Can amateurs have their own style?

[Knotwilg]

Indeed, I think skill is a necessary condition to be able to speak of style. Otherwise, crashing and running out of gas would be a driving style, which I don't think they are or we reduce the word "style" to a very generic description of "a way of doing things without necessarily knowing what you're doing".

But amateurs have go skills.

That's like saying that if you're not a pro music player giving concerts, then you have no skill with your instrument.

Obviously, amateurs music players are more sloppy, makes more mistakes, etc. But they still have skill.

Do you understand "necessary condition"? And did you read my second line? I didn't say amateurs have no skill at all. I said that someone with no skill cannot have a style. Which means there is some skill required. Then I go on to say how much. I put the bar between ama and pro, which again doesn't mean ama has no skill, but ama doesn't have sufficient skill to have style. Now in the meantime, I have gotten softer in my opinion. But you turn around the logical arrow.

[daal]

For what it's worth, I am pretty sure that I don't have a style. Sometimes I try to play for influence, sometimes for territory. Sometimes I like to try out moves I've seen somewhere. If anything I do might be recognizable as a style, it would undoubtedly be due to my bad habits. See that inexplicable tenuki? See that extra stone to secure a safe group? That's my style. Bumbling, inconsistent or peculiar might be apt.

It makes sense that one really shouldn't call that a style though. Kirby's definition notwithstanding, style also has connotations of grace and class. Even if my play were recognizable, it would be better to speak of its characteristics than its style. As for pros, we might expect a few more positive adjectives: fearless, creative, deliberate for example. I imagine some amateurs might be able to pull this off on occasion, but can they do it consistently enough for it to be called their style? My feeling is that they probably have to have been playing for quite a while in order for that to be the case.

From Tami's description of what she's been doing, playing boldly for influence, scorning territory in order to get a good attack, I think we could call this a style, but I'm not sure whether it is her style yet. Perhaps it's just a hat that looks good on her. If she keeps wearing it, then it might really be her style.

[Kirby]

I guess people have their own feelings about words, so we can't use the dictionary as a source of meaning :-p

"bad style" has tons of google search results, so I suspect I'm not the only one that thinks "bad style" can be a thing

[Bill Spight]

we are driving round in circles now.

OK, I'll bite. {sigh}

I support Tami's position. There are good styles and adopting a good style that is a personal fit can help one to play better.

I agree with Knotwilg that trying to find your personal style is not a worthy goal.

Style can be an achievement. A style isn't.

IMO, not all pros have style. Some amateurs do.

For a long time here I avoided commenting on DDK games because I did not understand them. How could I make comments that they would understand? But then I saw some DDKs whose play made sense to me. They had a style, maybe even style. If you are a DDK and I have commented on your games, consider that a compliment to your playing style.

Having a good style is predictive of skill or of potential. To pat myself on the back, shortly before I went to my first national bridge tournament in the US, the best player in the local bridge club told me he liked my style. At the nationals I played with pickup partners in the second tier, or regionally rated events. They were huge events, with over 1,000 pairs or teams competing. I tied for 4th and 5th in the mixed pairs and tied for 4th to 9th in the Swiss teams (a two day event). Not a bad debut.

[Ian Butler]

That's my style. Bumbling, inconsistent or peculiar might be apt.

Amazing! The Bumbling Style. I want to make it mine
Sounds real nice. Because, let's face it, we're never going to be good enough to have any real style or class, so why not take pride in the Bumbling Style?

If you are a DDK and I have commented on your games, consider that a compliment to your playing style.

I very much do! You have commented on multiple of my DDK games, so I'm very happy to hear that
And I have also learned a lot from those comments

[gowan]

This page on Sensei's Library has brief descriptions of a the style of a number of well known pros: https://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalPlayersGoStyles Looking at how pros describe style of their own and other pros might help is deciding whether amateurs can have a style.

