It is currently Wed Apr 30, 2025 11:28 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #41 Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:58 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Yeah... I guess I will add that I cannot really deny that "strategy" - however you define it - is "bad" for you, unless you rely on it instead of reading.

I have some go books that are not problem books. To me, I never feel like I am learning anything when I read them. I'm just trusting what some other guy says.

I prefer to just do problems... I guess that's my main stance.

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #42 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:27 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 292
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 80
Rank: 1 kyu
KGS: LocoRon
...What?

Strategy is not bad for you. The scenario JB described had nothing to do with strategy, but rather failed tactics.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Seeking opinion about books
Post #43 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:25 am 
Tengen
User avatar

Posts: 4511
Location: Chatteris, UK
Liked others: 1589
Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
Kirby wrote:
I will reply to this one, though. You can achieve this by simply doing go problems. You don't need to read a theory book to tell you where the key points are.


You are missing the point somewhat though. The point is, you know where that key point is, and you don't read the rest because you don't have to. It doesn't make any difference whether that came from doing Go problems, or reading a book, it's still "go theory" where the weak point in a bulky five is, however you learned it.

I remember solving a 2d problem with a 3p Korean pro, and having spent about 30 minutes on it with a 6k, a 4k, and a 1k (I was 5k at the time), we finally were pretty sure we'd cracked it. We took it to the pro, figuring that he'd be able to to it without problems. He took less than 2 seconds and picked out the right first move and the not at all obvious to me second move. The point? He barely read a thing. His shape and tesuji awareness (both based on theory, even if it is theory supported by hours of practice) were strong enough that the two necessary moves just were completely obvious to him. The only thing he said he had to read were one or two possible unorthodox resistances to the second move, and when neither worked, it was obviously the solution.

Reading is rarely being able to visualise 80+ move sequences. It's normally reading the right first move, and then the right second move, and ignoring the other stuff that doesn't work. A lot of this knowledge can be acquired by theory, and honed by practice. Much as with carpentry, plumbing, electronics, or pretty much every knowledge+practical skill based pursuit - you can trial and error your way to the knowledge 1 fail at a time (with lots of flooded houses and broken bits of wood), or you can get your theory as strong as you can by studying the material, written by others who have the experience already, and also gain the experience and knowledge of a seasoned practitioner yourself by practicing at the same time (still with flooded houses and broken wood, but hopefully a bit less of each).

Otherwise, you are just reinventing the wheel from scratch each time.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Seeking opinion about books
Post #44 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:15 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
daniel_the_smith wrote:
Who says reading can't be global?


Then please tell me, a or b? And please show me the sequence that tells you why.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . a O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Strategically, the decision is relatively easy (of course after reading out both sequences). But I have no idea how I would continue to read globally to reach a conclusion without using strategic principles...

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #45 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:31 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1378
Location: wHam!lton, Aotearoa
Liked others: 253
Was liked: 105
I worry there is some confusion concerning semantics.


My 2 bits though

I think, in answer to what I think was the original question ; can you win despite normally (always?) getting a locally inferior result if your timing and direction are better?

Yes or no, depending on how much worse your reading is and how much worse their timing and direction are.


If you can't read your way out of a wet paper bag*, it's a problem. If you compulsively make weak groups next to your opponent's thickness, it's a problem.

*Or to reliably kill invasions that you know don't work in theory, for a more go-relevant situation.


If you don't get better at reading as your rank improves, your local results will get worse and worse. Similarly, if you keep choosing the wrong fights to pick, you will wonder why the game is such an uphill battle.

Of those two, though, in my experience improving reading takes longer but yields more impact.

Eh, I might as well continue this wall of text, to illustrate; I have a friend who read some book on how to play high Chinese and never lose, detailing many correct strategic decisions within that opening. However, if opposing moves were weird, he had a lot of trouble finding "refutations", as he did not strive to improve his own reading much (he is fixing that, these days). I think he plateau'd around 10k for that reason.

I'm in Aph (etc)'s camp, otherwise, though, just for the record.

