Teaching beginners oldschool or new AI joseki?

[schrody]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now. Back in the day, everything was much simpler. The first two joseki a beginner learned were usually the oldschool 3-3 invasion and the keima approach to a 4-4 stone followed by a slide. Now these two joseki are considered subpar and the new AI-approved variations are significantly more complex, so what do we do? I'm still leaning towards teaching the older variations because they are simpler and, for the most part, don't branch out as much as the newer ones. They also have fewer follow-ups. Still, I can't quite shake off that nagging feeling that I'm teaching people wrong things.

[Bill Spight]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now. Back in the day, everything was much simpler. The first two joseki a beginner learned were usually the oldschool 3-3 invasion and the keima approach to a 4-4 stone followed by a slide. Now these two joseki are considered subpar and the new AI-approved variations are significantly more complex, so what do we do? I'm still leaning towards teaching the older variations because they are simpler and, for the most part, don't branch out as much as the newer ones. They also have fewer follow-ups. Still, I can't quite shake off that nagging feeling that I'm teaching people wrong things.

Why teach beginners joseki at all? Do we teach babies to walk with crutches? I probably waited too late to study joseki, because of the proverb. I started at 4 kyu, but I didn't really study joseki until I was a dan player. Joseki narrow your vision, something that can hamper SDKs. OC, I picked up some joseki along the way, which happens naturally.

Moi, I would rather teach basic tesuji, basic life and death, and how to fill dame. Up to 10 kyu or so, beginners will often have the chance to turn the tables at the dame filling stage. Too often beginners learn not to fill the dame, and that it is impolite to invade at the end of the game.

OC, beginners should learn how to review their own games with AI.

[jlt]

The old school josekis have been played by pros until recently, so they can't be really bad.

[Boidhre]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now. Back in the day, everything was much simpler. The first two joseki a beginner learned were usually the oldschool 3-3 invasion and the keima approach to a 4-4 stone followed by a slide. Now these two joseki are considered subpar and the new AI-approved variations are significantly more complex, so what do we do? I'm still leaning towards teaching the older variations because they are simpler and, for the most part, don't branch out as much as the newer ones. They also have fewer follow-ups. Still, I can't quite shake off that nagging feeling that I'm teaching people wrong things.

I think the same logic applies as before, well I'm kinda interested in this and open to being wrong here. You teach them what they can understand and work with. The old 4-4 slide joseki wasn't really about teaching someone the joseki but the idea of making a base, splitting the corner, threatening the various follow ups etc. The meaning behind the moves was what you were teaching rather than the joseki itself per se. If you show a joseki to someone it's because it has some useful general concept to impart in it rather than this is something they should memorise.

E.g. When we put this on the board is our intention to get them to memorise the joseki or understand why White plays a? Memorising joseki is of dubious benefit for beginners but playing b instead of a here and asking them how they should respond is probably useful (ok maybe not at 20k but you get what I mean).

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . b X . |
$$ . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . a . |
$$ . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . b X . |
$$ . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . a . |
$$ . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------[/go]

If you can find some good teachable sequences in the new AI joseki you use them. Otherwise you don't introduce them to beginners for the same reason you didn't more complicated josekis before, the student won't be able to get much that is useful out of it.

[schrody]

I agree with Boidhre. I always teach them the rationale behind the moves in the hopes that they'll be able to apply such moves/rationale in other situations as well. The other reason is that at around 20k, the players usually find the 19X19 board overwhelmingly large. Providing them with a few set patterns helps them narrow down the board and makes them more confident.

I'm certainly not a fan of memorizing complex joseki and I try to make sure that the ones I choose to teach are appropriate for the strength of the player. For example, at 20k+ I often just introduce the idea of pincers and their function but don't really teach any specific joseki.

Joseki narrow your vision, something that can hamper SDKs.

Agreed to an extent. As a SDK I often played a joseki variation just because it was the only one I knew, even if it didn't fit the whole-board situation. However, I'm not sure if ignoring studying joseki altogether is the right solution. I'd be more in favour of helping players focus more on whole-board thinking and encouraging them to explore a variety of different moves.

Moi, I would rather teach basic tesuji, basic life and death, and how to fill dame. Up to 10 kyu or so, beginners will often have the chance to turn the tables at the dame filling stage. Too often beginners learn not to fill the dame, and that it is impolite to invade at the end of the game.

I agree that there's other important parts of the game that also need to be taught, including how to fill dame. I find that in person pretty much everyone gets taught that, but that's often not the case for players who only play online.

[Bill Spight]

If I were teaching the following joseki to DDKS, I would stop after .



Why? Take a look. There are (at least) 15 possible followups, including tenuki, each of which probably falls within the margin of error, certainly the margin of error for a DDK, any of which might be a good play in a particular whole board situation. This is a good point to allow the beginner's imagination to operate, and to let her start to develop her judgement.

Edit: I don't mean that I would restrict replies to the keima, either. As always, the personal factor is very important.

