Why are "pre-researched" moves looked down upon?

[negapesuo]

I watch a lot of lectures made by pros and try to use them in games. These are vital points, trick plays, opening sequences, etc. I also try to use it in my games to solidify my grasp on it. But I've gotten some feedback online that many people don't like this, or look down on it.

One streamer that I was playing once said "I feel like he went out and learned it just to use it on people. I don't like it." Which is true, I guess... why else would you learn it?

Others online at other times also told me that they prefer to study tsumego instead and heighten their reading. It was almost as if I don't deserve to play the "pre-researched move" unless I get there using my own reading abilities. They also thought playing moves that are just shown by pros are not good or the "right" way to play. (I grasp the sequences that pros show me, but I'll admit I don't always have a grasp of every situation that may occur that they didn't cover).

It's not as if I neglect tsumego, but I also enjoy these lectures very much. I do get spoon-fed on what the best moves to play in certain situations are, so I'll admit that.

What are your opinions on people that do this?

Note: Just from the few responses, I get the same feeling from others online. There seems to be the idea that learning 'pre-researched" move equate to playing moves you don't understand entirely. I think taking moves you learn from pro lectures around for a spin is very different from "I saw this move from AI once so it must be good" type of attitude.

[SoDesuNe]

I guess, it's the same story as with studying the opening in chess.

You will get a higher rating short term because you will get a lot of "build order" wins. The downside comes when you start to rely on people playing the "wrong move" and when you stop thinking (reading) for yourself.

Copying moves is okay but the goal should be to develop an understanding, not playing "the professional's move".

[Bill Spight]

Three things:

1) I think it is rude to tell someone their play or approach is wrong unless you have been invited to offer a critique.

2) Moi, I have avoided playing by rote, or doing anything else that way.

3) Everybody is different. Vive la difference!

[Bantari]

I guess, it's the same story as with studying the opening in chess.

You will get a higher rating short term because you will get a lot of "build order" wins. The downside comes when you start to rely on people playing the "wrong move" and when you stop thinking (reading) for yourself.

I think this only applies when you memorize some trick plays which depend on the opponent falling for the trap.

In general, the problem with memorizing anything - even the correct sequence of moves offering the best possible outcome even if the opponent plays correctly, is that the opponent will often play some hare-brained move which is wrong but which you have no good answer for. And you will be completely out of your element. The opponent will have made the bad move, true, but he will be in a 'reading mode', predicting your responses and having some idea behind it. You will be caught in your 'I just play memorized sequence' mode, and might be caught completely off-guard. This can lead to disaster very fast. Both in go and in chess.

Copying moves is okay but the goal should be to develop an understanding, not playing "the professional's move".

This I Fully agree with! Learning moves is just a first step - and it might actually hurt your game unless you are willing to take the next step as well - reaching the understanding of the idea behind them moves. Learn ideas, not moves.

PS>
This reminds me of an old experience. I was a budding 1d in Germany, during the time of Takemiya beating everybody in sight, some time in the 80's I think. I was re-palying his games religiously and trying to style my play after him. I made this move once in a tournament game:

$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

By itself, this is not necessarily a bad move, but I lost this game badly. When I was later reviewing the game with stronger players, they asked me "Why did you play there?" - and the best I could say was "I saw Takemiya make this move once." I remember everybody smiled politely... it was during the time go players were still polite, long before the servers...

I lost that game because I had no idea what the move was all about and completely botched subsequent plays. Because, of course, my opponent did not play like Takemiya's opponent in the game I "learned". It was a harsh but important lesson.

So, my advice is - play moves you understand the idea behind. In long run, this will give you best results and will lead to faster progress. Even weaker moves backed by a solid idea are much better than perfect moves you just memorized. Play *your* moves, not somebody else's. Eventually, your moves will converge with pro moves, but the path to there lies through understanding, not through memorization or even "learning".

PS.PS>
I think these days this is an even more important advice - with people trying to imitate AI play when they follow completely different thought processes.

[Gomoto]

I hold my ground against Leela Zero for 100 moves in every game.

It gets hairy after move 101.

If somebody looks down on this way of playing, he is entitled to do so, but I dont care. It wins you some games against humans. Some people hate this style of playing and may even call it concrete go. But why create weaknesses in your positions if you know how to avoid it for the first 100 moves

[gowan]

In chess it is common for grandmasters to prepare for matches, and moves are identified in commentary as part of one or the other player's preparation. In go maztch players also prepare, even to the point of trying to cause trouble for their opponent by researching new moves in josekis like the avalance or taisha. No one criticizes this kind of thing. Trick moves, moves that are actually bad if the opponent answers correctly, may be considered sneaky but there's nothing wrong with trying them. You might lose because your opponent finds a refutation. And playing notoriously complicated joseki is dangerous because your opponent might deviate (probably will) from what you expect and your plan backfires because you are in an unfamiliar, risky situation.

[Bill Spight]

So, my advice is - play moves you understand the idea behind.

To which may I add this advice: Play moves you do not understand in order to increase your understanding of them.

[Bantari]

So, my advice is - play moves you understand the idea behind.

To which may I add this advice: Play moves you do not understand in order to increase your understanding of them.

Heh... I like it. Point taken.

Maybe I should have voiced it as follows instead:
Play moves you have AN idea behind, so you increase the understanding of THE idea behind.

