trick moves

[entropi]

I am almost sure that this topic must have been discussed before but I couldn't find it.

I wonder about the general opinion about trick moves. I principally hate them because I find them against the gist of the game.

You know that a move is bad (because it can be punished) but you still play it because you think your opponent is not strong enough to punish. Isn't it a bit disrespectful?

It may be ok at handicap games (but only for white) because there you a priori assume that black is weaker anyway. But in even games, I just find it inappropriate.

What do you guys think about that?

[Mivo]

You wrote that you feel that they may be all right in handicap games (for white), but not in even games because they are played based on the assumption that the opponent is too weak to punish them. Wouldn't that mean that it should be a handicap game instead?

[entropi]

You wrote that you feel that they may be all right in handicap games (for white), but not in even games because they are played based on the assumption that the opponent is too weak to punish them. Wouldn't that mean that it should be a handicap game instead?

No no, I meant to write that handicap games are played based on the assumption that black is weaker anyway. Therefore, using a trick move in a handicap game would be normal. You have to rely on opponents mistakes for compensating for the handicap stones.

But in an even game where the players are assumed to be of equal strength, a trick move would mean that the tricker is inclined to underestimate his opponent, which I find a bit against the spirit of the game. Because a trick move relies on your "equal strength" opponents failure to find the correct refutation.

[levanez]

If in an even game you play hamete against the opponent thinking he doesn't know how to respond correctly, and it turns out he does, then you're the one punished. If he can't punish you however, then he really isn't strong enough, in which case isn't the situation like in an handicap game where you overplay against a weaker opponent to gain an advantage?

I personally think there's nothing disrespectful about hametes themselves, sometimes you play it to test the opponent's strength, sometimes you're behind and are desperate to catch up. As a SDK I often can't see if my moves are overplays, what I think are proper moves can leave behind weaknesses easily exploited by a stronger player. If there's anything disrespectful, it's the attitude of the player who plays them, but you can tell if someone is an arrogant **** off the board anyway.

[robinz]

I don't see a problem with it - but then I must confess I've never really understood all the philosophical rubbish (imo) that Westerners, at least, like to spout about the game. It's a game, and you try to win - if you feel that your only chance is if your opponent fails to see a refutation of a tricky move, then I see absolutely no reason not to go for it. I might even consider it somehow disrespectful - at least in a serious or semi-serious game - not to try to win with all the means at one's disposable. It might me somewhat different in a teaching game, but then I would have thought it would often be good practice to make the trick play anyway, then, if your opponent fails to spot the refutation, show them after the game, and perhaps discuss it further.

As for the idea that one might be annoyed at one's opponent trying a trick play, this I really don't understand at all. I presume you mean you are annoyed that your opponent has somehow been disrespectful to you by assuming you wouldn't see the refutation - but one can only feel this way if one actually has seen it (and therefore knows it's a trick play). If this happened to me, surely one should feel happy that your opponent has just made a move that makes your victory easier, as well as pleased that on this occasion you figured out how to combat your opponent's trick play. (This never happens to me )

[topazg]

This is partly philosophical, but mostly from a game mentality. My opponent is always me, regardless of who I'm playing. As a result, my goal is to play perfect moves. If I know a move is a trick play and therefore technically can't be the best move, why would I want to play it?

I think they are against the spirit of the game, but not because of any trickery or abuse, just because I see them as a lazy man's way of winning. I won't play a joseki with a ladder that doesn't work in the hope my opponent hasn't seen it, because if I've seen it, I know it's not best. It's up to me to find something better. I don't want to win games where I rely on the lack of experience of my opponent.

I played Simba in real life on Monday, in a 7 stone free placement game (3 shimaris and a 4-4 ... seriously annoying stuff ), and I lost. Maybe I could have won if I threw in trick plays and invasions that I knew couldn't live even if I suspect he'd fail to kill them, but why? Half an hour later I want to know if the game made me a better Go player, not to see myself with a better win percentage.

