trick moves

[Koosh]

There are also clever or beautiful moves that fail.
Better yet, maybe a not so beautiful move countered the beautiful one.

Where does that leave us?

- if you are not a fighter, then they are crutches of the wrong length with missing bolts.

And no footpads.

[Shaddy]

If it is a clever or beautiful move, it is implied that it succeeds. Otherwise it wouldn't be so clever or beautiful, now would it?

[Chew Terr]

- if you are not a fighter, then they are crutches of the wrong length with missing bolts.

And no footpads.

No footpads? Phew, I hate it when I'm robbed by my crutches.~ (Pardon the bad pun)

[Horibe]

I thought, and still think, that the priorities listed above are in the wrong order, certainly winning must come first.

This is a game, with a goal, and any judgment of beauty or interest can only be made based on a moves ability to attain that goal. We can make good shape to our heart's content, but if the move does not serve to lead us down a winning path, there is no beauty, or interest, there is only misplaced artifice.

If you follow this line of argument, you must also claim that a beautiful or interesting game does not exist, because someone lost it.

I think you follow your own argument here, not mine. I simply maintain that the inherent beauty of any move is based on its impact on the goal of the game - to win. There are many pro games where mistakes, if any, are too subtle for us to understand, the game is beautiful and interesting...yet someone loses.

A move can be be beautiful and interesting if it gives one the best chance of winning - even if it fails. But any illusion of artistic worth must be guaged in its value on the bottom line.

[topazg]

I thought, and still think, that the priorities listed above are in the wrong order, certainly winning must come first.

This is a game, with a goal, and any judgment of beauty or interest can only be made based on a moves ability to attain that goal. We can make good shape to our heart's content, but if the move does not serve to lead us down a winning path, there is no beauty, or interest, there is only misplaced artifice.

On second reading, I realized that the poster arleady knows this, even without realizing it, or admitting it. Though he claims winning is the least noble aim, he admits he jettisons beauty and interest for the down and dirty when the situation demands it. His philosophy may be flawed (in my view) but his actions speak the truth - I want to win pretty, I want to win fun, but ultimately - I want to win.

This is a really interesting post. If I started to feel this way about Go I would lose interest overnight and find something else to do with my spare time.

I thoroughly enjoy not agreeing with you that winning must come first

[cloud]

I'm not following the argument that winning is not the most important thing. If the top pro players felt this way, how would we ever advance our knowledge of the game? Sure in a teaching game it's fine to not focus on the result, but without playing serious tournament-style games how are you ever going to get better or know how strong you are? If you play trick moves that you know are suboptimal then in the long run this will hurt your game, but more importantly, it's probably bad for you to be wasting your time memorizing complicated trick josekis in the first place. If my opponent successfully tricks me I don't get mad- I just realize that I learned something and try my best to recover.

[Bartleby]

From Kageyama's introduction to Chapter 2 of A Compendium of Trick Plays:

"There are those who study the opening or joseki, but it seems that those who deliberately set out to study trick plays are few in number. Just the words 'trick plays' conjure up images of swindling, of taking the low road, of dirty underhandedness; going so far as to coinsider that the aesthetics of the game of go are sullied by them. Should one clumsily apply such research and study, one might find imputations directed against one's character. What miserable soul would devote serious attentions to these kinds of matters?

"In fact, in the past I too thought this way. That was around the time I was amateur 1 kyu or shodan.

"However, seeing a trick play in the classical praxis of Honinbo Dosaku turned my attitude 180 degrees around. Is it likely that a Meijin whose name has gone down in the annals of history would use a so-called vicious technique, I asked myself, and without even verifying the facts of the situation, I looked beyond the unpleasant nuances of the words 'trick play' and felt ashamed of my own narrow-minded thinking. Since that time I have assiduosly researched trick plays. And at the same time I have realized that an appreciation of the fascination inherent in trick plays has been instrumental in boosting my strength in go, insofar as it has made apparent the interrelationship and operation of the stones and skillful technique [tesuji]."

[jts]

"However, seeing a trick play in the classical praxis of Honinbo Dosaku turned my attitude 180 degrees around. "

That's really interesting. One aspect my conception of hamete is that at my level you know hamete if you memorize hamete, and if you don't memorize them you can't see the trap in advance; but as players' reading abilities wax they can simply read out the whole sequence so, at higher levels, the whole concept of hamete evaporates.

Do you know which Dosaku game inspired Kageyama?

[Horibe]

This is a really interesting post. If I started to feel this way about Go I would lose interest overnight and find something else to do with my spare time.

I thoroughly enjoy not agreeing with you that winning must come first

I am either not expressing myself well, or I do not understand this response.

I am not saying win at any cost (cheat, misdirect, rudeness etc). I am not saying that playing this game in order to appreciate its beauty is not valid.

