Well, magicwand's comment seemed to suggest that good ideas can't come from a lower rank, or that more experienced players can't be wrong about these sorts of things. In that case, he is using his authority as someone who has a proficiency for winning games to justify his particular view on this position. In that case, the authority is misplaced.
It was primarily that MW seemed to be cutting off discussion. He is welcome to say "This move has this problem..." or "Here's what I see...", but simply saying "If you can beat me then you can consider alternatives to my judgment on this matter" just seems incredibly wrong-headed.
Move I've played for a few years without understanding it.
-
shapenaji
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:58 pm
- Rank: EGF 4d
- GD Posts: 952
- Location: Netherlands
- Has thanked: 407 times
- Been thanked: 422 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Kirby wrote:
The fact that someone has authority, in itself, doesn't show anything. But in this case, the authority is an earned rank. It could be worth it to consider what they are saying against your own thoughts.
For example, just because a pro says something is true doesn't mean it is. But I have faith in a pro's ability, so I should still consider what they have to say. That's because their "authority" is the result of having proved themselves to be knowledgeable on the go board.
That's because, in my opinion, the authority is the result of knowledge/skill.
I don't think it has an effect on my thoughts at all. My experience should lend itself to explaining my position. I don't need to resort to my rank to prove something, but rather to the knowledge that I gained in getting that rank.
Tactics yes, Tact no...
-
daniel_the_smith
- Gosei
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:51 am
- Rank: 2d AGA
- GD Posts: 1193
- KGS: lavalamp
- Tygem: imapenguin
- IGS: lavalamp
- OGS: daniel_the_smith
- Location: Silicon Valley
- Has thanked: 152 times
- Been thanked: 330 times
- Contact:
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Appeal to authority is *never* a valid argument, even if the authority is knowledgeable in the domain; if the authority has an argument, then you can evaluate the argument. If the authority does not have an argument, then what reason do we have to consider them an authority?
However, given that this is go, a lot of knowledge strong players have is not really available to them in a form that enables them to express it to us. It's like driving a stick; you can explain feathering the clutch all day long but people won't actually understand it (even if they parrot back everything you said) until they go out and learn to do it. High-speed cameras in sports have shown that athletes aren't actually doing the things they say they are doing. So I don't think it's necessarily fair to accuse magicwand of an appeal to authority.
It certainly sounds like he's playing irrationally to me. But it also sounds like he's claiming that such play is optimized for beating players a few stones weaker than him, at a higher handicap than they really should have. And I don't find that too hard to believe.
However, given that this is go, a lot of knowledge strong players have is not really available to them in a form that enables them to express it to us. It's like driving a stick; you can explain feathering the clutch all day long but people won't actually understand it (even if they parrot back everything you said) until they go out and learn to do it. High-speed cameras in sports have shown that athletes aren't actually doing the things they say they are doing. So I don't think it's necessarily fair to accuse magicwand of an appeal to authority.
It certainly sounds like he's playing irrationally to me. But it also sounds like he's claiming that such play is optimized for beating players a few stones weaker than him, at a higher handicap than they really should have. And I don't find that too hard to believe.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Now the white stone is heavy and the previous exchange has become aji keshi. Therefore tenuki was wrong.
Even if White plays the lightest double approach, Black cuts and gets a double attack with which he uses his handicap stones. Therefore W cannot do that.
Defending the stone is correct but overextending means Black can cut and gets a double attack using his handicap stones well. So 1 is wrong.
This is the farthest extension White can play without making an overplay. So this or a is correct.
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
White's double approach is wrong because Black cuts and now can choose a, b or c and get an excellent result, which also uses his handicap stones well. White cannot defend both groups with 1 one. This is also called splitting attack:)
-
daal
- Oza
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:30 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 1304 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Although the following situation is a bit different, the approach move is the same, and perhaps the comparison is of interest. In his book The ABC's of Attack and Defense, Michael Redmond uses the following diagram (just the right side, which I couldn't figure out how to post) as his first basic figure, and then spends the next 45 pages talking about it. It is presented not in the context of a handicap game, but rather as an alternative way for white to move into a san ren sei formation (instead of the usual approach at a). In this context, the black move at 2 seems to be a strong response.
Redmond is mostly concerned with how black should deal with getting his Q10 stone pincered, but of course we also see white's plans as well. Chapter 2 then uses the following basic figure to discuss how black should deal with the double approach. He also goes on to examine the approach at a instead of at 3:
Redmond is mostly concerned with how black should deal with getting his Q10 stone pincered, but of course we also see white's plans as well. Chapter 2 then uses the following basic figure to discuss how black should deal with the double approach. He also goes on to examine the approach at a instead of at 3:
Patience, grasshopper.
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
shapenaji wrote:...
I don't think it has an effect on my thoughts at all. My experience should lend itself to explaining my position. I don't need to resort to my rank to prove something, but rather to the knowledge that I gained in getting that rank.
I agree with the bolded statement. It's good that you resort to the knowledge that you gained by getting a particular rank.
What I am trying to say is that, there seems to be a good chance that someone that has a high rank has some degree of said knowledge. Of course, it is the knowledge, and not the rank that is important.
I guess I am just saying that, when someone has the "authority" of a high rank, it may be rational to take a bit of extra consideration in what they say, because the reason for that high rank is likely to have some relationship with more knowledge than those of lower rank.
The authority in itself is not what makes it useful to listen to someone. It's the fact that they likely have some degree of knowledge, because it has been exhibited on the go board. Their word is not absolute, but winning games does provide evidence that someone knows more about the game than weaker players, in my opinion.
