weak groups

[freegame]

Some people like to take risks, i like to keep it safe. So if i have these two options:
1. Attack something small and gain a sure profit of around 10 points while keeping sente
2. Attack something big which may give me 30 points, unsure wether i can keep sente

nice post, but one remark I want to make:
whether or not to take the risk depends also on the board position (not on what you "like")
If you are ahead, you should definitely go for the safe option and take the 10pt
If you are behind and the 10pt are not going to make up for that you probably want to take more risk and try to get the 30pt to get back in the game

this is why making quick estimates of who is ahead are important throughout the game.

better take risk and either win or lose big, then avoid risk and lose by a few points.

Which attack is likely to give more profit? Attacking the single stone and gaining power to attack the other group, or the other way round?

In almost every case I think I would go for attacking the single stone. like what was already pointed out this will either give you points or let you build thickness. When you have build this extra thickness the big attack will be easier and might be a good continuation. only when my opponent can just give it away and still be ahead I would considered going for the big attack.

conclusion: you need to do a quick counting/estimate to determine how much risk you need to take.

[entropi]

conclusion: you need to do a quick counting/estimate to determine how much risk you need to take.

No escape from that Counting/estimating is the most (in fact the only) boring part of the game for me.

I would be happy if I could play games where the result is not win/lose, but the difference of points. Then counting would be only important after two passes

[Bill Spight]

Thanks for all the answers.

In the light of the answers, trying to reformulate my question, I think it comes down to "how do you determine the weakest group", which indeed cannot be answered easily.

But trying to put it simpler by an extreme example. Suppose white has symetrical open positions on left and right sides. There is a single invading black stone on the right side of which the future is not yet clear.
There is a 5 stone black group on the left side which is also not clear.

I appreciate your efforts, but I am reminded of when I used to run a small afternoon bridge game. Nearly all of the players were the equivalent of SDKs. Before the game I would give a 15 min. talk. There was one old fellow who used to come and ask my advice about a hand (not one played that afternoon), but he could never remember much about it, so I could never give him an answer. Just saying 5 stones vs. 1 stone is not enough information to give an answer.

5 stone group is obviously stronger and more difficult to attack.

That is not in general true. You say that the White positions are symmetrical, but Black has more stones on one side. Do you mean that the number of White stones is the same on each side, but that Black has 4 more stones on one side? Then, unless your opponent has made a bad mistake, the 5 stones are much, much stronger than the single stone. But I do not think that that is what you mean. More likely you mean positions where Black has 4 more stones on one side, and White does, too. In that case you cannot say that the 5 stone group is stronger and more difficult to attack. (In high handicap games White uses that misperception to leave groups in danger and play elsewhere. )

The opponent has more possibilities to escape and ruin your moyo. But it is for the opponent more difficult to sacrifice (let's say it is heavier) and if you manage to surround it (force it to live small) or even kill it, the profit is big.

So maybe it is easier to attack. In particular, if it is heavy, it probably bears attacking. (Ah! But what is heavy? Even dan players can go astray on that question. )

Single stone on the right side is easier to attack, it cannot escape and is likely to be captured or be forced to live small. But the opponent can handle it lightly, meaning to sacrifice it and use the aji for invading somewhere else.

Which attack is likely to give more profit? Attacking the single stone and gaining power to attack the other group, or the other way round?

Not enough information.

Similar situations occur very often in games and I always get puzzled what to do. Go after the elephant, or try to catch the bird (if I may make some japanistic analogy )

Good! Then show us one.

A useful guideline could for example be (if the opponent group has that many stones and/or that many liberties and/or a potential eye and/or has an X stone wall facing your moyo, don't attack yet). A simple and practical hint like that is what I am looking for, if it exists of course.

Two simple and practical hints come to mind:

The first is ancient: You want to have an eye plus access to the center. (So if your opponent's group does not have both, it is probably worth attacking.)

The second comes from Wilcox. If a string has fewer than 5 dame, it is tactically weak. (And therefore worth attacking.)

But really, show us an example.

[entropi]

Bill, thanks for the answer. My intention is not to discuss a specific position but get some ideas about general way of thinking of strong players. I would specifically avoid giving a concrete example because I am not interested in discussing wheter that specific group of 5 stones is heavy or not. It is enough to call it heavy if I perceive it as heavy because my strategic decision will be based on my perception. Whether it is really heavy or not is another (and probably more tactical) discussion. But your answer, especially one eye + escape route is already pretty enlightening, at least something to think about.

[hyperpape]

Bill, thanks for the answer. My intention is not to discuss a specific position but get some ideas about general way of thinking of strong players. I would specifically avoid giving a concrete example because I am not interested in discussing wheter that specific group of 5 stones is heavy or not. It is enough to call it heavy if I perceive it as heavy because my strategic decision will be based on my perception. Whether it is really heavy or not is another (and probably more tactical) discussion. But your answer, especially one eye + escape route is already pretty enlightening, at least something to think about.

Just throw out a bunch of positions, then say "if you see some heavy groups, tell me how to attack them". I see why you could be frustrated if you just want help attacking heavy groups and your examples get shot down, but this is just silly. You're trying to get advice without any details, and that's not going to work. It's only by thinking about specific positions that you understand how the principles work. Even the most high-church theory based books on Go include lots and lots of examples.

[entropi]

Just throw out a bunch of positions, then say "if you see some heavy groups, tell me how to attack them". I see why you could be frustrated if you just want help attacking heavy groups and your examples get shot down, but this is just silly. You're trying to get advice without any details, and that's not going to work. It's only by thinking about specific positions that you understand how the principles work. Even the most high-church theory based books on Go include lots and lots of examples.