I am simply saying that you cannot judge the beauty or interest of this game without putting the goal of winning first and foremost. It is the yardstick upon which all else must be measured.

For example, if a game is hopelessly lost - any claim to making a "beautiful" or "interesting" move is misguided. There is not beauty in keeping the loss to under 30pts. The only move of any elegance is to resign. This is because the beauty and interest at this point cannot serve a goal to win, in fact they simply can be as crude as a trick play at the beginning.

It simply is not go and not a worthy journey to attempt to play a beautiful fuseki and then object to your own success when your opponent is compelled to disrupt things with an "ugly" invasion by taking the attitude "You have ruined this beautiful game with this move" On the contrary, he may have acknowledged the beauty of your play - and you must now use your wonderful formation to beautifully punish his play - you are not crudely coming down to his level, you are stylishly demonstrating the effectiveness of your play. You cannot continue with "beautiful" peaceful moves and ignore the fight.

I do not see where this is a feeling that causes one to lose interest. Without the goal of the game in sight, one mans beautiful double wing formation cannot be superior to another's beautiful crawling second line life.

[Mnemonic]

That's really interesting. One aspect my conception of hamete is that at my level you know hamete if you memorize hamete, and if you don't memorize them you can't see the trap in advance;

As I said earlier I don't really believe this. Most hamete rely on the opponent seeing the trick play as overplay and trying to punish it. After they aggressively cut/captured/whatever and got what they wanted they look around and realize that the game has just radically shifted in their opponents favor.

If you think your opponent is just playing a new move you'll try to whether the storm and play defensively. You might still lose some points but you won't have been tricked.

but as players' reading abilities wax they can simply read out the whole sequence so, at higher levels, the whole concept of hamete evaporates.

That's where the definition of trick play comes in again that was raised earlier in this thread. Does a complicated taisha joseki, that you've studied earlier and your opponent not count as a trick play?

[daniel_the_smith]

I think it's sort of a psychological distinction. Are you playing the board or the person?

If you're playing the person, then it might be fair to call everything you do a "trick play". (Example: Magicwand)

If you're playing the board, then I think even if you play something tricky, it can't really be called a "trick play". (Example: Kirby)

I think both are valid approaches. The first is probably better for winning, especially if it involves money. The second is probably better for learning.

[hyperpape]

I am simply saying that you cannot judge the beauty or interest of this game without putting the goal of winning first and foremost. It is the yardstick upon which all else must be measured.

For example, if a game is hopelessly lost - any claim to making a "beautiful" or "interesting" move is misguided. There is not beauty in keeping the loss to under 30pts. The only move of any elegance is to resign. This is because the beauty and interest at this point cannot serve a goal to win, in fact they simply can be as crude as a trick play at the beginning.

It simply is not go and not a worthy journey to attempt to play a beautiful fuseki and then object to your own success when your opponent is compelled to disrupt things with an "ugly" invasion by taking the attitude "You have ruined this beautiful game with this move" On the contrary, he may have acknowledged the beauty of your play - and you must now use your wonderful formation to beautifully punish his play - you are not crudely coming down to his level, you are stylishly demonstrating the effectiveness of your play. You cannot continue with "beautiful" peaceful moves and ignore the fight.

Beautiful does not mean peaceful. I can see how you could get that impression, but it is not how the word is used in Go. We call tesuji beuatiful, we talk about beautiful attacks.

[daal]

I am simply saying that you cannot judge the beauty or interest of this game without putting the goal of winning first and foremost. It is the yardstick upon which all else must be measured.

To me this is a little like saying that the goal of a meal is to satisfy your hunger. Well, yeah, but a meal that doesn't do that isn't much of a meal. This is less of a yardstick and more a defining feature. It is not the quality by which we determine whether a meal is good.

Every game ends in a win, but not every game is interesting or beautiful.

Go doesn't make much sense if you are not trying to win, but just trying to win doesn't necessarily make for good games. So yes, winning is first and foremost, but it's not the yardstick. The yardstick (I measure in inches) is quality, and this a matter of how well one plays a particular game. It's no co-incidence that really beautiful games are typically played by pros. If a good game was lost, the opponent was stronger. While I would not scoff at a higher winning percentage, improving the quality of my play is what I strive for.

(It has been suggested to me that a good way to do that is to focus more on winning. )

[topazg]

Go doesn't make much sense if you are not trying to win.

I consider winning to be a proxy for playing great moves. Go doesn't make sense unless you have a goal ... but, if your goal is maximising the point value of each move, winning is implicit, but doesn't have to be the goal itself.

[topazg]

I do not see where this is a feeling that causes one to lose interest. Without the goal of the game in sight, one mans beautiful double wing formation cannot be superior to another's beautiful crawling second line life.

Because it assumes my goal is to win. If that was my goal, the game would not interest me.