Edit: By the way, if you already said one or more of the things I've written already, please consider this post a homage especially to you.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #46 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:03 am 
Tengen
User avatar

Posts: 4511
Location: Chatteris, UK
Liked others: 1589
Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
I have a question regarding the thread title:

strategy <> theory
tactics <> reading

Both strategy and tactics rely completely on the player's strength of both theory and reading. A debate about how best to emphasise time spent on strategy or tactics would look very different to a debate of time spent on theory or reading - Which is this thread supposed to be about?


This post by topazg was liked by: phrax
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #47 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:04 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Perhaps I am arguing for reading rather than "tactics". I sometimes associate go strategy with go theory. Maybe I'm the only one that does that. I never really called what I do in a game "tactics", either. I just think that reading is most important.

One thing that also comes to mind, though, is that I don't think that we have to separate what people seem to be describing as "tactics" and "strategy".

Part of your local reading should include the global outcome as well. So if you truly are reading well locally (is this what people mean by "tactically"?), you should get a good result globally as well.

I think that good reading cannot omit trying to get a locally good result - if this is what tactics are, and that good reading also cannot omit trying to get a globally good result.

Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?

So maybe my talk about how one's time is spent (doing problems or studying go theory) is a bit off topic. But aside from that, I believe that good reading does not require a distinction between "strategy" and "tactics".

_________________
be immersed


This post by Kirby was liked by: topazg
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Seeking opinion about books
Post #48 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:16 am 
Tengen
User avatar

Posts: 4511
Location: Chatteris, UK
Liked others: 1589
Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
flOvermind wrote:
daniel_the_smith wrote:
Who says reading can't be global?


Then please tell me, a or b? And please show me the sequence that tells you why.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . a O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Strategically, the decision is relatively easy (of course after reading out both sequences). But I have no idea how I would continue to read globally to reach a conclusion without using strategic principles...


Easy? I never find it easy :P

How about the next two slightly altered positions?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . a O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . a O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #49 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:45 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
Yeah, sure, you can make positions where it's not that easy to tell even strategically. But you completely missed my point, and you didn't answer my question ;)


This post by flOvermind was liked by: Joaz Banbeck
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #50 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:53 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 388
Location: Riverside CA
Liked others: 246
Was liked: 79
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
Kirby wrote:
Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?


Because it is very unhelpful not to make the distinction. The example you gave shows where it is most useful, in fact.

If someone came to you with a game of theirs and their tactics were excellent but they were not considering the whole board simply saying "Well, I suggest learning to read better" is far too vague.

On the other hand pointing out that the player's consideration of the whole board is lacking, pointing out mistakes in this regard, and suggesting problems or drills to help them improve that part of is game is much more helpful. And "strategy" is simply a shorthand way of referring to that kind of consideration.


Last edited by Monadology on Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #51 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:15 am 
Tengen
User avatar

Posts: 4511
Location: Chatteris, UK
Liked others: 1589
Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
flOvermind wrote:
Yeah, sure, you can make positions where it's not that easy to tell even strategically. But you completely missed my point, and you didn't answer my question ;)


I'm not sure I did. In your example, I'd pick "b" on strategic considerations. However, even those are not easy to decide on. One of the key aspects of the position is increasing the settled-ness of the weakness that 2 two-point jumps on the third line have, as well as the high or low placement of the stone on the right, and the development of White in the lower right corner. Also, sente-gote makes a huge difference here. I was disagreeing with your statement "Strategically, the decision is relatively easy", because even in your proposed position, "b" is not completely obvious (and I would not stake my life on it being right either).

My two further examples were illustrating that out of textbook, things are even harder. Interestingly, "a" doesn't become much less weak or more strong with the two positions I have shown, but it affects the value of "b" considerably.

