Rules of Thumb

Website · Post by **Chew Terr** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:26 am

Numsgil wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:Ah! A wall that does not require an extension. We were just talking about that in another thread.

(Cross linking the other thread.)

But supposing you wanted to make an extension, with the idea being to form a moyo, where you can enclose any invasions. Then the rule of thumb comes in to play.

But yeah, I'm with Chew. I still don't really understand the idea of a wall that doesn't need an extension. It may or may not need one for life, but it needs one to be useful, yeah? I'm under the general impression that if you're building a wall you need either sente to play an extension or an existing stone to act as an extension to let you build the wall in gote. Or a weak group you're building up strength to attack. Or else the wall is just a group, worth maybe a point per stone.

Eg: As I understand it this is a terrible idea for black. Black can't really attack white's other group, and any extension is too crowded. The wall has plenty of eyespace, so it probably won't die. And strictly speaking black will probably get at least as many point as white got in the corner, but in terms of influencing the rest of the game positively, it's pretty lacking.

$$Bc 'a' is move 11
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 0 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O 1 . a . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc 'a' is move 11 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 0 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O 1 . a . . . . O . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

EDIT: Ugh, NOW it's terrible for black.

I think part of the difference is that the top is already small, so blocking the other way is bigger. If the left wall was also tiny, it seems that this variation would be less bad (though the double-hane version would likely be better in that case).

Numsgil · Post by **Numsgil** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:30 am

Chew Terr wrote:I think part of the difference is that the top is already small, so blocking the other way is bigger. If the left wall was also tiny, it seems that this variation would be less bad (though the double-hane version would likely be better in that case).

But then instead of building a wall you'd try to do something like this instead, maybe. Claim the corner, and build a squatter wall that has room for an extension for moyo at 'b' still.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc 'a' is move 11 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . a O 1 . . . . b . O . . O . . . . . | $$ | . 9 2 X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . 4 3 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | 0 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

EDIT: Ah yeah, you already mentioned the double hane version. I should learn to read.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:44 am

Numsgil wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:Hmmm. I would kind of like to extend to .

It's hard to come up with a good example to illustrate the differences. I was trying to think of a wall with a defect and that leans backwards (as most walls usually do). But the defect is probably a bit too fatal to leave.

I don't think that you can rely upon rules of thumb when you have a wall with defects.

Numsgil · Post by **Numsgil** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:54 am

Bill Spight wrote:
Numsgil wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:Hmmm. I would kind of like to extend to .

It's hard to come up with a good example to illustrate the differences. I was trying to think of a wall with a defect and that leans backwards (as most walls usually do). But the defect is probably a bit too fatal to leave.

I don't think that you can rely upon rules of thumb when you have a wall with defects.

So long as the defect does not allow your opponent to break the link, I think you can. It's not always worth it to burn a move to remove a defect on a wall, so it's important to know what to do in that case.

Or here's a case with less drastic defects. Suppose black wants to extend from his 'wall'. What's the minimal distance to do so that is not over concentrated? Black is missing a stone on the third line, and a stone on the 5th line. So that's two defects. The wall is 6 stones high. So black wants at least a 6-2=4 space extension from his wall. If he extends further, a white invasion can escape. And the wall would probably come under attack, then, so making this 'safety' extension is probably the best play.

In theory, with this extension below, white can't escape with an invasion at 2 (although the tactics can become a bit hairy).

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

Post by **Solomon** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:03 am

"Respond to attachment with hane":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . W X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

"The empty triangle is bad", "The one-space jump is never bad":

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

"Never ignore a shoulder hit":

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

Don't bother with rules of thumbs, they will only give you tunnel vision.

hyperpape · Post by **hyperpape** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:27 am

The interesting thing about your examples, Araban, is how perverse a couple of them are.

When I think hane, I don't think of a wedging move, though I gather that your example is technically a type of hane.

In the second, I have never heard the proverb applied except as a one space jump from a single stone (see http://senseis.xmp.net/?IkkenTobiIsNeverWrong for confirmation).

Because of that, it's not clear whether they have any bearing on the usefulness of proverbs. Typically, we don't learn proverbs by just reading a list of statements in isolation--they are presented with examples and explanation. On that basis, I think most people who know the proverbs know that the first is about the ordinary hane, not the wedge version. I'm less confident about this, but I think they'd also understand the one point jump as being from an isolated stone.

Btw: I'm not making the point that proverbs have exceptions. Your third one, about the shoulder hit is an exception--it's an ordinary shoulder hit, but you should ignore it, contrary to the proverb. Rather, I'm suggesting that the proverb might not be exhausted by the words, but might involve an awareness of the type of examples that introduce it. We don't understand a proverb by knowing what the words mean, but by seeing the examples that motivate it. Then it's a further step to know when to apply the proverb or not apply it.

Post by **Solomon** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:46 am

hyperpape wrote:The interesting thing about your examples, Araban, is how perverse a couple of them are.

When I think hane, I don't think of a wedging move, though I gather that your example is technically a type of hane.

In the second, I have never heard the proverb applied except as a one space jump from a single stone (see http://senseis.xmp.net/?IkkenTobiIsNeverWrong for confirmation).