[sorin]

This page on Sensei's Library has brief descriptions of a the style of a number of well known pros: https://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalPlayersGoStyles Looking at how pros describe style of their own and other pros might help is deciding whether amateurs can have a style.

Most of the descriptions on that page seem too generic: who does not "fight tenaciously when behind"?

[Bantari]

Moving this discussion from Rikuge's study journal, Rikuge said he wanted to discover his style (later refined that to finding out what his strengths and weakness are, which I find a very laudible objective). I said, somewhat cheeky, that all of us have amateurish style. Ian Butler jumped in to say:

While you are probably right, and I've heard this said before, I don't quite agree with this. I feel even amateur/low/... players can have their own style of playing. Some naturally play for influence, some are very fight-oriented, some are actually very flexibel and will play to match their opponent. Some make the game more complex and profit from that, while others play simple but solidly... Obviously it's not good to pin down on a certain style as an amateur (or ever), you should always experiment, try out new things, look at the situation and handle it as required. But I feel style can be applied on other levels than the professionals' as well. I feel it's unfair to take style away from us just because we're not professional

Compare it to this: I am definitely not a professional guitar player, far from it. Yet in my amateur ways, I have a certain style of playing. A friend of mine is another guitar player, with a whole other style. Even though we're both amateurs, you can see (or rather, hear) the difference well enough.

I believe that also goes for Go. Perhaps I am mistaken completely. Or perhaps I have a different definition of the word "style".

Or maybe style at a low level is only a way to tell what weaknesses are in our play... (my style is solid -> don't play fast enough. my style is peaceful -> you can't fight well enough. I am a territorial player -> you don't know how to use influence)

On the analogy with music, I think it's flawed and I don't like analogies as a rhetoric device (well, they are good rethoric devices but rarely good arguments).

While professional go may be an art, and oriental culture has viewed Go as an art, I find Go to be a skill. At our level, the deficiencies in our skill outweigh any difference in style. When I'm reviewing games, I cannot figure out what someone's style is. Often their play is incoherent. When I review my games, I see the mistakes, not the style. I may have certain intentions or preferences, for example I prefer playing White because I think komi favors White in a game full of mistakes. I prefer 4-4 because I like to keep things simple in the opening. I would like to emulate Otake's thick play, making a difference in the endgame. That's as close as I get to "style". However, I'm sure Otake wouldn't recognize the least bit of his style in my games.

It's not entirely impossible. The infamous "Captain" on KGS had some sort of style, even if he was only 3-4 dan.

Yearning/pretending to have a "style" is a sign of putting the e before go. My guitar style is bad, my go style is bad, my table tennis style, though attacking oriented, is still quite bad ... The only activity in which I can probably claim to have a style, is my professional one.

That's my strong opinion. How about yours?

Very interesting. I used to hold the same position, still do, mostly. But I also thought about it over the years and now I think it might be more complex than I thought initially. My initial though was "Amateurs are too weak to have style. Weak pros, too."

Now I realize, this is a matter of perspective.

I am thinking about poker. When looking at a strong player, we can probably figure out his "style". We can look at different kinds of hands, and what the player usually does when holding these hands. We can discover a pattern. But this relies on one simple assumption - the player and I, we agree on which hands are "similar", or of the same type. For example - we both agree witch hand is weak and which is strong, and in what situation. Then we can match the usual behavior to the particular kind of hand and we can call it a "style".

Of course, the above is a gross oversimplification, but for the sake of this particular argument, it should be enough of an illustration.

Same in Go. We can tell about a player that "in this kind of position, he usually plays like that" - and this is his/her style.

Now, what if we evaluate positions (or poker hands) differently?

I am a pitifully weak poker player, but every now and then I find myself playing newbies, and my mind boggles. They fold strong hands, and they go all-in with weak ones. Then they do the opposite. How can this be any kind of "style"?? Its just crazy, inconsistent! Its like playing in crazy-town, can't predict anything, can't count on anything, each response is confusing. It is actually quite hard to play against that in poker - although in Go it is easier.

