Losing my grip on go

[jlt]

@kj01a: if I understand correctly, daal has been studying go for many years, read many books and done countless tsumegos, while from your post you seem to be newer than him. Studying go doesn't work for him anymore, but might work for you. However there are probably some common points regarding anxiety. Here are a few ideas that may or may not work:

• Don't play if you are not concentrated. Lack of concentration generates bad moves, which increase frustration.
• Choose time settings that are long enough, so that you have time to read/consider several options.
• If you are anxious about your rank, play some unrated games.
• If you are angry after having lost too many games, accept a challenge by a much weaker player. In principle you will win easily and this will alleviate your frustration.
• To end the day with a positive feeling, if possible disconnect from the server after a win. Don't try to finish the day with more wins than losses.
• Relax about your level. If every player who is below average thought "I suck at go, I should quit and find another activity", then after a while, there wouldn't be anybody left except LeelaZero who doesn't care about losing.
• Go (like music or sports) can be fun at any level, even if you lose a game after a difficult battle.

[Tami]

This is not intended to derail the thread, but I wanted to make a few cautionary remarks about using KGS ranks as a yardstick for progress, since it can be a contributory factor when one gets frustrated with apparent lack of improvement.

The first thing to do is to accept the KGS system is never going to change. It is as it is, whether you like it or not. So, accepting that, it's better to try to understand as best as possible how it works and what that means for you.

It took me a long time to come to this, but a very useful way of thinking is to think of your KGS rank as consisting of two elements: your kyu/dan rank, and your rating. Your rating is what your graph represents, while your rank might be thought of as a numerical band.

Let's suppose you're an 8k trying to become 7k. I have no idea how kyu ranks relate to chess Elo, but for sake of argument let's say that 8k corresponds to the band 1300 to 1400.

Now, our 8k works hard at his/her go and becomes more skilful, and starts to win a lot of games at 8k. However, they find that they can simply never seem to cross that line into the promised land. They become frustrated and either stop trying so hard or they go on tilt and set themselves back.

The problem for 8k-san (Mr/Ms 8 Kyu) is that while they might be playing games with other 8ks and winning a high percentage of them, they are not taking into account the graph.

If 8k-san is close to the tripping point from one grade to another, it's like being in the 1390s. However, on average, if they stick to playing even games with other 8ks, what they may well be doing is playing even with players who are 1350 on average. This is important, because the server will on that basis expect them to win more often, and therefore penalise loss more heavily than it rewards winning. (And, even if they are playing games with players of other ranks, the same principle will basically apply.)

On the other hand, if on one fine morning 8k-san finally does it, and becomes 7k-san, then they may find it surprisingly easy to hold on to that, because being a mere 1401 (in graph terms), they will be expected to lose most of their even games with other 7ks, and so will receive more of a reward for winning than for losing.

In other words, it's set up so that if there is a disparity between "rating" as shown by the graph, then the players will be betting with uneven stakes.

A further wrinkle is that KGS also includes, I believe, your games from the last 90 days in the calculation, so that if you are indeed making progress, you will be wearing ankle weights from your earlier, less enlightened days.

But the most problematic complication of all is that your graph is not affected only by your own performance. Instead, your own past opponents' future performance will have an effect on its trajectory. So, in the worst-case scenario, if you happen to lose to somebody somewhat lower down the graph than you, not only do you suffer from the uneven stakes effect described above, but also there is the danger that perhaps your conqueror may then go on tilt for some reason and drag you down still further. Of course, it is quite possible for the reverse to happen, and for one of your vanquished opponents to go on an epic winning streak, thereby doing you a nice favour, but in my experience it is far, far, far easier to go on tilt than to have an epic winning streak.

And so, if you were trying to measure your improvement by your KGS rank and were a little hazy about these things, it is quite understandable how it might be an inadvertent source of additional frustration to you. I believe the system was designed for stability, and not as a progress-measuring tool, and it certainly succeeds in that goal.

