(Too) Agressive?

[Calvin Clark]

$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 2 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 2 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

I was told a story by someone whose opponent plopped down , and started introducing himself. "Hi, I'm from..." (Interrupting) "You don't have to tell me where you are from."

The answer is supposed to be Korea. But from my experience I would be as likely to say: Tuscon.

[John Fairbairn]

Well, white 2 here is a simple example of a move I would call aggressive, active, direct or confrontational. It's not a bad move, but is in-your-face move.

Whether it's a bad move or not is irrelevant. 'Aggressive' is being used about your attitude. Playing this way you are raising questions about your ability to see the wood for the trees. E.g. are you seeking short-term gratification over long-term potential improvement? Are you the tattooed owner of a pit-bull terrier with a studded collar, or would you like to move up in the world?

[Abyssinica]

Are you the tattooed owner of a pit-bull terrier with a studded collar, or would you like to move up in the world?

I don't understand this.

[Uberdude]

I think John is suggesting that early approach is about trying to look intimidating and scary, much like a tattoed pit-bull owner, and that a calmer approach is more likely to lead to improvement. Checking pro games I see Seo Bongsu was fond of that approach and he is known for his aggressive style. He got pretty far in the world and would have been the top Korean player were it not for Chon Hunhyun. I seem to recall he didn't have a pro (Japanese) teacher and was quite popular with amateurs for his brutish fighting.

[mhlepore]

Whether it's a bad move or not is irrelevant. 'Aggressive' is being used about your attitude. Playing this way you are raising questions about your ability to see the wood for the trees. E.g. are you seeking short-term gratification over long-term potential improvement? Are you the tattooed owner of a pit-bull terrier with a studded collar, or would you like to move up in the world?

If I ask you "Who is more aggressive - Choi Cheolhan or Lee Changho?", you will have an instant response. This doesn't mean the more aggressive pro is a bad player.

On the other hand, I remember Michael Redmond doing a game review of kyu players, and he said "these guys are aggressive, taking chances I would never dream of taking," clearly implying that the aggression is improper. (whether the kyu player even knows she is playing aggressively is another matter)

Perhaps we can say that when the term aggression is applied to lower level players, it usually is meant to point out a weakness in their game, but when we use the term with pros, it is meant to illustrate something about their style?

[wineandgolover]

I remember Michael Redmond doing a game review of kyu players, and he said "these guys are aggressive, taking chances I would never dream of taking," clearly implying that the aggression is improper. (whether the kyu player even knows she is playing aggressively is another matter)

Perhaps we can say that when the term aggression is applied to lower level players, it usually is meant to point out a weakness in their game, but when we use the term with pros, it is meant to illustrate something about their style?

Maybe that might be fair to apply to a Redmond commentary, but unreasonable in a broader sense.

I think your play is aggressive, Mr. 5-4, but that is hardly bad!

[sybob]

Well, white 2 here is a simple example of a move I would call aggressive, active, direct or confrontational. It's not a bad move, but is in-your-face move.

Sybob, was your opponent's comment that you were aggressive a criticism with either an implied or explicit "too"?

Yes. At least I took it that way.
Perhaps I was able later during the game to properly correct earlier (overly) agressive moves. That's why I considered it lucky wins: not winning on own strength, but being lucky the opponent made worse moves.

Edit/added: apart from the implied criticism though, there might also have been some sort of hidden compliment - like, as if they said "you made me think hard" (which I consider to be a compliment).

[sybob]

The original poster said s/he was interested in specific examples of overplays, and was not interested in pro or dan level games. While I'm not above hijacking a thread, I do wonder how useful the original poster is finding where this conversation has gone.

Um, this discussion is a bit like go itself.
I do not understand all aspects/arguments, at least at the moment, but they may help me improve understanding the game.
Also, generally, I welcome replies/answers/comments especially if I am the one who started a question or discussion, so thank you all for your posts.

[sybob]

Perhaps I can confuse people here some more.

I recently learned about the term 'kiai', something like fighting spirit.
In my view, I often play casually/friendly perhaps even passively. So, I thought perhaps I generally lack some kiai or fighting spirit, I don't know. Besides, I also do not like fighting games (bad at it, haha).
My lesson from this discussion is that there is a fine line between fighting spirit and (over-) aggressiveness.
It will take me much time and many games to understand and apply this distinction better.

[Cassandra]

I recently learned about the term 'kiai', something like fighting spirit.

I am afraid that the "standard" translation "fighting spirit" for 気合い = kiai neglects many facets of the original. Or might be understood as "fighting spirit" in the majority of (Western) cases, but not as "fighting spirit".

