Beginnerish. . .

[Maere]

"connect your stones, separate your opponent's" is a bad guideline.

For whom? Keeping your stones connected and cutting when it is feasible is a fundamental principle. It is a huge factor in making groups weak or strong. It may not be what go is about, but if someone is failing to do it, then it's certainly a good guideline for them. Especially if their previous guideline was: "don't let my opponent capture any of my stones." You have to learn to walk before you can run, no?

I agree with you on this. The argument that this teaches bad habits if the beginner always applies the rule makes sense, but I don't think it's actually at all important in real life (at least, I haven't noticed it being).

Never seen a beginner painfully trying to separate two groups which are perfectly alive? You've got to see some of my earlier games

I think the statement is good, but it needs a little explanation of the "why" (even a simplified one is enough, maybe with one example to illustrate it). Otherwise it won't make much sense to someone who is new to the game.

That said, I have no idea what go is about. What is go about?

[daal]

It may not be what go is about, but if someone is failing to do it, then it's certainly a good guideline for them.

Not necessarily.

If someone fails to connect or cut when it is important, explain to them why in that situation.
It is not good to present it as an overall blanket guideline ("motto"), especially without some warning and caveat.

Maybe you (and Kirby) just don't like the idea of guidelines. I can understand that. Following them blindly is indeed no substitute for thinking. Some people like them though to get past their initial confusion. I'm one of them. I remember when I was starting out on a 19x19 board, often, particularly in the middle game, I had no idea what to think about. Having a guideline such as "keep you stones connected and your opponents separated" gave me a starting point - something to think about along the lines of: Can my opponent separate my stones? Will that endanger my group? Can I do something about it? etc. This gave me something to try to read out, and even if it wasn't the most important thing to be reading, it did contribute to my strength. I doubt that many people need to be reminded that a guideline or a proverb is not always true. They don't usually dictate a persons actions; they just serve to remind you that it might be a good idea to look in a certain direction.

[CarlJung]

Down with go proverbs!

But... if I don't have proverbs to hold my hand, I would have to read things out on my own. Clearly, proverbs are the way to go.

[entropi]

why?

Because it is wrong, just as it is a bad guideline to suggest "save your stones; kill your opponent's."
It is simply not what Go is about.

It is obviously not wrong, maybe what you mean is it is too ambiguous, or incomplete, or misunderstanable???

A better approach for helping the original poster would be trying to make it clearer, instead of saying "this is wrong" for a basic principle.

It is a guideline that was certainly valuable for me as a beginner on 19x19. It maybe less valuable on smaller boards but it is certainly not wrong. A beginner around 30-20kyu would be happy to create a number of small living groups without understanding its drawbacks. This is a guideline for letting him consider trying to see the bigger picture.

What Go is about is making more points than your opponent. I honestly hope someone will not challenge that, otherwise I may jump down 9 floors Would "make more points than your opponent" be the only valid motto or can there possibly be other valuable guidelines?

I don't believe that this discussion helps anything other than further confusing the original poster.

[CygnusX1]

JAYzus!!! Calm down ya'll! Look, I'll be honest, I'm not big on generalizations (even though that in itself is a generalization, but. . .), we use them whether we like it or not: we're human, we categorize, we all got our axiomatic bias on somethin' or other like political and philosophical and all that doohonkey. I see for and against the proverbs mentioned. Anyway, I have been playing some 9x9. I can see the value in that, and I am going to play more. Furthermore, what struck me most about Mr. Verhofstadt's advice was something I('d like to think that I) kinda do with everything: "Maintain a critical attitude and continue to question what you think you know". Based solely on that, I believe I've found my new life-long game. Don't plan on being a 9p, as nice as that'd be. . .
In conclusion I think I'm rambling on so you lot can continue in whatever fashion you deem appropriate.

Laters, I'll check back in in a day or two.

[CarlJung]

Furthermore, what struck me most about Mr. Verhofstadt's advice was something I('d like to think that I) kinda do with everything: "Maintain a critical attitude and continue to question what you think you know".

That was the coolest use of parenthesis I have ever seen.

[CygnusX1]

I don't believe that this discussion helps anything other than further confusing the original poster.

I meant to say in my earlier post that's bang on man.