For those following to whom the sequence may not be obvious, the following is the likely outcomes:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c White now to play - can Black gain enough profit from gote here?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . 2 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 3 X 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Black now to play, local loss but sente, which is more valuable?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O 7 1 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


And just in case that isn't enough, what about the continuations of this second one?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Big moyo
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . X . . X . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 5 . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Unsettling the group I
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 0 9 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2 O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Unsettling the group II
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X X O O 3 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 2 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Head hurting? Mine is. All of this I have a fair expectation due to theory and experience, and I see these positions in a second or two without playing moves out, but it still doesn't necessarily help with my decision making ;)


Interestingly, one of my proposals was because it leads to the following if you block at "a", which has some crazy aji in the diagram below at "a":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Harder to decide the relative values of this position for Black?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O 7 1 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . a . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


My point so far has been that I didn't read any of these. I am familiar enough with the sequences that I simply expect the end outcome and assess the final position, and take the one that strategically I like the flavour of better. That's not to say reading isn't important, as I have done a lot of trial and error and reading to know what works and what doesn't in these positions, but essentially by this stage it has moved from reading into theory, and I only have to read when suddenly White goes and throws some annoying curve-ball half way through the sequence ;)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #52 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:20 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 355
Liked others: 52
Was liked: 43
Rank: AGA 2d
IGS: ethanb
Kirby wrote:
Perhaps I am arguing for reading rather than "tactics". I sometimes associate go strategy with go theory. Maybe I'm the only one that does that. I never really called what I do in a game "tactics", either. I just think that reading is most important.

One thing that also comes to mind, though, is that I don't think that we have to separate what people seem to be describing as "tactics" and "strategy".

Part of your local reading should include the global outcome as well. So if you truly are reading well locally (is this what people mean by "tactically"?), you should get a good result globally as well.

I think that good reading cannot omit trying to get a locally good result - if this is what tactics are, and that good reading also cannot omit trying to get a globally good result.

Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?

So maybe my talk about how one's time is spent (doing problems or studying go theory) is a bit off topic. But aside from that, I believe that good reading does not require a distinction between "strategy" and "tactics".


Hope I'm not one of the people you thought was argumentative with you, and I'm sorry if I was.

But I think the point you're missing in this is that you haven't said how you decide WHAT to read... THAT is strategy (although I suppose it could be heuristics, depending on how you interpret my statement... but hopefully the following makes the distinction clearer)

Do you want thickness or territory? Why? Where? What direction? How long do you have to read to figure that out? Don't you ever play blitz? ;-)

Even ideally good reading will not necessarily get a good strategic result unless one posits an arbitrarily long length of time in which to read - given until the current estimate of the heat death of the universe, a computer should be able to brute force its way through the last 2/3 or so of a 19x19 game. Most of us don't have that long, and we'd like to play the opening as well.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #53 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:27 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
ethanb wrote:
...

But I think the point you're missing in this is that you haven't said how you decide WHAT to read... THAT is strategy (although I suppose it could be heuristics, depending on how you interpret my statement... but hopefully the following makes the distinction clearer)

...


I don't think I'm missing this point - this is why I said that experience is important. You can call it "strategy" if you'd like. I just don't make that distinction.

I think that if you only do a ton of go problems, and then play a lot of games, you will pick up all the skills you need.

I don't think that worry about what is "strategy" and what is "tactics" is really relevant. The important thing is that you must improve your reading. Experience in actual games also helps you.

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #54 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:52 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 388
Location: Riverside CA
Liked others: 246
Was liked: 79
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
Kirby wrote:
I think that if you only do a ton of go problems, and then play a lot of games, you will pick up all the skills you need.


This is most likely true.

But sometimes people hit a wall developing a skill and need to isolate their weaknesses in order to practice them. Perhaps by paying extra attention to the issue in the games they play, or looking for problems that will help them develop there.
Some people find certain aspects of the game more interesting than others.
Some people simply like a structured syllabus of study.

