Playing hyper-aggressive opponents

[schawipp]

EDIT: Think I see it now.

Yep, once it is mentioned it seems rather easy. The problem (where I'm also struggling) is to develop an instinct for weak positions in order to see such moves in an actual game. Excessive solving of tsumego and playing 9x9 games may be of some help. The next level would be to see such weaknesses but to keep them only as option within the process of achieving a bigger goal (that's something where I even struggle much more).

[Pio2001]

Hi,
I can't believe that both players left an empty corner for 70 moves !!

Nothing can be worth more than an empty corner. Some professional have developed alternative exotic moves that are worth the same as an empty corner, but there is no known move that is superior.

Which means that an easy way to deal with the first moves is to systematically ignore the answers of your opponent as long as there is an empty corner left.
Once you've played a stone near the last empty corner, you can think about answering the first approach move of your opponent.

Which means that all the moves from 2 to 70 are bad, except moves 7 (takes a second corner) and 15 (takes the third one), and maybe move 61, that secures the life of the black group. They should have been played around the lower right star point.

I can see a local mistake : 19 should be played at C15 in order to keep both white stones separated, and make the white stone B15 crawl on the second line, if she dares.

[Uberdude]

Hi,
I can't believe that both players left an empty corner for 70 moves !!

Nothing can be worth more than an empty corner. Some professional have developed alternative exotic moves that are worth the same as an empty corner, but there is no known move that is superior.

Which means that an easy way to deal with the first moves is to systematically ignore the answers of your opponent as long as there is an empty corner left.
Once you've played a stone near the last empty corner, you can think about answering the first approach move of your opponent.

Which means that all the moves from 2 to 70 are bad, except moves 7 (takes a second corner) and 15 (takes the third one), and maybe move 61, that secures the life of the black group. They should have been played around the lower right star point.

I can see a local mistake : 19 should be played at C15 in order to keep both white stones separated, and make the white stone B15 crawl on the second line, if she dares.

Errr, no, it is very common for the urgency and size of local situations to increase above the value of an empty corner. For example in this game around move 55 black could play and kill a big group worth 35 points or so (plus connection value), which is bigger than an empty corner. Even just concluding a joseki to make a group have a base instead of being a weak group that your opponent profits from attacking is often bigger than an empty corner. That's not to say there weren't good times in this game to take an empty corner, but it was far fewer than every move until move 70. You can see a similar idea in the environmental go game between Jujo Jiang and Rui Naiwei: there were extended periods of urgent middle-game fighting where neither took the points tokens instead of playing a move.

In fact move 7 I probably wouldn't take the empty corner but extend. It's such a silly position it's hard for me to say at a glance if I would say 7 in the empty corner is worse, but extend is certainly a good move and maybe the best on the board objectively. Playing against this opponent I would say it's a good idea to play it even if it isn't the best objectively because your eccentric opponent might crawl on the 2nd line giving you a nice wall (I know you shouldn't play bad moves hoping for your opponent to make a mistake, but this is a good move even if he tenukis as he should, and brilliant if he answers).

[Bill Spight]

In fact move 7 I probably wouldn't take the empty corner but extend.

Me, too.

It's such a silly position it's hard for me to say at a glance if I would say 7 in the empty corner is worse, but extend is certainly a good move and maybe the best on the board objectively.

I'll go out on a limb and say that. If White plays the hane where Black has the extension, then the Black keima stone does not look good. It looks like White made a double kakari and Black played strangely. See sgf file if that's not clear. (OC, it's clear to Uberdude, but maybe not to all of our readers. )



BTW, extending at illustrates why hyperaggressive players are my favorite opponents. You can wait for the overplay. Often, as here, the refutation is solid play which reduces the options for the opponent. Hyperaggressive players are generally good at seizing opportunities. Reducing their options can be effective against them.

[skydyr]

There are a couple more odd choices of move at and as well.

For the first, why not extend once at least? It prevents white getting an atari to climb out, at the least.