[walleye]

. . .but definitely weak. I started a coupla years ago, but played rarely. Now I want to come back to Go with full force. I play and study whenever I can. Any clues, tips, etc. are more than welcome.

You are jumping too much, and bending around things when it is not appropriate. Just count the liberties. If your stones have fewer liberties, you should extend solidly to gather strength.

For instance, your jump to C10 should be a solid extension to C9 (move 16), and your bend at G8 should be an extension to G9 (move 32). Just count the liberties of the stones in contact. Even a 30k must be able to do that.

You often end up with very fragile shapes because you are jumping and bending all over the place even when your stones are weaker. So my advice to you is always count the liberties when you are in a contact fight.

[Joaz Banbeck]

If you anyway insist in playing on 19x19, the motto is "connect your stones, separate your opponents".

"connect your stones, separate your opponent's" is a bad guideline.

Entropi's advice is relevant. There were numerous times in the game when you could have done better by connecting your stones or disconnecting the opponent's.

Nonetheless, EdLee's cautionary advice is also relevant. Connecting and disconnecting is not always the most important thing.

The issue behind this is that one has to know when connecting and disconnecting is important. Are the groups weak or strong? Weak groups can helped by being connected, or hurt by being disconnected. Strong groups are unaffected by either.
Entropi is correct that you should have connected some weak groups. EdLee is correct that you can take it too far - that you do not need to connect strong groups.

Are the stones weak or strong? That is the issue for you. You appear to be playing without regard for whether stones are weak or strong.

Some examples are below.

Before we get to those examples, do you have solid definitions of 'weak' and 'strong'?
Basically, a strong group is one that cannot be killed, that has two indispuable eyes or the capacity to make them. Or it can connect to a group that has eyes.
Weak groups are those that lack the aforementioned characteristics. A weak group does not have two eyes, and has no clear prospects for connecting to a group that does have eyes. When lacking those, being short of liberties is bad too.
Eyes and connections and liberties...Now, on to the examples...


Let's start after black's move #19. The board looks like this:

$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

We'll go through group by group...

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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



The marked stones in the diagram above are relatively strong. First, they are all connected. ( Sure, it is possible to cut at 'a', but that cutting stone dies very quickly. ) Second, they have eye space. There is probably enough space against the left side for eyes, and black can always play a move like 'b' or 'c' to get more.


$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W S . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W S . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]



The marked white stones are sort of one group, or at least trying to be one. They have serious cutting points, indicated by the squares.
Black can cut at those points, like this:


$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]



...or like this:


$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]



...or this:


$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]




There is no clear eye space for those stones either, although they could sort of secure some space with a play at the triangled point below.


$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . T W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . T W . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . W X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In summary, the white group has several places where it can be disconnected, and the prospects for eyes are marginal. It is a weak group.
So white should probably play move #20 to strengthen it, like this:

$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

{ It is getting near midnight here. More examples will appear in this post tomorrow. }

[entropi]

Thanks Joaz for cleaning up the discussion.
It is an important middle game concept to avoid creating weak groups and connecting your groups is an efficient way to do it. At least much more efficient than living small by making two eyes.

On the other hand, connecting already stong groups in the middle game is usually not efficient because there are most probably bigger points on board.

But what about end-game stage where more or less all the groups are settled? Connecting your groups even if they are already strong can still be a guide for finding big end-game moves. Of course this time the reasoning behind the idea of connecting is totally different than in the middle-game.

I would like to refer to the famous picture in Kageyama's book (Lessons in Fundamentals of Go) where he shows how much more efficiently the connected groups surround territory, but I don't have the picture.

I think the idea is simple. If your opponent separates your already alive groups, you still have to play dame points at the end for closing your territory thus taking away the points that would be yours if you were connected. You lose the points taken by your opponents separating stones, and the two dame points on two sides of the separaring stones.

Of course this doesn't mean that connecting is always the biggest end-game move but I think even at end-game stage it is still a valid guideline for finding the big points.

Again, the reasoning behind the idea of connecting at the middle-game and end-game stages are completely different but the principle is still the same.

Edit: Needless (or maybe not needless) to say that what I am saying are just general principles which cannot (and do not even intend to) replace move-reading and counting.

[xed_over]

I think the proverb we're looking for is: Close fist before striking