One way that you could deal with it is simply to check your prospective opponents' graphs before playing with them. If it looks about the same as yours, then you can play an even game knowing that you're not "risking" any more than the other person.

And, at the end of the day, it is only a game. If you feel that you are playing well, and you're taking more pleasure out of the game as a result of studying and practising, then who cares about the number after your account name?

[Monadology]

[*] To end the day with a positive feeling, if possible disconnect from the server after a win. Don't try to finish the day with more wins than losses.

As the flip-side of this, don't keep chasing a win if you lose. You may very well go on tilt and make things worse. I generally will force myself to stop playing, depending on how I am feeling on a particular day, after the first or second loss, especially if I feel myself getting that 'Just one more game so I can end with a win' impulse. If I want to keep playing because I"m having fun, it's a different matter.

Different approaches to this may work better or worse for different people. One downside of stopping after one or two losses is you play less Go in a given day, and will probably improve at a slower rate. But, I find it has kept me playing Go more regularly than I otherwise would, since I have fewer negative emotions associated with playing (during periods of time where I actually have the time to play it regularly). Also, even though you play less, you expose yourself to the unpleasant experience (losing) in more manageable chunks and leave yourself time and emotional energy to adjust to taking them better (vs playing a ton, losing a ton, and being really angry with yourself and having to go to bed or get work done or wahtever), which I suspect in the long run will make it easier to manage emotions in the face of losses.

[Tami]

It's much easier said than done to let go of the "one win before I stop" attitude. In this respect, I think the ideas presented in The Chimp Paradox by Steve Peters are very helpful.

Put very simply, the brain is a system of three main decision-making entities (limbic, parietal and frontal lobes). The book presents them to us as "Chimp" (the "Bonzo" in the quote daal uses from me), the "Computer" and the "Human", respectively.

The Computer stores all of the automatically executed responses, skills and beliefs that we have. It is extremely fast and can run without our attending very much to it. It's the same thing, I believe, as Kahneman's System I.

The Chimp is a core part of the human brain, a remnant of our primitive ancestors. It offers very powerful drives and emotions because they are critical to survival. It gives us "gut feelings" and is very concerned with status, feeding and mating rights.

The Human is more evolved, and likes to think rationally.

Both the Chimp and the Human make heavy use of the Computer when they want to know how to act. The thorny thing is that the Chimp, being concerned with survival needs, is - just like a real chimpanzee - rather faster and much stronger than the human. When the Chimp gets upset, it has a tendency to take over, and make irrational decisions. The human inside you of course knows these decisions are crazy, but it is overwhelmed by the superior strength of the simian.

In a games context, losing is irrationally perceived by the Chimp as a loss of status - and hence demotion in the troop. If the loss was caused by some matter of bad luck, such as a dropped Internet connection or a sudden distraction, then the Chimp is also annoyed at the lack of fairnesss of it all.

The Chimp urgently desires its status to be restored, and so will go all out to win the next game. Unfortunately, not being as smart as the Human, it is likely to misuse the knowledge of the game stored in the Computer, and thus make overplays and play very quickly in the hope of "bamboozling" the opponent. That does not work (very often) and so the tilt cycle begins.

What is the solution? I suggest this model of the mind can be used like this:

1) Get your "programming" sorted out: what is the purpose of playing go? Is it just to win or is it to play go well because it is a game worth playing well?
2) Be aware of the Chimp's desires and help it to understand that if it wants satisfaction, then it HAS to allow the Human to have control.

Being aware of where your emotions are coming from, and training yourself (i.e., programming the "computer" to tell Bonzo to trust the human) to play with reason and thought is, in my opinion, the key to getting the best out of yourself and enjoying games more.

You can even tell the Chimp that losing can also be a good thing, because it can provide the feedback necessary to become more skilful. The Chimp wants to be more skilful, and hence have a higher "status", and so it will accept that.

