Go style and go personality

[Charles Matthews]

There is a huge amount said about these topics: the question I have is "can one formulate some concise things that are actually useful to typical amateurs?" The stuff of the colour commentator is not what a go coach needs to produce.

This came up when I wondering about a comment such as "you need to adapt your style to the position, rather than the position to your style". This says a few things.

Presumably one can only evolve a different go personality over time, while things like aggressive/defensive, disruptive/orthodox, speedy/thick, territorial/influence-seeking can be toggled ("modulated" would be a better way to express it) during the course of one game. And probably should be, within the limits of consistency.

For dan players, it should be possible to play any kind of position; so that taking a substandard route in order to stay in a comfort zone can be avoided. This is an aspect of strength, clearly, but I suppose is not always understood as such. Certainly strong players will accept a defensive task, if it is winning to do so.

The other thing to say is that advice about style intended to improve it should not, clearly, be interpreted as advice about personality and its defects. This kind of "bleeding over" is hazardous for the coach. I'm not conscious of discussions on how to give feedback on "style" that avoids the pitfalls.

[EdLee]

Hi Charles,

Interesting topic.

The other thing to say is that advice about style intended to improve it should not, clearly, be interpreted as advice about personality and its defects.

Very interesting.

I have, unfortunately, only some anecdotal evidence in this area.
Over the years, I've met a few people, in real life,
where some characteristics of their personality map directly, one to one,
to some aspects of their Go moves.
I wonder if others have also had this experience.

[Amelia]

Over the years, I've met a few people, in real life,
where some characteristics of their personality map directly, one to one,
to some aspects of their Go moves.
I wonder if others have also had this experience.

Oh god yes, and not always in a good way

When you play you make many decisions. Essentially each move is a decision. And the decisions we make, even when they sound quite rational to us, have a deep root in how we feel, how we react to situations. Doesn't matter if it's go, getting a new job, dealing with a personal crisis, building a house.

[Shako]

Over the years, I've met a few people, in real life,
where some characteristics of their personality map directly, one to one,
to some aspects of their Go moves.
I wonder if others have also had this experience.

Oh god yes, and not always in a good way

When you play you make many decisions. Essentially each move is a decision. And the decisions we make, even when they sound quite rational to us, have a deep root in how we feel, how we react to situations. Doesn't matter if it's go, getting a new job, dealing with a personal crisis, building a house.

...wanting too much, reacting badly to resistance, not taking others' views/wants into account enough, being modest and humble (or NOT!), finding it normal for others to show you when you are wrong....

[topazg]

I think there's a difference between adapting your style to a position and playing the board. People like O Meien, Takemiya Masaki, Go Seigen and Kato Masao would all I suspect approach the middle of the same game very differently strategically because they have such a variation in the way they play. However, fights kick off, weak groups appear (or whatever), and you are always then more or less forced to read and play what the board allows you to do.

I was reading an interesting bit of text from O Meien the other day talking about "Finite go" (where the outcomes are tangible and assessable by reading) and "Infinite go" (where the outcomes are too varied to get a simplistic output from reading, and instinct and feel take a bigger priority - I've paraphrased his definitions of these, but that's the best I could do).

My suspicion is that in areas of the game where finite go dominates, playing the board takes priority, and in areas of the game where infinite go dominates, people's style determine the flow and direction of the game (until, again, the reading specifics comes back - I suspect a typical high level pro-game is constantly see-sawing between the two)

EDIT: I've just realised how almost off-topic the post sounds, so I'll add "the point": I wonder if comments like the one in the OP are given to students who locally basically messed up and produced a clearly sub-optimal result. I assert that this isn't a matter of style, it's a matter of reading. Their style of play may be just fine, but if the board says "you have to play this way", that takes precedence.

[wineandgolover]

I think there's a difference between adapting your style to a position and playing the board. People like O Meien, Takemiya Masaki, Go Seigen and Kato Masao would all I suspect approach the middle of the same game very differently strategically because they have such a variation in the way they play. However, fights kick off, weak groups appear (or whatever), and you are always then more or less forced to read and play what the board allows you to do.

I was reading an interesting bit of text from O Meien the other day talking about "Finite go" (where the outcomes are tangible and assessable by reading) and "Infinite go" (where the outcomes are too varied to get a simplistic output from reading, and instinct and feel take a bigger priority - I've paraphrased his definitions of these, but that's the best I could do).

My suspicion is that in areas of the game where finite go dominates, playing the board takes priority, and in areas of the game where infinite go dominates, people's style determine the flow and direction of the game (until, again, the reading specifics comes back - I suspect a typical high level pro-game is constantly see-sawing between the two)

EDIT: I've just realised how almost off-topic the post sounds, so I'll add "the point": I wonder if comments like the one in the OP are given to students who locally basically messed up and produced a clearly sub-optimal result. I assert that this isn't a matter of style, it's a matter of reading. Their style of play may be just fine, but if the board says "you have to play this way", that takes precedence.

I read what you wrote as saying, "Don't use style as an excuse for a blunder." Not just limited to reading. For example, the decision to make a second weak group when your opponent is thick is often a mistake, not a "fast" style.

[John Fairbairn]

This came up when I wondering about a comment such as "you need to adapt your style to the position, rather than the position to your style". This says a few things.