[Solomon]

I play trick plays because I find great satisfaction in watching my opponent play into the trap variation. If he counters, I find great satisfaction in overplaying and trying to come back from behind. Either way it makes the game more exciting for me, so win-win.

[entropi]

This is partly philosophical, but mostly from a game mentality. My opponent is always me, regardless of who I'm playing. As a result, my goal is to play perfect moves. If I know a move is a trick play and therefore technically can't be the best move, why would I want to play it?

I think they are against the spirit of the game, but not because of any trickery or abuse, just because I see them as a lazy man's way of winning. I won't play a joseki with a ladder that doesn't work in the hope my opponent hasn't seen it, because if I've seen it, I know it's not best. It's up to me to find something better. I don't want to win games where I rely on the lack of experience of my opponent.

I played Simba in real life on Monday, in a 7 stone free placement game (3 shimaris and a 4-4 ... seriously annoying stuff ), and I lost. Maybe I could have won if I threw in trick plays and invasions that I knew couldn't live even if I suspect he'd fail to kill them, but why? Half an hour later I want to know if the game made me a better Go player, not to see myself with a better win percentage.

It's probably about whether you see the game as pure competition or as an enjoyable mental exercise.

<analogy>
You can solve Rubiks Cube by disassembling and reassembling, and show your friends. But would you then consider yourself having solved it or not?
</analogy>

Of course compared to trick play, this analogy may be an exaggeration, but the way of thinking is similar, in my opinion.

EDIT: Conclusion: Different than mine but very nice reasoning. The only point I would not agree could be that in a handicap game, I would try trick moves because I see handicap games more as teaching games and trick moves also have a teaching value.

[mw42]

I am annoyed when my opponent plays a trick move, but I usually end up more annoyed at myself for being fooled. Personally, I do not play them because a) I make enough 'bad' moves all by myself and b) I feel that playing in such a way is dishonest (i.e. "I hope my opponent makes a mistake so I can take advantage").

I think it impairs your own game to use trick moves.

[Mnemonic]

Maybe I could have won if I threw in trick plays and invasions that I knew couldn't live even if I suspect he'd fail to kill them, but why? Half an hour later I want to know if the game made me a better Go player, not to see myself with a better win percentage.

Trick plays are a part of the game so if you want to get better at it you should experiment with them. Of course, as a dan player you might already have and come to your conclusion, but I think as a player who is still learning the game trick plays are an important are to study. I'm too weak to know any real trick plays, but in High Handicap games I have developed some "tricky" variation that I often use and I've got to say: trick plays require a certain amount of skill. I think Shaddy was it who said that trick plays only work on a certain strength range. You have to judge if your opponent is in that range or not, because often a refutation to your trick play is it not recognize it as an overplay and play defensively.

And about invasions: the only time I don't play them (in High Handicap) is when I KNOW they fail: if I just conclude that it's difficult but I need it to win I play it anyways. If I fail I suspect both player have learned more than if I'd backed down. This comes from an 8k who can read about 2.5 moves so I you can clearly see that there is no way for you to live than I understand your point.

<analogy>
You can solve Rubiks Cube by disassembling and reassembling, and show your friends. But would you then consider yourself having solved it or not?
</analogy>

Of course compared to trick play, this analogy may be an exaggeration, but the way of thinking is similar, in my opinion.

I don't think that's a fair analogy, it reminds me a bit of cheating. A more apt analogy might be a high risk-high reward football play when you're behind (like a 2 minute drive or something)

[Tsuyoku]

I see the game as an enjoyble competition of two people exercising their minds against eachother.

I like seeing trick plays, because knowing how to refute them, or better still, being able to figure out how to refute them, just tells me I'm better than my opponent.

It's also a show of weakness, in that they think they need to trip me up to stand a chance.

When I see a trick play, I feel like a cat when it sees a mouse.

Knowing this, I don't like using them against someone of equal or higher rank, because then I'd be the mouse.