In a Japanese-English dictionary, I found

気 = ki =>
(1) spirit; mind; heart
(2) nature; disposition
(3) motivation; intention
(4) mood; feelings
(5) atmosphere; essence

合う = au =>
(1) to come together; to merge; to unite; to meet
(2) to fit; to match; to suit; to agree with; to be correct
(3) to be profitable; to be equitable
(4) to do ... to each other; to do ... together

Please note especially the meaning (4) for "au" (this is the verb, "ai" is the respective noun), which can be also found e.g. in "semeai" = fighting each other / "miai" = seeing together

So, the following might be a bit closer to the truth:

気合い = kiai =>
decisiveness, determination, encouragement (, fighting spirit)


I would like to assume that "kiai" does apply much more to playing a nobi, when your stone is in atari, than to play at 4-5 in response to your opponent's move at 4-4.

[Uberdude]

Going back to examples of aggressive play from kyu games, I had a look at kyu games posted for review here and picked one from http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=11997. The cut of move 31 I would describe as aggressive, cuts often are. Black probably saw that this cut separates white's upper string and they now only have 3 liberties and he wants to capture them. The problem with this cut is white can cut at j15 (as he does soon, but not before making some bad exchanges) and capture either the 2 or 3 stones first. Black could defend his cut by playing at k14 instead (a defensive rather than aggressive move), but that's not great either as then white can play o17 to defend his cut, make some eyespace and approach black's corner stone. Once white settles on the top side black's two stones at g/h15 are pretty worthless and not worth defending. So maybe it's better to cut and sacrifice them and try to build the upper-right corner; I honestly don't know the best way to continue in this awful position, it's like asking me whether I would rather be dragged over a giant cheese grater in a bath of vinegar or have my eyes gouged out with a red-hot poker.



And now for an example of good aggressive play from a pro. Move 93 (and indeed the peeps before it) I would describe as aggressive, it aims to attack or kill white's group by preventing it making 2 eyes on the edge. Black's other choice would be to seal it in in sente at m4, but that seal is not particularly valuable. As white's group in the lower left corner is not alive yet black plans to drive white out (note the locally awful broken shape, EdLee might have to shield his eyes), create a splitting attack in which he plays a move which is sente to kill one or other of the groups, and his plan works when he plays h7 for move 121, white defends the bigger lower middle group, and he kills the lower left (and the other group still has to struggle to run away).

[John Fairbairn]

And now for an example of good aggressive play from a pro. Move 93 (and indeed the peeps before it) I would describe as aggressive, it aims to attack or kill white's group by preventing it making 2 eyes on the edge. Black's other choice would be to seal it in in sente at m4,

FWIW I find the use of 'aggressive' here misplaced. Black's sealing move is aggressive by exactly the same definition you give.

The important point is exactly the one you highlight - Black goes for a long-term splitting attack. But surely the most interesting aspect of that is that he is going for the longer term, or the wider scale and so an adjective that pinpoints that is more appropriate? As first approximations, 'bold', 'daring', 'risky', 'optimistic' would all come to my mind well ahead of 'aggressive'.

On top of that, Black is ultimately just responding to White 66 - and that is a candidate for a (too) aggressive move. Black has little choice but to play forcefully and give White laldy once White has turned the game into a scrimmage. You don't normally call the defender aggressive.

I'm not saying your usage is exactly wrong, but the word is being overused and has lost its sheen. It reminds me of schooldays when teachers put big red splodges on essays every time the word 'nice' was similarly overused.

[EdLee]

note the locally awful broken shape, EdLee might have to shield his eyes

Au contraire, broken shapes in pro games can be fun.

In this blitz game, Mr. Iyama allowed some ugly-looking local shape; in that case, he was already in a bad situation and had to try something (thus the broken shape). Unfortunately for him, even those measures couldn't help him turn the tide. The funny shape didn't work that time.

...or have my eyes gouged out with a red-hot poker.

Since you mentioned eye gouging -- for educational purposes, perhaps another time, and in another thread, you could show some broken shapes that you felt hurt your eyes. As well as good broken shapes. Many members could enjoy (and learn from) the contrasting examples.

[Joelnelsonb]

I would describe aggressive as playing in such as way that leaves holes in your infrastructure. The idea is that you hit your opponents weaknesses so hard and fast that he never has time to come back and hit yours. Compare this to conservative where you take more of a "slow and steady wins the race" mentality. This doesn't mean that an aggressive player never plays defensive moves, nor does it imply that a conservative player never takes risks; they're just generalities. I would also say that neither could be described as better than the other, it's still about how well you play them.

[Charles Matthews]

My lesson from this discussion is that there is a fine line between fighting spirit and (over-) aggressiveness.
It will take me much time and many games to understand and apply this distinction better.

I try, as a coach, never to tell anyone they are "too aggressive". I think of go as a highly aggressive game.

I don't know how many times I have given nine stones, but it must be into four figures. White in a nine-stone game has to be aggressive, but I would see that more as reducing the opponent's lead by one point every time I play, which is about the pace you have to set.

There is an obvious possible confusion with playing in such a way as to get into positions you don't understand, in the hope that the opponent understands them even less. I.e. being a chancer. I think at the 1 dan or 2 dan level it becomes clear that people with that element in their style are inconsistent. It's another story, but what they do about it is (roughly) diverge from the ideas underlying pro play, bypassing "fundamentals".