I do not think playing moves you have absolutely no idea about is very productive. Bad idea behind a move is superior to no idea behind a move. If for no other reason that it usually leads to understanding why your idea is bad and you can replace it with good/better idea.

My idea: Go is a game of ideas more than it is a game of moves.

But I might be wrong... Its just an idea I have.

[Kirby]

One streamer that I was playing once said "I feel like he went out and learned it just to use it on people. I don't like it." Which is true, I guess... why else would you learn it?

Sounds like a sore loser to me. If what you studied works, play it. Some things like trick plays will lead to a wall eventually - your tricks might not work on your opponents, and you have to win by other means.

But given that you're aware of that, I'd say any move on the go board is game!

[Cassandra]

Play moves you have AN idea behind, so you increase the understanding of THE idea behind.

I do not think playing moves you have absolutely no idea about is very productive. Bad idea behind a move is superior to no idea behind a move. If for no other reason that it usually leads to understanding why your idea is bad and you can replace it with good/better idea.

A long, long time ago, I read some advices for replaying professional games, written by a female Japanese professional (whose name I forgot in the meantime).

One of these advices referred to replaying professional games that have NO commentaries.

In this case, it will foster your development, if you find YOUR reasoning for every move played. It does not matter whether YOUR reasoning is "correct" or "wrong", as long as YOU found a valid understanding for your own. Even a "wrong" one of YOUR reasonings will help you remembering these professional moves.

[jlt]

Everybody plays pre-researched moves, up to a certain point: openings , josekis. But some people may not like when

1) Game is over at move 40 because they answered incorrectly when opponent played a rare joseki, so they feel there was no game and they didn't learn anything useful since they will almost never encounter the joseki again.

2) The opponent plays trick moves.

Personally I don't care. If I lose it's my fault and not my opponent's.

[Uberdude]

Most trick plays require cooperation of both players to embark down the complicated lines rather than just being sprung on an unsuspecting opponent in a normal position, so the trickee usually has a choice like "hmm, this is a weird move, it looks like it asks for too much, do I attempt to punish it and get into a complicated fight, or accept a compromise which might be a slightly slack result but low risk of me messing up". For example if they play the taisha you can choose one of the dodge lines, or rather than large avalanche solid connect, or don't play a in https://senseis.xmp.net/?NineteenPointTrickPlay. If you choose the former and then get tricked, you have nothing to complain about IMO. Of course if you compromise maybe you lose a little, but the game is long and you'll have plenty of chances to play outside of pre-researched moves later to let your 'raw' skill decide the game.

[Kirby]

Another thought that came to mind: In AYD lectures, Inseong often says that he likes to play moves that annoy his opponent. So if you are annoying your opponent with a sequence you studied, perhaps you can view it as a sign of success

[Bki]

Trick plays can be insulting. Not all, but many are of the variety of "I'm playing a move that I know is objectively wrong because I think you're too stupid to answer properly". Though of course, some trick plays when refuted will still gives a position that is playable, if inferior, and that might lead to the sort of game you enjoy playing. In which case it's fair (doubly so if you're also playing the opponent so that you give him a position he doesn't enjoy, even if it's theoretically good for him).

For the other sorts of pre-researched moves, it might result in "fake strength", when the moves you make are backed not by reading, evaluation and experience, but by superficial and half-remembered knowledge. Such moves are bad because they don't really help you progress as a player.

If you can avoid both of those situations, then prepare all you want.

(Also, there's another factor in why unusual moves are frowned upon, when you play against someone who has really bad opening skill, and start looking down on him, but you forget he's around your rank for a reason and end up dying everywhere, or you fail to punish his greed. People generally feel like they didn't deserve their loss in such situation and blame the unusual moves.)

[Kirby]

Trick plays can be insulting. Not all, but many are of the variety of "I'm playing a move that I know is objectively wrong because I think you're too stupid to answer properly".

Why do you feel insulted? If you know the correct response, play the correct response. If the guy playing this keeps losing from it, he'll naturally be obliged to find better moves. This is not limited to trick plays. Suppose your opponent reads out a variation that seems to work, but in fact, it doesn't quite work. You know the refutation to that sequence that he read out. Is it insulting that he could think to play out a variation that is not working? Or he plays out a ladder that's not working - is that insulting? I don't understand the reason to find insult here.

Maybe it's because your opponent believes that he knows something that you don't. That's OK, isn't it? Show him that he's wrong.

For the other sorts of pre-researched moves, it might result in "fake strength", when the moves you make are backed not by reading, evaluation and experience, but by superficial and half-remembered knowledge. Such moves are bad because they don't really help you progress as a player.

Pre-research doesn't imply half-remembered knowledge. It could mean that you understand the nuances of a board position better than your opponent. Any sort of joseki study could fall into this category. If you win games by studying patterns, and go on to play stronger players, is that not progress as a player? Professional players do pre-research all the time on opening formations. In tournaments, it's good to start the game in familiar territory, so that you can focus your energy on the less-researchable aspects of the game.

Pre-researched moves are, in fact, a form of experience. By going over a position before the game, you gain experience about the nuances of that position. Similarly, by playing out a sequence in a real game, you also gain experience. It's nice to think that, as go players, we back all of our moves by precise consideration of all possible responses and sequences, without any sort of knowledge known beforehand. But I don't think that's the case. Otherwise, a player who just learned the rules would have the capability to beat an experienced player, since any additional knowledge is "superficial".