Because of that, it's not clear whether they have any bearing on the usefulness of proverbs. Typically, we don't learn proverbs by just reading a list of statements in isolation--they are presented with examples and explanation. On that basis, I think most people who know the proverbs know that the first is about the ordinary hane, not the wedge version. I'm less confident about this, but I think they'd also understand the one point jump as being from an isolated stone.

Btw: I'm not making the point that proverbs have exceptions. Your third one, about the shoulder hit is an exception--it's an ordinary shoulder hit, but you should ignore it, contrary to the proverb. Rather, I'm suggesting that the proverb might not be exhausted by the words, but might involve an awareness of the type of examples that introduce it. We don't understand a proverb by knowing what the words mean, but by seeing the examples that motivate it. Then it's a further step to know when to apply the proverb or not apply it.

Yeah okay, they are indeed exaggerated, but they don't have to be to make my point...the message I'm trying to send is that knowing these proverbs will give you a biased perception on what moves to make for more difficult situations...consider these examples with the same proverbs applied:
"Respond to attachment with hane":

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

Either hane is wrong in this situation.

"The one-space jump is never bad":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Speaks for itself.

Numsgil · Post by **Numsgil** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:47 am

Don't bother with rules of thumbs, they will only give you tunnel vision.

Your examples aside, that's a very Western attitude. In Japanese culture, innovation comes only after years of mastering the existing ways something is done (the 'rules of thumb' of a subject). At least in their business world it does. See: this, for example (note that the blog really frames this as a negative thing, but it was written by a Westerner, so there's some cultural bias involved). Pre new-fuseki era, the go world in Japan was like this. I'm not sure if you could characterize the current go scene like that.

There's a saying to this affect, but I can't find it. But the gist is: first you play aimlessly, then you learn the rules of good play, then you learn to break the rules. You can't skip a step in that sequence. All the way up to the low dans, if you're making a move that violates some fundamental principle of good play, it's probably a mistake. It's really easy in games to say "the proverb says to play here, but I know what I'm doing and I'll play over here instead" and get yourself in to trouble.

Post by **Solomon** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:56 am

Numsgil wrote:
Don't bother with rules of thumbs, they will only give you tunnel vision.

Your examples aside, that's a very Western attitude. In Japanese culture, innovation comes only after years of mastering the existing ways something is done (the 'rules of thumb' of a subject). At least in their business world it does. See: this, for example (note that the blog really frames this as a negative thing, but it was written by a Westerner, so there's some cultural bias involved). Pre new-fuseki era, the go world in Japan was like this. I'm not sure if you could characterize the current go scene like that.

There's a saying to this affect, but I can't find it. But the gist is: first you play aimlessly, then you learn the rules of good play, then you learn to break the rules. You can't skip a step in that sequence. All the way up to the low dans, if you're making a move that violates some fundamental principle of good play, it's probably a mistake. It's really easy in games to say "the proverb says to play here, but I know what I'm doing and I'll play over here instead" and get yourself in to trouble.

fundamental principles of good play != proverbs. You can't express any fundamental principle of good play in a single sentence.

Thunkd · Post by **Thunkd** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:04 pm

Araban wrote:Don't bother with rules of thumbs, they will only give you tunnel vision.

I try not to follow them blindly, but it's nice to have as kind of a rough path to follow. It's like a map that's not drawn to scale correctly. You have to use your own judgment and decide when it might not be a good idea to follow, but it probably is useful a fair bit of the time.

hyperpape · Post by **hyperpape** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:40 pm

@Araban I don't think my comments were perfectly clear, but I didn't mean to say your examples were exaggerations, even though they were. I was tentatively suggesting that they might not be actual instances of the proverbs.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . . . X . . . . X . . . . . X . . | $$ | . X . B . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . . . X . . X . . . . . . . B . . | $$ | . X X X X X . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Perhaps the marked stones on the left and the right count as "one point jumps." That's a question of semantics that I don't want to come anywhere near (if you think the answer is obviously "yes", do meditate on the shape in the center).

However, I think it would be silly to look at the two shapes on the left and the right and think they're covered by the proverb. But what I'm tempted to say is that they're not exceptions to the proverb--cases where the proverb applies, but tells you the wrong thing. Rather, they're just not instances of the proverb at all.

Anyway, I wasn't writing what I did to dispute your claim about whether one should listen to proverbs, Araban, but just because I saw something interesting and strange in your examples. But that's probably me riding a hobbyhorse that no one else will find interesting.

Numsgil · Post by **Numsgil** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:16 pm

Araban wrote:fundamental principles of good play != proverbs. You can't express any fundamental principle of good play in a single sentence.

Eh, I see. When I think of proverbs I think of them more as, like, chapter headings in a book on fundamental go principles. If all you know about not playing near thickness is that there's a proverb that says "don't play near thickness", it's like you just skimmed the table of contents of the imaginary go principles book, and yeah, that's a bad idea, and you'll play weird.

But most of the proverbs have a sophisticated fundamental principle behind them, and using them like a table of contents for things you need to learn when you first start playing works out pretty well.

Also worth noting: the proverbs tend to be tongue-in-cheek exaggerations to make the point memorable. "Even an idiot connects against a peep". Well, there are times when you don't want to. But the hyperbolic language makes it memorable, and hopefully brings home the idea and makes it readily accessible in an actual game. Sort of like the things in 'Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go'. There's some very insulting language in there if you take it literally.

Life In 19x19

Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb

Re: Rules of Thumb