There is a wonderful episode of Hikaru no Go (around No. 67) in which Isumi travels to China in the wake of failing the pro exam the first time around. His breakthrough moment is realising that he can "look at himself in the third person" and control his emotions. In other words, he realises that he can program his "computer" to instruct the Chimp to let the human retain control, no matter how agitated it may feel. In other words, it's a skill that can be practised and mastered over time.

And, this brings us back to the beginning: it is a skill and it does take time to master. There is no shame in losing it sometimes and having a tilty session. The critical thing is knowing what has happened, and then trying again to handle the emotions better next time they appear.

By the way, I'm sure that one of the worst things that you can try to do is to suppress your emotions. No self-respecting monkey wants to be told to "shut it". Of course, you want to win, and of course losing is not as much fun as winning, but they're not the be all and end all. What I'm advocating is acknowledging powerful emotions, and helping that part of the brain to understand that if it wants to feel good, then it will get its wish far more often if it trusts the more reasoning part of the brain.

In the time since I read the book and began applying its ideas, I have indeed found that I can play without getting as agitated as before. Sometimes it works better than on other occasions, but the general trend is good. The game is fun and I'm seeing ways to enjoy myself with it that I did not have access to before, so I would say this advice works.

[Knotwilg]

What about go do you find enjoyable?

I've thought about this question some more, and I think that one thing I enjoy is getting a handle on something and applying it successfully. Regarding go, this is when I play moves with an intention that I understand, and that they turn out to have been an advantageous thing to do. This hasn't been happening much lately.

I think that if you only enjoy Go through playing to win, then you're going to experience a lot of frustration and anguish through your practice of the game.

I have a slightly different angle: if you want to win, you have to practice those things that increase your likelihood of winning.
Many players apply a certain practicing diet and subconsciously assume this is going to result in more wins. When it doesn't, they are frustrated.

This is why I asked daal: are you frustrated about your level of understanding or your level of winning? I sense it is the latter. When players battle this kind of frustration by increasing their level of understanding, their frustration will only grow.

Your advice is to enjoy something else than winning. My advice goes the opposite way: if you enjoy winning, then practice winning.

[Bill Spight]

Your advice is to enjoy something else than winning. My advice goes the opposite way: if you enjoy winning, then practice winning.

[Tryss]

My advice goes the opposite way: if you enjoy winning, then practice winning.

But even pro players don't win more than beginners.

[Kirby]

sandbagging ftw!

[jlt]

Sandbagging is not necessary. Some people are willing to play stronger players in order to improve, you just need to click on the challenge they create.

Playing teaching games can also bring some satisfaction, when you think "I didn't do too well lately, but at least my knowledge doesn't go to waste, I can be useful to other people".

Try to help others improve rather than only focusing about improving yourself...

[daal]

I think that if you only enjoy Go through playing to win, then you're going to experience a lot of frustration and anguish through your practice of the game.

I have a slightly different angle: if you want to win, you have to practice those things that increase your likelihood of winning.
Many players apply a certain practicing diet and subconsciously assume this is going to result in more wins. When it doesn't, they are frustrated.

This is why I asked daal: are you frustrated about your level of understanding or your level of winning? I sense it is the latter. When players battle this kind of frustration by increasing their level of understanding, their frustration will only grow.

Your advice is to enjoy something else than winning. My advice goes the opposite way: if you enjoy winning, then practice winning.

Ok, I think my problem is about understanding more than about winning. I admit, I don't handle losing very well, but what really gets under my skin and makes me feel so self-critical, is the feeling that after playing go for 10 years, I still don't know what I am doing. Obviously I have absorbed enough principles to play at a 5k level, but I am still constantly confronted by situations where I feel that I just don't have the basis to make a decision. I can see reasons for playing x or y, but I don't have the tools to say that one is better than the other. It just feels random. So whether I win or lose feels like a matter of luck. It didn't feel like this when I acquired my current level of understanding. I remember when a sentence in one of Robert Jasiek's books got me to 5k, but that was almost 5 years ago, and I have read plenty and studied plenty since then, but my level of understanding feels like it hasn't changed. I do expect that increasing my level of understanding would result in ranking up, but that is not necessarily a goal.