Then I catch myself thinking - for the newbie, their play is consistent, I just have to figure out why they evaluate hands differently than I do. Which hands do THEY think are weak, and which are strong, and the pattern will usually emerge.

Same with Go. I will usually play in a certain way in a specific kind of position. This is my "style". Problem is - a pro will look at all these specific positions and will put them in completely different categories, and my "style" will be no style at all, just chaos and confusion and stupidity. But to myself, or to a player close to my own level who evaluates positions similarly - my "style" will be real, and he will often be able to predict me, and disrupt me. Just like I can do to other players I know.

But to a pro, I am just an amateur, much too weak to have "style", making moves all over the place, without any rhyme or reason.

So - this way, I think "style" is a matter of perspective. You can see "style" of players above you (sometimes) and around you (usually), but not always of those lower than you. For top pros, obviously, most everybody is lower than them, so all they might see in our games are chaos, and no "style' at all. But this is only because our underlying organization is so different. From our perspective, our "styles" are crystal clear to ourselves.

What just occurred to me is that by observing pros games, maybe we should pay less attention to "style" (i.e. he played like this is that kind of position) - but more to why do the pros group and evaluate certain positions similarly and others not so. Might be nothing, but maybe we can learn something if we ask the question: Which positions look "similar" to a pro? I don't think I have ever heard this questions asked, let alone answered. Just thinking out lout here.

PS>
Or maybe "style" is something completely different and all I am saying is garbage.
Back to OP - Not sure the music comparison is appropriate here. But maybe it is. I KNOW I was never a good enough guitar player to have style. I just did the few things I knew how again and again, since this is all I knew. But is that "style"? I am not good enough to comment on this, just going by my gut feeling that guitar and Go is different wrt this topic.

[Tami]

I am a pitifully weak poker player, but every now and then I find myself playing newbies, and my mind boggles. They fold strong hands, and they go all-in with weak ones. Then they do the opposite. How can this be any kind of "style"?? Its just crazy, inconsistent! Its like playing in crazy-town, can't predict anything, can't count on anything, each response is confusing. It is actually quite hard to play against that in poker - although in Go it is easier.

Then I catch myself thinking - for the newbie, their play is consistent, I just have to figure out why they evaluate hands differently than I do. Which hands do THEY think are weak, and which are strong, and the pattern will usually emerge.

Same with Go. I will usually play in a certain way in a specific kind of position. This is my "style". Problem is - a pro will look at all these specific positions and will put them in completely different categories, and my "style" will be no style at all, just chaos and confusion and stupidity. But to myself, or to a player close to my own level who evaluates positions similarly - my "style" will be real, and he will often be able to predict me, and disrupt me. Just like I can do to other players I know.

But to a pro, I am just an amateur, much too weak to have "style", making moves all over the place, without any rhyme or reason.

The problem with this, in my view, is that you're guilty of a very laudable mistake: being too hard on yourself. I think the OP tends in that direction as well when evaluating his own play.

Yes, beginners can certainly be chaotic and without style. But surely it's not unreasonable to expect people to develop personal traits, preferences, strengths even (which would satisfy the stricter definitions of "style") as they progress in skill? The thing is, you're not a beginner in go. For sure, you're not a pro either, but that doesn't mean that your play is utterly terrible (i.e., without rhyme or reason).

I think my musical analogy was pretty good, if I might say so. Take Handel and the West Gallery Music. From Handel's POV, WGM would probably have been horrible; but I am sure he would have recognised the imitations of his style within it. Perhaps if he were feeling generous and a WG musician paid him well enough, he might even have taught them how to keep the style, but leave out the mistakes.

And so with go. I used to take lessons with Alexandr Dinerchtein. He encouraged me to keep to what he called my "active style"; and tried to help me remove my faults.

