I wonder if the differences are mainly in:

how well they keep sente

how well they judge urgent and big vs small points

if they make (any or effective) use of or counters to sabaki and tesuji

how many moves they read ahead

What do you guys think?

Reading ability.

_________________
be immersed

Well, first of all, 10k and 5k are not that far apart. 5k and 1d are quite aways apart. So it is hard to say what the difference is between the former, but for the latter it is, in my opinion, a combination of lots of small traits which all add up. Take any two players of those strengths at random and I think it may be hard to say specifically which ones the dan players is better at. But make a list of topics and you can be sure that the dan player is better in the vast majority of them.

Sorry to not be more specific but I just don't think you can easily say it is one or more specific things. I've seen dan players who were bad at fuseki and great at fighting and seen ones who are good at fuseki and can barely hang onto the lead they always get in the opening.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

To start with, I think there are three main strengths in go, the most important goes first.

(1) Good instinct in shape and haengma; you have to branch out worthless moves and focus on moves that seem to make sense.
(2) Reading, so keeping the variation you want further enough correctly with your brain in order to verify what you saw with (1).
(3) Calculating the territorial value of each variation. You also need to somehow translate the potential values (thickness/influence) in points.

With (1) you can win any beginner easily and surprise a lot on how they could even think about playing that. With (2) you'll make less mistakes and will start to see the tiny cracks in your or your opponents shapes, so that you can defend or exploit it. With (3) you now know how to win a game without fighting.

And quite often, (1), (2), and (3) combined is just called "reading".

10 kyus are just better than 20 kyus. 5 kyus have some sense with (1), but have a lot of problems with (2). 1 dans know a bit about (1), but they make mistakes often in (2). They know how to play moves that look good enough, but often miss some important subtleties and lose a lot. Some 1 dans are good with (3).

Of course there are many different kinds of people playing go, and this is just my wide general feeling that I got while playing online go up from the very bottom.

I can sum it up in 1 word: efficiency

I logged on KGS, found two 10k players who were playing, picked one at random, looked through his or her game history, and picked out a random game. I then took the first 50 moves from that game and put it below:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Position at move 50
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . X . X O X . X X O O |
$$ | . . X O . O . . O . X . O X X O O . . |
$$ | . X O . O . . . . O O X . X O O . O . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Look at the bottom White corner as an example. With 8 stones, W made 8 points of territory, or 1 point per move before move 50. This was because, as early as move 16, W played first line endgame moves that were more beneficial for B than W:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Moves 16 to 20
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 2 |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . O . . X X O 1 |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . X . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 25 to 28
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . O X . X X O O |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . O X 1 O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O 4 . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now I do the same for two 4k players:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Position at move 50
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O X X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X X X . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X O O X . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O X X O O X O . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Again, we can see inefficiencies on both sides, but perhaps more so for Black. Especially because of exchanges such as:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 45 to 46
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O X X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X X X . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X X X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X O O 1 . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O X X O O X . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 47 to 49
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O X X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X X X . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X O O X . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O X X O O X . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

No dan player would ever try to make life like this. And what about move 39? It is slack and hard to find the purpose behind it, again an inefficient move:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 39 to 39
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O X X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X , X X X . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X X O O X . . . . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This was just looking at the first 50 moves. In dan games, it would be harder to find them especially when they play textbook joseki sequences, but the idea is still the same. The stronger you get, the more efficiency or value you gain out of each stone you play on the board. And of course, the best way to do that is by reading first and foremost, followed by sense of shape, directional sense, etc. Because why do people try to go for good shape? Because good shapes are efficient shapes. This is also why some people do tewari analysis, although personally I don't do this so much because it's easy to be dishonest and fool yourself with it.

I don't think there is an answer to your question, other than 5 stones of strength. There are players of all kinds of strengths and weaknesses at all different ranks. One 5k player may be really good at theoretical go knowledge , but a weak reader. Another may be really good at fighting but has no ability in peaceful games, so all of his games end up with a giant kill (or a giant death). There are limitless combinations of specific go skills that can make a player a given strength, so trying to quantify a strength is a bit of a futile effort.

Everyone has there own paths, but here's roughly what I felt like I knew better at each level. Of course there was general reading improvements and joseki knowledge and the like, but I also found that most of the jumps, especially the early ones, coincided with a deeper strategic understanding as well.

30 kyu - focused on individual stones, got overwhelmed by the complexity

25 kyu - focused on the empty regions between stones, "this is mine, that's his". I thought living was all about making sure your empty regions were big enough.

20 kyu - focused on sente and gote. At this level just avoiding small gote moves was enough to win.

15 kyu - focused on groups, paid close attention to cuts and connections, started to understand invasions

10 kyu - Got excited about aji. Letting the forcing moves build up and then doing something with them. started thinking about shape, how to induce aji for later

5 kyu - No real new concepts around here, just a reduction of blunders and more accurate reading. If I set out to lean on a group and make some territory, it wouldn't usually devolve into trying to live small in the corner any more.

1 kyu - This region of improvement was mostly about considering more options. Instead of just "what move do I think is best?" It's more "What are my options here? Can I sacrifice, live, escape, tenuki, etc.?" This was sort of a synthesis of the earlier steps, where I'd learned to think about these options as I was coming up, and then around 5 kyu I got consistent enough to actually execute a goal consistently, so now I could focus on what that goal should be in this case.

In my 5-6k viewpoint:

10k to 5k: a bus stop
5k to 1d: an ocean

I think one of the major differences between a 5k and a 1d is a greater appreciation of the disadvantages of weak groups, and conversely how to profit from attacking them. A 1d can beat a 5k in their sleep by just allowing the 5k to make weak groups and then naturally profit from the attacks. The classic 'Attack and Defence' from the elementary go series is a great book for teaching these concepts.

The question has been asked dozens of times before but it's always fun to think about "the" answer.

I would say that

- up until 10 kyu players will still play "meaningless" moves, like playing inside territory for no reason, or playing a neutral point because the opponent just played there.
- up until 5k players are making meaningful moves but still many mistakes, like thinking an unsettled group is alive, or miscounting the number of liberties in a fight. This even happens at dan level but not as a rule.
- dan players play fairly meaningful moves (in the sense that a pro would say: I can see what you're trying to do there) and make not too many stupid mistakes but they still lack efficiency and mistake about the direction of play.

This is all very general and oversimplified an unfair and what not ... It depends on one's perspective. From my 1d-2d perspective a dan player is playing "normal" moves. Lower levels are making blatant mistakes in my eyes and higher levels are making very precise calculations or execute plans which I didn't think of.

More:

If you allow me to paraphrase:
… make really dumb mistakes

… begin making meaningful mistakes

… sometimes make really nice mistakes

I like that

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

From 10k to 5k I learned how to stop following my opponent and take sente. From 5k to my current level, I thought about when to play gote. When we first learn to attack we get a little attack happy and try to kill everything. After that, we learn to defend first and then attack. This isn't the biggest difference between ranks but just an additional idea to add the the already mentioned.

Haven't reached 1 dan yet. I noticed when analysing my games, that after 5 kyu, the mistakes of the opponents get subtler to exploit. Before, a game could swing +- 40 points in a blink, and often did. This got rarer in my experience. And if it happens it is usually game over.

As for me, reading depth is definitively better now than when I was 5 kyu. Apparently I also make more meaningful moves, because I remember my games a lot better (unless it is a handycap game against a 10 kyu).

_________________
If something sank it might be a treasure. And 2kyu advice is not necessarily Dan repertoire..