In all these cases making distinctions is helpful. Just because the distinction isn't strictly necessary doesn't mean it isn't helpful.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #55 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:03 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
topazg wrote:
And just in case that isn't enough, what about the continuations of this second one?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Big moyo
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . X . . X . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 5 . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Unsettling the group I
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 0 9 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2 O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Unsettling the group II
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X X O O 3 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 2 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Head hurting? Mine is. All of this I have a fair expectation due to theory and experience, and I see these positions in a second or two without playing moves out, but it still doesn't necessarily help with my decision making ;)


Interestingly, one of my proposals was because it leads to the following if you block at "a", which has some crazy aji in the diagram below at "a":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Harder to decide the relative values of this position for Black?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O 7 1 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . a . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


My point so far has been that I didn't read any of these. I am familiar enough with the sequences that I simply expect the end outcome and assess the final position, and take the one that strategically I like the flavour of better. That's not to say reading isn't important, as I have done a lot of trial and error and reading to know what works and what doesn't in these positions, but essentially by this stage it has moved from reading into theory, and I only have to read when suddenly White goes and throws some annoying curve-ball half way through the sequence ;)


Reading these, or just knowing them by heart, doesn't really make that much of a difference. It's still what I would consider tactics.
Actually, your post is full of examples of what I meant when I wrote you can't separate tactics and strategy. You can't really make a strategical decision without reading these diagrams out. But then you have to decide whether these diagrams are good or bad.

For example, the first diagram in your hidden part:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Big moyo
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . X . . B . . B . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 5 . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Yeah, sure, big moyo. But is it big enough, considering the amount of stones invested? As it stands now, I'd rather have a single stone at the star point instead of the two marked stones. Or perhaps none at all. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the star point stone on the right side is doing... I wouldn't consider that position a success. Actually, that is exactly the position I had in mind when I constructed the initial position, and the reason why I considered it relatively easy to see strategically why this is the wrong direction.

This kind of reasoning is what I consider strategic. If all you can do is read ahead, you couldn't come to that conclusion. Of course, if you can't read ahead up to the position in your diagram, you couldn't come to that conclusion either. The point is, you always need both.

Disclaimer: I'm no pro, and it could be that my strategic reasoning is completely wrong. But that's beside the point. Better have a plan that's wrong than not have a plan at all and just play any move ;)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Seeking opinion about books
Post #56 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:31 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2116
Location: Silicon Valley
Liked others: 152
Was liked: 330
Rank: 2d AGA
GD Posts: 1193
KGS: lavalamp
Tygem: imapenguin
IGS: lavalamp
OGS: daniel_the_smith
flOvermind wrote:
daniel_the_smith wrote:
Who says reading can't be global?


Then please tell me, a or b? And please show me the sequence that tells you why.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . a O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Strategically, the decision is relatively easy (of course after reading out both sequences). But I have no idea how I would continue to read globally to reach a conclusion without using strategic principles...


I'm not sure, but I read out the following two likely positions and compare them:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O 7 1 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 0 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]



Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . X . . X . O . 2 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . 5 3 X 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


The first one seems slightly better. In a game I would consider tenukiing to approach the lower right corner-- if he ignores I get a double approach, otherwise the second diagram above becomes the better way to play.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #57 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:02 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 774
Liked others: 137
Was liked: 155
Numsgil wrote:
palapiku wrote:
The stronger I get (4k now), the more I am convinced that the best way to improve, at least until dan level, is by improving your reading.

Doing other stuff might be more fun, and it might get you a little stronger, but it kinda misses the point of what go is all about. And it gives you a false confidence of thinking you know what you're doing. This held me back for a long time.

Any strategic considerations you need you will very quickly learn by getting a couple of your games reviewed by stronger players.


I routinely win games against stronger tactical fighters by out maneuvering them strategically. That pretty much describes every game I play anymore on KGS. Don't underestimate the power of strategy. You can play really passively locally and still win a game if you manage to direct your opponent in useful ways (yeah, you lost a group, but you built up a huge wall in the process). To be a really strong player you need both skills, but I definitely think it's possible to get to the high SDKs, probably the low dans, with little to no reading ability whatsoever, just playing solidly, with no defects, good shape, and a strong sense of strategic vision. Without defects there isn't any aji for your opponent to really exploit, and you can probably entice them to attack groups if you do leave defects behind, so you can sort of direct your opponent without his necessarily realizing.

Most players seem to go the other way (get strong tactically and pick up strategy as you need). But certainly at DDK you can study whatever pleases you and get stronger.