That's also a very nice answer

[daniel_the_smith]

One thing I've noticed about stronger players is that they can rarely answer questions without seeing a concrete position. IOW, stronger players take a lot into account (possibly a lot they don't even realize) when making judgments, and they just can't answer questions that don't supply that information. It's not that they won't, they literally can't.

[entropi]

One thing I've noticed about stronger players is that they can rarely answer questions without seeing a concrete position. IOW, stronger players take a lot into account (possibly a lot they don't even realize) when making judgments, and they just can't answer questions that don't supply that information. It's not that they won't, they literally can't.

That's very much understandable. But sometimes it's also possible to give small hints that are too abstract for a stronger player but can give a kyu player a starting point. For example Bill said "difficult to help without concrete example" but he already gave me something valuable to think about. I appreciate every answer.

[hyperpape]

Sorry if that response was abrupt. I was reacting because I feel as if you're telling people "I want answers, but only on my terms." And on top of that, I think your terms are ones that make it harder for you as well as for the people who are answering. They're happy to help, but it's much harder if you insist on avoiding particular positions.

Maybe the conflict you're thinking of isn't real: examples help give context to abstract principles, while those principles help summarize what you learn from the examples.

[entropi]

Sorry if that response was abrupt. I was reacting because I feel as if you're telling people "I want answers, but only on my terms." And on top of that, I think your terms are ones that make it harder for you as well as for the people who are answering. They're happy to help, but it's much harder if you insist on avoiding particular positions.

Maybe the conflict you're thinking of isn't real: examples help give context to abstract principles, while those principles help summarize what you learn from the examples.

But I already got some very nice responses that include information new to me. I can easily draw a diagram of the imaginary example I gave (5 heavy stones etc) but I don't see what it would add to the core question, other than eventually introducing some tactical discussions which concern the specific position rather than the abstract concept.

[daniel_the_smith]

... I can easily draw a diagram of the imaginary example I gave (5 heavy stones etc) but I don't see what it would add to the core question, other than eventually introducing some tactical discussions which concern the specific position rather than the abstract concept.

That's sort of my point: the things that are abstract concepts to us, are much of the time to stronger players just tactics. Imagine a 20k wanting to know which extension to make when he's about to lose 25 critical cutting stones in a snapback. There's no answer to his question because he's thinking about the position all wrong. This happens so much that I basically never ask vague questions any more. Invariably when I ask "should I do X or Y here?" the answer is "W or Z, and both X and Y hurt your position."

[entropi]

... I can easily draw a diagram of the imaginary example I gave (5 heavy stones etc) but I don't see what it would add to the core question, other than eventually introducing some tactical discussions which concern the specific position rather than the abstract concept.

That's sort of my point: the things that are abstract concepts to us, are much of the time to stronger players just tactics. Imagine a 20k wanting to know which extension to make when he's about to lose 25 critical cutting stones in a snapback. There's no answer to his question because he's thinking about the position all wrong. This happens so much that I basically never ask vague questions any more. Invariably when I ask "should I do X or Y here?" the answer is "W or Z, and both X and Y hurt your position."

I see your point.

But you can also look at it this way: Imagine a 30k asking "is one eye enough to live?". According to the general principle, the answer is no. And that's what he wants to know.

If he was asking the same question with an example, you would probably say, "but this eye is false" or even something like "why don't you escape to center instead of making an eye here". You would probably be perfectly right but that's not the bit of information he is asking for.

Another example "is it good to have a weak group between two weak opponent groups?". The very simple answer would be yes (of course with some more generic explanations like because you spend one move to protect and your opponent two moves, blablabla). This alone is a valuable piece of information. It may not always be true but the fact that it is true in 70% of cases is enough for somebody who is ignorant enough to ask this question.

If a 15k tries to get this simple information by an example from his own games, I can imagine the tactical discussions that would be involved

Anyway, I totally accept that you also have a point, but that is the other side of coin in my opinion. Therefore I still value generic questions and answers, with the condition that everybody is aware of the fact that they cannot be applied blindly.

[Bill Spight]

... I can easily draw a diagram of the imaginary example I gave (5 heavy stones etc) but I don't see what it would add to the core question, other than eventually introducing some tactical discussions which concern the specific position rather than the abstract concept.

That's sort of my point: the things that are abstract concepts to us, are much of the time to stronger players just tactics. Imagine a 20k wanting to know which extension to make when he's about to lose 25 critical cutting stones in a snapback. There's no answer to his question because he's thinking about the position all wrong. This happens so much that I basically never ask vague questions any more. Invariably when I ask "should I do X or Y here?" the answer is "W or Z, and both X and Y hurt your position."

I see your point.

But you can also look at it this way: Imagine a 30k asking "is one eye enough to live?". According to the general principle, the answer is no. And that's what he wants to know.

The correct answer is, Maybe. As for what the 30 kyu wants to know, I can only guess. That's one reason to ask for an example.

If he was asking the same question with an example, you would probably say, "but this eye is false" or even something like "why don't you escape to center instead of making an eye here". You would probably be perfectly right but that's not the bit of information he is asking for.

That may reflect your experience. If so, that is too bad, as that kind of thing can be frustrating. At the same time, however, I think that you underestimate our intelligence. There is no guarantee that the student knows what question to ask. In fact it is a commonplace that understanding the problem or question can get you most of the way to the solution or answer. What is the point of answering the wrong question?

[entropi]

Bill, I know you sincerely want to help and I greatly appreciate it. In fact your first post was already informative enough.

But I think that's enough with this "how to ask questions" kind of discussion.
Unless somebody still has something to say about my initial question, I consider this thread closed for my part.

I don't know how many times I thanked for the answers in this thread, but I don't mind doing it again. Thank you very much