Given a particular board position, a weaker player can obviously be correct when a stroner player is not. But there is probably a greater chance that the stronger player will be correct.
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
hyperpape wrote:Kirby: I considered posting a similar point that while the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, it's not always unreasonable.
But in the present context, what's gained by it? We have several players of various strengths commenting on the position. Even if Magicwand is stronger than Harlequin, why cut off the discussion?
I don't think we should cut off discussion. Discussion is good. I was mainly arguing against the use of "the argument from authority" as a logical fallacy as applied to the present situation. That's because the authority is not arbitrary in this case.
I think it's certainly good not to cut off the discussion, and to continue analysis.
be immersed
-
Harleqin
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:31 am
- Rank: German 2 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 401 times
- Been thanked: 164 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
RobertJasiek wrote:
White's double approach is wrong because Black cuts and now can choose a, b or c and get an excellent result, which also uses his handicap stones well. White cannot defend both groups with 1 one. This is also called splitting attack:)
I agree with the splitting, but in the sequence you show, either
or 
is misplaced.One better way seems to be playing
at directly. If White plays the tiger's mouth then, can jump to O7, instead of making the empty triangle. If White extends to the centre, on the other hand:... the jump is still good, since the corner group is strong and Black needs not fear the cut. This
has the advantage that White does not get to force at P4.The other possibility is to play
as in your diagram, but then P4 should be answered like this:This shape is more efficient, and the cut at 'b' is still a concern for White ('b' and 'c' are kind of miai). Black needs not fear White 'a'.
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.
-
Magicwand
- Tengen
- Posts: 4844
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:26 am
- Rank: Wbaduk 7D
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: magicwand
- Tygem: magicwand
- Wbaduk: rlatkfkd
- DGS: magicwand
- OGS: magicwand
- Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 504 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Harleqin :
as usual your diag make sense and i respect your opinion very much.
but you also know that you can not win 5 stone handy with optimal moves alone.
examples:
1. capping on a handycap is also suboptimal because it is an overplay but everyone plays it.
2. white open wide on the side to invite black to jump in.(which will be an overplay if it was even game).
fact:
1. whatever you play in the beginning of the handycap game(more than 3) has to be an overplay up to certain degree.
2. what i play in handycap is not what i play in even game. i think that will be the case if you play handycap game.
3. you overcome handycap by creating an surrounding that will invite your opponent's mistake. (not fuseki)
4. you dont like me very much.
i have a feeling that you are stronger player than i am but i think i can play better handycap game than you for sure.
as usual your diag make sense and i respect your opinion very much.
but you also know that you can not win 5 stone handy with optimal moves alone.
examples:
1. capping on a handycap is also suboptimal because it is an overplay but everyone plays it.
2. white open wide on the side to invite black to jump in.(which will be an overplay if it was even game).
fact:
1. whatever you play in the beginning of the handycap game(more than 3) has to be an overplay up to certain degree.
2. what i play in handycap is not what i play in even game. i think that will be the case if you play handycap game.
3. you overcome handycap by creating an surrounding that will invite your opponent's mistake. (not fuseki)
4. you dont like me very much.
i have a feeling that you are stronger player than i am but i think i can play better handycap game than you for sure.
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Harleqin wrote:in the sequence you show, either :b3: or :b5: is misplaced.
White's shape is equally bad (also with empty triangle), so it does not matter that B has an empty triangle.
No. It just has other (dis)advantages. After White c, White d threatens more than in my variation.
Last edited by RobertJasiek on Wed May 04, 2011 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Magicwand
- Tengen
- Posts: 4844
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:26 am
- Rank: Wbaduk 7D
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: magicwand
- Tygem: magicwand
- Wbaduk: rlatkfkd
- DGS: magicwand
- OGS: magicwand
- Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 504 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
IMO they both have good and bad side to it and can be played both ways.
if i had to choose i will choose Harleqin's variation but i am not saying that Robert's variation is wrong.
if i had to choose i will choose Harleqin's variation but i am not saying that Robert's variation is wrong.
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
-
Harleqin
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:31 am
- Rank: German 2 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 401 times
- Been thanked: 164 times
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
RobertJasiek wrote:Harleqin wrote:in the sequence you show, either
White's shape is equally bad (also with empty triangle), so it does not matter that B has an empty triangle.
I think that if Black has to invest that peeping stone, the inefficiencies of that black stone and the awkward white stone compensate to a certain degree (but I am not sure whether White should not answer the peep differently). One would not say that a tiger's mouth is inefficient just because it could be peeped, right? The black empty triangle seems to have a harder time to justify itself, in my eyes. I have some more thoughts about this efficiency issue, but that is another post on another day, I think.
No. It just has other (dis)advantages. After White c, White d threatens more than in my variation.
After white 'c', Black cuts at 'b', the way I see it. You cannot have everything. By the way, 'd' looks dubious to me: the white group does not gain a single liberty. Black can answer the threat in many ways that gain much more than 'd'. Example continuation:
Again a miai situation. If White plays on the right side first, before
, I think that Black should take the left side with 
or 'a':After that, 'd' would be answered by 'e'.
If White initially protects the cut on the left instead, the white stone on the right becomes "blighted". Note how immobilized it is compared to the situation where Black would now perhaps pincer this stone after making the empty triangle:
Now, if White plays on the right side, as you proposed, instead of starting this double approach immediately, it would threaten the second approach, as the right side group would have its base already. However, it would feel bad for Black to answer the approach move twice like this:
So, finally, I think that this
is the right move, perhaps even a refutation of 
.Edit: add comparison diagram.
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: Move I've played for a few years without understanding i
Harleqin wrote:'d' looks dubious to me
Aji. No need to use it with bad timing.