I experience that strategic decisions are highly dependent on reading. Shall I try to run with this group? Shall I invade or reduce? Is tenuki possible? I need to make this move, but can I play this sequence in sente before? Can I play so and so pincer, which is likely leading to a joseki depending on a ladder? More often than not reading is involved. So reading will help you make even better strategic decisions. Or better: you only have a choice if you read - otherwise you gamble.

As kyu the most valuable strategic advice to me was to sacrifice and tenuki more often. You can easily gain several stones advantage that way, enough to give you leeway to let a group die or playing safely elsewhere. I would say, the people always picking the fight are not even gambling, they are just not aware that a strategical choice may exist.


Last edited by tapir on Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #58 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:05 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2060
Location: Texas
Liked others: 546
Was liked: 173
Rank: KGS 3k
GD Posts: 264
KGS: Chew
One thing that is important to remember that this is not a black and white issue. For example, even if we consider theory and reading as diametrically opposed, then you're still looking at a continuum, where (for your rank), you are better than average at one and worse than average at the other. Topazg obviously reads quite deeply, even if he doesn't practice it on problems as much as others have, and Kirby certainly knows a lot of theoretical things, like why you start in the corners. You're not buying one at the expense of the other, you're just choosing to work on one or the other right now. Additionally, working on one often improves the other. For example, if I look at joseki with the intent of evaluating results for each player, as well as who gets sente afterwards, I am improving at reading at the same time as considering strategic implications in the future. Obviously both affect each other (reading out the joseki determines which way the wall will face, for example, as well as looking at the whole board determines whether a local result would actually be favorable). Jonathan Hop describes in his books two types of players: architects (who are stronger at strategy and tend to have their stones work better towards an eventual goal) versus fighters (who are usuallya little stronger at reading for their level, and tend to come out ahead in local fights, even if they don't always choose the correct sides. Regardless of if someone is better at fighting or building, if two people are 5k, they have an even chance of winning. Work on which one you like to work on, or whichever is easiest to improve at, and you will go up in rank when you improve.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].


This post by Chew Terr was liked by 2 people: Numsgil, topazg
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #59 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:33 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
If I ever experienced improvement by reading a book on theory, I would be more likely to say, "study what you like best". But I can't say that I have. In my experience, the key to this game is reading.

I will grant you that hearing the ideas of others can expose you to new ways of thought, and make your own thinking broader... But I would much prefer to get to that stage on my own than by standing on the shoulders of others...

This is probably why I never listened to teachers in college. I guess at that time, I read textbooks, at least.

---

Maybe the reason I keep arguing about this is because I do not like to accept things that I cannot see for myself.

If a pro tells me, "You should play at K14 in response to this move", I am not likely to believe him. OK, the pro likes K14. So what?

There's a cliche that says, "Seeing is believing". Well to me, "Reading is seeing". You can tell me about the "right" moves all you want, but if I don't see it, I won't believe you.

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )
Post #60 Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:45 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 388
Location: Riverside CA
Liked others: 246
Was liked: 79
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
Kirby wrote:
I will grant you that hearing the ideas of others can expose you to new ways of thought, and make your own thinking broader... But I would much prefer to get to that stage on my own than by standing on the shoulders of others...


You will have a very long journey if you study strictly on this basis. Especially since one cannot get to every new idea on one's own. People always have blindspots to new ways of thinking. And really, we're always already on the shoulders of others. There are at least some parts of playing Go that you had to have accepted without fully reading them out, especially in the opening. Or did you try to make sure that 4-4 really was more effective than 7-6 and 13-12 and 3-2 opening plays? Do you refer to common concepts like thickness or aji? Have you tested every pincer play?

It's certainly best to 'see' why a move works for one's self. Otherwise one won't understand it well enough to know when it is appropriate to play it. That's not at all mutually incompatible with being open to reading about and exploring what others think are good moves. I think you're suggesting a bit of a false dichotomy. Especially considering the books I've read show continuations to help demonstrate the reasoning for the move selected.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group