I think the source of most problems is in the word "style". Too many amateurs appear to think it's a desirable accessory like an Armani suit. It's more fruitful probably to talk about "attitude" (taido) as Japanese pros do. Pros can have a style but amateurs have to learn the right attitude.

[Shako]

Finite Go vs Infinite Go, quite apart from giving exhilirating potential names for books, explains very simply why lower level players do things that seem a bit random...their (my!) finite horizon is so very very close. Sailing over that horizon to find adventure and excitement is virtually the whole of our game .....maybe that's why forcing moves are so reassuring and we tend to resolve tension whenever we can (Yeah I know, I should probably drop the 'we' and accept that I'm describing myself... )

[Charles Matthews]

This came up when I wondering about a comment such as "you need to adapt your style to the position, rather than the position to your style". This says a few things.

I think the source of most problems is in the word "style". Too many amateurs appear to think it's a desirable accessory like an Armani suit. It's more fruitful probably to talk about "attitude" (taido) as Japanese pros do. Pros can have a style but amateurs have to learn the right attitude.

Yes, in the quoted phrase "attitude" is if anything clearer. On the other hand, telling players that they need to change their attitude is walking directly into the coaching issue I mentioned, rather than trying to sneak round it.

I'm aware of the thing about "you're too weak to have a style". Amateurs are certainly strong enough to have a sort of "posture" in relation to the game. For example, conceding a point or so in the opening to get more of the game you want could be called a posture, and I'm sure pros would feel this is the wrong attitude. As in the often repeated type of comment "X will never really improve until s/he changes Y". Where the wrong attitude is "I'm going to win more games by Y". See discussion on this forum, more or less passim.

Said discussion indicates to me that hashing over once more these pro-type paternalistic comments is not the way to the concise, helpful remarks I was asking for. Or at least in some cases, where the pro view is "contentious" for the pragmatic amateur.

Maybe Seong-June Kim can take the lead: "Win a game that way, and you get weaker". Macfadyen (ages ago) was scathing about playing on on a position, miles behind, just in hope of a mistake from your opponent. That is about non-adaptation, clearly.

[Polama]

The other thing to say is that advice about style intended to improve it should not, clearly, be interpreted as advice about personality and its defects. This kind of "bleeding over" is hazardous for the coach. I'm not conscious of discussions on how to give feedback on "style" that avoids the pitfalls.

I agree that that bleed-over is very difficult to avoid. And if a player is adopting a fighting style it's likely that they in some way romanticize that aspect of the game, so saying "you're too fighty" comes across as a compliment. In cases like this, the indirect approach might be best. If they want a fight, play thickly and solidly and parry off the attacks. If they are territorial, push them down towards the second line. If they like moyo's, let them build giant moyos you live inside easily. Try to adapt your play so that their instinct is the wrong one, and then in the review point out all the good they could have obtained from alternative moves. They should get the idea on their own.

Amateurs are certainly strong enough to have a sort of "posture" in relation to the game. For example, conceding a point or so in the opening to get more of the game you want could be called a posture, and I'm sure pros would feel this is the wrong attitude.

Professionals certainly play that way, for example provoking a fight from an inferior position to avoid getting to yose against an endgame master. But at the top of your game and playing for money, it makes sense to play to your strengths.

On the other hand, as an amateur trying to improve, you should play to your weakness. If you have a poor endgame, you certainly shouldn't start fights to avoid it. You should play calmly so you can work on it. I think that's the biggest risk with amateur styles, that we use them as an excuse to avoid certain areas of the game. Professionals do too, but their matches are now more about winning then learning.

[gowan]

I believe that good pros can play any "style" well. Certainly some of them have predilections for certain types of game. Take Takemiya and moyo-oriented play. If you look at a lot of his games you'll find territorial play as well as moyo games. As for the board determining the game, I think that comes into effect even in the opening, even as early as fourth or fifth move. We see comments to the effect that opening moves are made with the endgame in mind. Surely this is related to some players' taking most of their time on the opening (Cho Chikun, Hashimoto Shoji, Kajiwara, etc.) Consistency is one area that could be related to personal attitude and style and which can be taught usefully.

[Charles Matthews]

Consistency is one area that could be related to personal attitude and style and which can be taught usefully.

To be clear, I was thinking of the type of consistency that doesn't leave some of your stones "stranded": misplaced as if you'd suddenly thought of something else you'd rather be doing.

[Kirby]

There is a huge amount said about these topics: the question I have is "can one formulate some concise things that are actually useful to typical amateurs?" The stuff of the colour commentator is not what a go coach needs to produce.

...

Recently, you told me that I had a "busy" go style. That advice was pretty concise, and I found it useful. Since it is such a concise statement, it's something I can easily try to remind myself of: "Okay, do I play A, B, or C?" Well, Charles said I was too busy, and 'A' seems like a 'busy option'. Is it really a good option here?"

Probably, it will take me some time to fix this, but at least I can work toward fixing my problem because of your concise advice.

[Bill Spight]

I started off emulating a fleet-footed style, but gradually ended up with a thick style of play. I used to tell my regular opponents just to let me have territory in the opening, because then I wouldn't know what to do, but they never did.

[Shaddy]

I don't like to refer to the way I play as a "style". I think there are just some mistakes I prefer to make right now, and they'll later be replaced by different ones.