[bogiesan]

Teach them the new stuff; it will be old in a few months.

[MikeKyle]

Re 3-3: I really like this pattern as a starting point:

$$B
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 5 1 3 . . |
$$ . . . 4 2 . . |
$$ . 6 . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 5 1 3 . . |
$$ . . . 4 2 . . |
$$ . 6 . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------[/go]

Has a lot of interesting talking points around the possible follow ups, why the wall isn't so weak as you might think, the value of sente, pushing from behind/getting ahead..
I wouldn't go into much detail beyond this pattern unless it came up naturally.
If 5 is a hane, I would never say that that's wrong in a teaching game. I would say that it's a choice you can make and it has a lot going for it but it also leaves behind a small weakness in the shape of the wall that you should be aware of.
You get something but you also pay something - I think I say that a lot when discussing patterns with ddks.

[gennan]

I think the apparent simplicity of that variation is quite deceptive. It has so many subtleties, post-joseki tactics and large scale considerations. I feel it's not really suitable for weaker players.
So until about 15k, I usually focus on the double hane variation. It is easy to explain and understand in the local context, because it is pretty much a one-way street and it leads to both colors ending up with a settled group in a fairly clear and mostly even local result.

[gowan]

After how to capture and how to live, I think I would tell a real beginner about spreading out on the board and staying connected. It is painful to watch a real beginner playing nobi-nobi when the board is mostly empty. We know the saying that there is no joseki for a meijin and maybe we could amend that to include there is no joseki for beginners

[gennan]

The beginner range is quite large and diverse. I don't think one should teach joseki to novices at all.

I think there are several subcategories in the beginner category that shouldn't be conflated:

1. novice (45k - 35k): playing on 9x9, learning the rules, surrounding territory, connecting & cutting, 2 eyes, scoring the game
2. beginner (35k - 25k): playing on 13x13, defending territory, basic tactics: double atari, snap-back, net, ladder, false eyes, simple semeai, throw-in, nakade, seki
3. advanced beginner (25k - 15k): playing on 19x19, more tactics (tesuji), some strategy, mapping out territorial frameworks, attacking and defending groups, invading, heangma, simple common joseki

I don't think one should try to teach topics for group 3 to group 1.

[Knotwilg]

Here's a conversation between Jose Kiteacher, an amateur dan teaching at a club and Davy L'Sadvocate, a beginner with a sharp critical mind.

Jose: "The most common opening move is on the star point. Black plays here, on 4-4".
Davy: "What about playing deeper in the corner: on that ... 3-3 point"
Jose: "That's considered a little slow."
(Davy's critical mind is activated, taking no BS from anyone)
Jose: "The most common next move in that corner is White's 3-3 invasion"
(Jose shows modern joseki)
Davy: "So why is that a good move for White?"
Jose: "Because White gets territory, and Black influence, which is a little harder to play with. And White can do that and be the first to play in another area of the board."
Davy: "So if Black plays on 3-3 to start with, White can't go there anymore, to get this good result?"
Jose: "Err ... yes."
Davy: "So what happens if Black plays 3-3? What's White's answer?"
Jose: "Eh ... White can shoulder hit, for example" (shows traditional joseki)
Davy: "How can that be good? Black can ignore it and play in another area of the board, and still have that good result you just showed me?"
Jose: "Eh ..."

We can't confidently teach traditional or modern joseki to beginners. We hardly understand today's basic patterns ourselves, and since they've been evaluated as superior to old patterns, we didn't really understand those either.

[gennan]

From that conversation, I would guess that Davy is an advanced beginner, but that would depend on the number of games they have played.
Davy could also be an overteached novice, being exposed to more theory than they can really grasp and collapsing to any aggressive beginner they encounter in an actual game.

[Boidhre]

I can't really fathom using a term like "slow" with an opening move for a beginner. There's just *so* much in that single word that presumes so much more familiarity with the game than someone would have who is being showing the 4-4 move for the first time in a lesson.

[John Fairbairn]

We hardly understand today's basic patterns ourselves, and since they've been evaluated as superior to old patterns, we didn't really understand those either.

Go is usually touted as a game of pattern recognition. But over recent years I've become increasingly convinced that it's not. We play it as a game of pattern recognition because we superimpose patterns on it, and then of course we recognise those patterns. How very circular.

This is especially fatuous in the case of shapes/patterns like horse's neck. What possible use can a scene from the Godfather have on a go board? And it all applies as much to patterns that don't have a name.

It's all just pareidolia.

I've been struck by the fact that the old Chinese masters, who wrote extensively about go, had virtually zero named patterns (not even bamboo joints), and those that I can think of are just names of opening formations - just labels as opposed to go wisdom.

The old Japanese masters wrote very little, so we don't know how many pattern terms they really had, but it's pound to a penny that virtually every pattern term came from the 1920s when the Nihon Ki-in started publishing books for beginners (of whatever stamp), and so the game was dumbed down.

AI is a wake-up call. We need to dumb back up.