Yes, we are indeed weak compared to the pros. But we also have passages of playing quite decently. In those passages, we can have style. I have always espoused the creed of practising fundamentals, etc. I don't believe a self-flagellatory approach to learning go is very wise. Let's have more joie de vivre!

The L19 School of Go Study:

[Bill Spight]

This page on Sensei's Library has brief descriptions of a the style of a number of well known pros: https://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalPlayersGoStyles Looking at how pros describe style of their own and other pros might help is deciding whether amateurs can have a style.

Most of the descriptions on that page seem too generic: who does not "fight tenaciously when behind"?

We don't know the same people.

I used to know a fellow, a dan player who, in my view, did not have the usual technical ability of a dan player. However, he won a lot of games because he simply refused to lose them. His ferocious tenacity overcame his flaws.

[Elom]

Evolution of the Player (Pokemon Go edition)

Kyu: Proto-Style
Blind. Doesn't have the vision to form a coherent strategy, but feels about anyhow in the hope to find patterns. Dis iss a stail af raiting rait?
Pro perspective— doesn't know most of the consequences of most moves, so cannot employ a coherent strategy to reuse.

Dan: Semi-Style
One-eyed. Sees and employs basic grammar and syntax.
Pro perspective— Knows some of the consequences of some moves, so can employ a half-baked strategy repeatedly.

Pro/7d+: Style
Binocular. Sees and employs advanced grammar and syntax, and has extensive dormant and active vocabularies.
Pro perspective—
Actually knows what moves mean, so can employ a true strategy consistently across many games.

[Ian Butler]

Even though I'm quoted in the OP as saying even lowly kyu players can have a style, I must change my vote
I now start to see the other arguments as true. And the main difference between the two "sides" is probably the definition of the word 'style'.

For me, the solution is probably this:

- If you play Go as a true game, meaning you play to win, play to find the best moves. You can have no style. You are solving the game and try to find the best move in every game, every position. I'm not even sure a pro can afford to have a style if he wants to handle Go as this.
- However, if you adopt a style (and you can do at basically any level, I believe), you no longer play the game to your fullest potential. Instead you play as to try to win the game ACCORDING to that style.

And I start to think even professionals might fall into that trap often. In fact, you hear it a lot, that some Go legends had a certain style, but as time went by, they played less according to their own style, and played more... to find the best move? I guess.

Of course, the absolute top might get away with "having a style" because they are simply the strongest. The best move possible might not be played, but because their opponent is weaker anyway, any decent move might do for them.
I can play for influence against a 25 kyu when I want and win, even if the optimal move would be to invade a 3-3, or do whatever. But when I play someone my own level and I start to make influence when it's not good in that game, I'll lose.

So my opinion is now changed to: even pros with a style might be wrong and can be handicapped by their style if they identify with it and always play using their style.
Go as a game to win has only one style: find the best possible move.
But you can always adopt a style if you want. But then you're just playing another game

My 2 cents!

[gowan]

Couldn't there be situations in a game, possibly frequently, where different moves can be called "best"? In such a situation a thick move and a territorial move both could be equally "best". Then your style would be determined by what you choose to play.

[jlt]

@Ian Butler: You are assuming there is only one best move, or that only one style (AlphaZero style ?) is better than all other styles. This is not obvious.

[Tryss]

Even though I'm quoted in the OP as saying even lowly kyu players can have a style, I must change my vote
I now start to see the other arguments as true. And the main difference between the two "sides" is probably the definition of the word 'style'.

For me, the solution is probably this:

- If you play Go as a true game, meaning you play to win, play to find the best moves. You can have no style. You are solving the game and try to find the best move in every game, every position. I'm not even sure a pro can afford to have a style if he wants to handle Go as this.
- However, if you adopt a style (and you can do at basically any level, I believe), you no longer play the game to your fullest potential. Instead you play as to try to win the game ACCORDING to that style.

But here, you're assuming that a style is something conscious, something you must aim for, and not just a description of the particularities of your play.