even us lesser mortals can often then "see it". I'm not sure just looking at the choice of move made by the top pro helps weaker players as much ..... the why is important. Another strong player seeing the move (that he or she didn't consider) might be able to just see "of course".

[tekesta]

I would ask when I should start studying joseki, however, I've seen a lot of debate around this and feel like its the wrong way to think about it. I'm a Chess player. If a beginner asked me "when should I start studying openings?", I would instantly realize that the player has a flaw in his or her understanding of what an opening is. A better question is: how should I begin studying opening variations? Because there is no particular time in a player's progression that deems them "ready for openings". A player can learn an opening the first day they learn the game as long as they grasp the fundamental concepts involved instead of simple memorization of the moves. What's important is that you understand the strategy behind what you're actually doing so that you comprehend (if only on a basic level) what the reason is behind each and every move and are therefore ready to make variations as applicable. I have some Chess games where my opponent brings out his queen early on and it changes everything about my plan, but, being a seasoned player, I simply adjust and re-establish my strategy based on the dynamic of the present game; this is all that's needed at a beginners level to get into opening study. This being said, I don't feel like I should be waiting to achieve a specific kyu level or profound understanding of the game. I feel like I could greatly benefit from studying joseki from right where I am now as long as I'm focused on the ultimate concept and not the specific move-to-move. So, any suggestion on the best way to jump into the world of joseki and get the most applicable, practical benefit most efficiently?

Joseki do not influence the course of a game of Go as much as opening patterns do in Chess. Even if a joseki is correctly played, subsequent tactical developments can determine whether it was useful or not. Still, it pays to memorize and analyze some basic joseki patterns. They do arise in games of Go frequently, so you should be able to recognize when one can arise. This will allow you to control the outcome of a joseki exchange.

Joseki variations are played according to the board environment. That is, the relative positions of groups on the board at the time that the joseki is initiated. Sometimes, even non-joseki moves are played, if these are determined to lead to a better result.

To begin understanding joseki, you need to have a good command of tesuji and life & death. A joseki is basically an exchange that results in, say, corner territory for Black and outward influence for White, with either side having sente (since the side without sente has a defect in his formation that, unless repaired beforehand, his opponent can exploit later on in the game). Tesuji moves are often applied in joseki and, since the group of one side often ends up being surrounded and without any way of escape, life & death also applies.

I cannot stress enough replaying pro games. Even if a beginner cannot understand the reasoning behind the moves, he can watch and subconsciously memorize what happens in these games. Each replayed game is a bit of background information to help the beginner make educated guesses about any question pertaining to Go technique; game records are where it all comes together.

That being said, I have been mulling taking up Chess again after several years of hiatus. Will replaying, say, a collection of games by Paul Morphy and Alexander Alekhine be of any benefit, apart from playing games and doing puzzles?

[RobertJasiek]

To begin understanding joseki, you need to have a good command of tesuji [...]

All of the 20 listed "first important topics" in viewtopic.php?p=178241#p178241 are more important than tesuji when beginning to understand joseki. (Tesujis are more useful for other purposes or for intermediate and advanced joseki study.)

[i3ullseye]

An amateur kyu or even dan can understand the play of a pro? Which mushrooms do the rest of need to buy?

Being able to understand a play you see, versus coming to that idea yourself, are two very different things. If no one could ever understand the plays of those stronger than them, they would never improve.

[ez4u]

... As I recall, Takagawa credited Go Seigen with the following argument that the Small Knight's response was good, despite the fact that it had been considered inferior to the Large Knight's response for well over 1,000 years.

$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . B . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . W . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . B . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . W . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

The argument is that, starting from the position with and , an obviously equal position, is a good move...

$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . B .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . W . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . B .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . W . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

While 1 is a 'less good' play here because the original stones are not balanced? Remembering Go's dictum to 'give a little and take a lot', I have to say that indeed the master's lessons can be inscrutable at times.

[John Fairbairn]

An amateur kyu or even dan can understand the play of a pro? Which mushrooms do the rest of need to buy?

Being able to understand a play you see, versus coming to that idea yourself, are two very different things. If no one could ever understand the plays of those stronger than them, they would never improve.

"The play of a pro" and "a play" by a pro are very different things in English. All plays versus one play. If you truly understand all his plays you are surely a pro yourself. If you just think you understand them, well, commiserations may be in order...

Actually, it's obvious that even pros don't always understand all the plays of other pros, or even of themselves, otherwise we wouldn't get regular winners and losers.