For the second, playing on top at C15 feels like the only move to me. Blocking on the side is just asking to be cut instead of being the one doing the cutting.

A lot of the time for weird moves, they are self punishing when you play a normal response, and nothing to worry about. It's when you try to get fancy that you get into trouble. If you are unable to capitalize on the gain made from playing a solid move, that's a separate issue, but you have to get to that point before you can claim it as the weakness in your game.

[Tapani]

Thank you all for the comments on my game. Was not expecting as many, just general advice on how to play them.

After some thinking, what I think I mean with "hyper-aggressive" are players who use the combination of four techniques to win and intimidate their opponents:

• Confuse: they play non-standard moves to get stone patterns that are unfamiliar to others. They have played those patterns a lot, so they know them and the tricks in them. The result is that their victims become unsure where to play (instincts not working fully), and in quick games, will result in mistakes by opponents.
• Tactics: Good reading ability, excellent at tesuji and tsumegos.
  They attack any weaknesses, sacrificing stones trying to provoke mistakes. If they cannot kill anything or see any confusing moves, they move to the closest area nearby, maybe hoping that the mess will spill back over to the area where they could no more make progress.
• Non-territorial: They do not try to make much territory "organically". Instead they try to attack stones and territory their opponents have. This means it is hard to make threats against them. Will rarely defend stones. What territory they have is created by kills or by staking out areas by attacking. There are seldom any large ko-threats against them (it is just a rubble of stones) which makes the life and death even more lethal. Kos tend to work in their favour.
  However it is possible to beat them even after losing many stones (beat one today despite losing 53 stones in captures!)
• Psychology: Being constantly under attack, getting your territory and stones involuntarily taken away has its mental toll. Also the attacker plays very fast, to add stress to their opponents. Over the board they tend to slam their stones onto the goban for additional intimidation.

Don't know if the above will help anyone in practice, just wanted to share the analysis

[mongus]

(beat one today despite losing 53 stones in captures!)

I would love to see this game!

[Bill Spight]

Thank you all for the comments on my game. Was not expecting as many, just general advice on how to play them.

After some thinking, what I think I mean with "hyper-aggressive" are players who use the combination of four techniques to win and intimidate their opponents:

When I was starting out I was pretty aggressive, so I thought I would see how well I fit your hyper-aggressive category back then.

• Confuse: they play non-standard moves to get stone patterns that are unfamiliar to others. They have played those patterns a lot, so they know them and the tricks in them. The result is that their victims become unsure where to play (instincts not working fully), and in quick games, will result in mistakes by opponents.
  
  I played non-standard moves because I did not know many standard moves.
• Tactics: Good reading ability, excellent at tesuji and tsumegos.
  They attack any weaknesses, sacrificing stones trying to provoke mistakes. If they cannot kill anything or see any confusing moves, they move to the closest area nearby, maybe hoping that the mess will spill back over to the area where they could no more make progress.
  
  My reading ability was so-so, and my tesuji and tsumego were terrible. I attacked any weaknesses and loved to sacrifice stones.
• Non-territorial: They do not try to make much territory "organically". Instead they try to attack stones and territory their opponents have. This means it is hard to make threats against them. Will rarely defend stones. What territory they have is created by kills or by staking out areas by attacking. There are seldom any large ko-threats against them (it is just a rubble of stones) which makes the life and death even more lethal. Kos tend to work in their favour.
  
  I did not, and still do not, have a territorial style. I rarely defended stones, but tried to throw them away. By throwing stones away I often made thickness, which generally forestalled ko threats, but I would not call what I made a rubble of stones.
• Psychology: Being constantly under attack, getting your territory and stones involuntarily taken away has its mental toll. Also the attacker plays very fast, to add stress to their opponents. Over the board they tend to slam their stones onto the goban for additional intimidation.
  
  I was a rather slow player, and certainly would not slap stones down, which is rude. As for any psychological advantage I may have enjoyed, I can't say.