I also realize that a better attitude, as knotwilg suggests would also bring about a rank improvement, and while I agree that the right attitude is an important element of go skill, I don't think that acquiring it or improving it would assuage my current woes. Blunders suck, and coming back after losing a fight is great, but what I really want is more of a sense that I know what I am doing. A few of you have suggested that I get a teacher or a mentor, I think this is a good idea.

[Tami]

Ok, I think my problem is about understanding more than about winning. I admit, I don't handle losing very well, but what really gets under my skin and makes me feel so self-critical, is the feeling that after playing go for 10 years, I still don't know what I am doing. Obviously I have absorbed enough principles to play at a 5k level, but I am still constantly confronted by situations where I feel that I just don't have the basis to make a decision. I can see reasons for playing x or y, but I don't have the tools to say that one is better than the other. It just feels random. So whether I win or lose feels like a matter of luck. It didn't feel like this when I acquired my current level of understanding. I remember when a sentence in one of Robert Jasiek's books got me to 5k, but that was almost 5 years ago, and I have read plenty and studied plenty since then, but my level of understanding feels like it hasn't changed. I do expect that increasing my level of understanding would result in ranking up, but that is not necessarily a goal.

Could it be that you've reached the limit of how far you can go mainly relying on principles and general understanding? It could well be that at 5k most players will be familiar with proverbs and general advice, even if they don't always apply them, and the ones that aren't familiar will be quite good at fighting and tesuji in order to make up for it.

I say this because I noticed the same thing in chess: once you reach 1700 you can be more-or-less certain that anybody else you meet of 1700 or higher will be pretty well acquainted with their Nimzowitsch, etc., and you can't expect to increase your win rate against them just by reading Nimzo for the 19th time. Instead, you simply have to work through specific positions and become acquainted with concrete issues (I found the Russian concept of "priyomes" helpful in this, and I'm sure it has its analogue in go, but that's another discussion). In 2016, I went through Gelfer's Positional Chess Handbook and most of GM Rios's Chess Structures. Before that, I used to struggle at about 1800 on chess.com; now I consistently play at 1900+, so that approach has clearly done me some good.

Somebody else advised you to play only 4-4 corners, invade weird moves at 3-3 automatically, and so on. I really don't like criticising somebody else's advice here, but I have to say that I think it would harm you more than help you in the long run. Referring back to chess, again, there are many people who play only the Stonewall Attack or the (dreaded) London System with White and the King's Indian/Pirc with Black, because these are "universal openings" in which you can rattle off 7 or 8 moves hardly paying attention to oppo at all. Admittedly, such an approach kind of works in chess, but even there there eventually comes a point in the game where it takes on unique characteristics, and success will go to the player who is able to identify and play according to these concrete factors. Since go gets to the moment of uniqueness somewhat earlier, it seems very risky indeed to train yourself to do anything automatically.

Why don't you try studying some joseki carefully thinking about the context of each? For example, set up the first few moves of a pro game, then play out different joseki in one corner and see how the results relate to the other stones. Yang Yilun has a book out called Fundamental Principles of Go and he gives some really good examples in it.

But don't just be satisfied with general, skin-deep understanding. To improve, it simply won't be enough to say, for instance, "I'm building a framework on the side so I shall use a high approach"; you'll need also to look at alternatives and find out for yourself how they work out.

I'm in much the same boat as you: I've been at a sticking point for a while, and I have a great deal of sympathy with you. I believe, though, that sticking points can be broken. THINK and grow STRONG!