[Laman]

"Go is not about winning, it is about total humiliation of your opponent." (from KGS kibitz)

now seriously... i don't use trick moves, because my opponent can punish me and i don't want to rely on his mistake. if someone tries to trick me, i do my best in reading how to answer correctly and if i still fail, i look for the punishment afterwards and (in a perfect world) the same trick shouldn't work against me twice

on the other hand, i enjoy playing moves where wrong answer ends bad for opponent but correct one still ends fine for me. these can be find especially in endgame, playing sente move looking like gote or giving opponent privilege to play a critical liberty-removing move, etc.

third type of tricky move can come when you invent or just learn some innovative, unknown move and then try to trick your unprepared opponent with it (while your move is absolutely correct). this reminds me the blood vomiting game and the secret taisha variation of the Inoue house, or another example of 5d that studied some obscure taisha variation (accidentally again taisha) and then successfully tricked and beaten 7d with it at a tournament

[topazg]

And about invasions: the only time I don't play them (in High Handicap) is when I KNOW they fail: if I just conclude that it's difficult but I need it to win I play it anyways. If I fail I suspect both player have learned more than if I'd backed down. This comes from an 8k who can read about 2.5 moves so I you can clearly see that there is no way for you to live than I understand your point.

Yeah, I agree with this completely. If I think they might work but might not and I need it, I'll play it until I can read it's success or untimely demise. If I can read it, I'll play it or not depending on whether it works or not, regardless of my opponent's strength.

It does help to be aware of a lot of variations and sequences, but that doesn't affect the underlying point. If you don't know a trick play is a trick play, and you think it looks like a good play, playing it is fine because you think it's a good play. If you know it is substandard, I consider that to be quite different. I'm also not against learning trick plays, as I think it's very important to pick up the correct refutations - but that's mostly because if everyone knew them, people would stop playing the trick plays in the first place

<analogy>
You can solve Rubiks Cube by disassembling and reassembling, and show your friends. But would you then consider yourself having solved it or not?
</analogy>

Of course compared to trick play, this analogy may be an exaggeration, but the way of thinking is similar, in my opinion.

I don't think that's a fair analogy, it reminds me a bit of cheating. A more apt analogy might be a high risk-high reward football play when you're behind (like a 2 minute drive or something)

I quite liked the analogy, it certainly feels fairly similar to me, albeit an exaggeration

Many trick plays are not high risk, they are "lose 4 points if you get punished, gain 25 if your opponent falls for the worst line, and 7 if he falls for the most common line" type situations, hence finding their way into theory. In my mind, learning trick plays is to make sure you don't fall for them, not to take apart unsuspecting suckers who didn't appreciate your book memorising 1337ness.

It's interesting that entropi picked a hobby as an analogy, and you picked a professional sport where winning and performance influence people's livelihoods I think situationally that makes quite a difference too.

[entropi]

<analogy>
You can solve Rubiks Cube by disassembling and reassembling, and show your friends. But would you then consider yourself having solved it or not?
</analogy>

Of course compared to trick play, this analogy may be an exaggeration, but the way of thinking is similar, in my opinion.

I don't think that's a fair analogy, it reminds me a bit of cheating. A more apt analogy might be a high risk-high reward football play when you're behind (like a 2 minute drive or something)

I may agree that the analogy is not fully fair. I wrote myself that it might be an exaggaration.

But please distinguish between trick moves and "high-risk" moves. High-risk play is when you don't know the "true" outcome and take the risk. But when you play a trick move, you know it's a bad move and simply hope that your opponent won't find the correct refutation.

Of course it is not really cheating, but I find it closer to cheating than to high-risk play. Maybe not cheating against your opponent but cheating against the game you are playing (if it makes sense ).

[daal]

You left out the option I would have checked: "I don't know any trick moves."

That having been said, trick moves are part of the game. They're like joseki's evil twin, and if you know them like you know a joseki you should either play them and be prepared for the consequences if your opponent knows or figures out the antidote (Araban) or decide that it's not the best choice (Topazg). But to know a hamete and not play it because it is disrespectful seems odd. Unless your opponent is a pro, why should you assume that he knows the same hamete as you do, and why did you learn it in the first place?