[Tami]

Ok, I think my problem is about understanding more than about winning. I admit, I don't handle losing very well, but what really gets under my skin and makes me feel so self-critical, is the feeling that after playing go for 10 years, I still don't know what I am doing. Obviously I have absorbed enough principles to play at a 5k level, but I am still constantly confronted by situations where I feel that I just don't have the basis to make a decision. I can see reasons for playing x or y, but I don't have the tools to say that one is better than the other. It just feels random. So whether I win or lose feels like a matter of luck. It didn't feel like this when I acquired my current level of understanding. I remember when a sentence in one of Robert Jasiek's books got me to 5k, but that was almost 5 years ago, and I have read plenty and studied plenty since then, but my level of understanding feels like it hasn't changed. I do expect that increasing my level of understanding would result in ranking up, but that is not necessarily a goal.

Could it be that you've reached the limit of how far you can go mainly relying on principles and general understanding? It could well be that at 5k most players will be familiar with proverbs and general advice, even if they don't always apply them, and the ones that aren't familiar will be quite good at fighting and tesuji in order to make up for it.

I say this because I noticed the same thing in chess: once you reach 1700 you can be more-or-less certain that anybody else you meet of 1700 or higher will be pretty well acquainted with their Nimzowitsch, etc., and you can't expect to increase your win rate against them just by reading Nimzo for the 19th time (for My System, substitute Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go). Instead, you simply have to work through specific positions and become acquainted with concrete issues (I found the Russian concept of "priyomes" helpful in this, and I'm sure it has its analogue in go, but that's another discussion). In 2016, I went through Gelfer's Positional Chess Handbook (almost entirely made up of positions and variations, with very little verbal commentary) and most of GM Rios's Chess Structures. Before that, I used to struggle at about 1800 on chess.com; now I consistently play at 1900+, so that approach has clearly done me some good.

Somebody else advised you to play only 4-4 corners, invade weird moves at 3-3 automatically, and so on. I really don't like criticising somebody else's advice here, but I have to say that I think it would harm you more than help you in the long run. Referring back to chess, again, there are many people who play only the Stonewall Attack or the (dreaded) London System with White and the King's Indian/Pirc with Black, because these are "universal openings" in which you can rattle off 7 or 8 moves hardly paying attention to oppo at all. Admittedly, such an approach kind of works in chess, but even there there eventually comes a point in the game where it takes on unique characteristics, and success will go to the player who is able to identify and play according to these concrete factors. Since go gets to the moment of uniqueness somewhat earlier, it seems very risky indeed to train yourself to do anything automatically.

Why don't you try studying some joseki carefully thinking about the context of each? For example, set up the first few moves of a pro game, then play out different joseki in one corner and see how the results relate to the other stones. Yang Yilun has a book out called Fundamental Principles of Go and he gives some really good examples in it.

But don't just be satisfied with general, skin-deep understanding. To improve, it simply won't be enough to say, for instance, "I'm building a framework on the side so I shall use a high approach"; you'll need also to look at alternatives and find out for yourself how they work out.

I'm in much the same boat as you: I've been at a sticking point for a while, and I have a great deal of sympathy with you. I believe, though, that sticking points can be broken. THINK and grow STRONG!

[Abyssinica]

I found out a long time ago that I don't really have the proper personality to play this game.

I recently looked back at the state of things after being gone for so long, and it's amazing how much widespread strong computer AI has spread after alphago. At this point, I'm only interested in seeing where it goes.

[paK0]

Brandon and Triton said on their stream that its apparently not uncommon for SDKs to get frustrated or even hateful of go.

Their advice was to just grind out 1000+ games, at some point it will fade.

Though this takes a massive amount of time and might just be stockholm syndrome .

Personally I think it is good advice, it works for me in a lot of hard video games (Dark Souls, Touhou) but it really comes down to weather or not the satisfaction of the payoff is worth the time investment.

[Abyssinica]

Brandon and Triton said on their stream that its apparently not uncommon for SDKs to get frustrated or even hateful of go.

Near the end, in 2015, I had so much anxiety every time I pressed automatch on kgs. I knew I needed to play, but while that button was spinning I could feel all the dread and adrenaline in my body until I cancelled it. Then I had to shout in anger when a match instantly popped up. I just thought after awhile that if I absoloutely hated the idea of playing, then it's not for me.