Are big and urgent effectively the same thing?

[topazg]

Are big moves and urgent moves effectively the same thing? There's a proverb "urgent before big", which refers often to ongoing fights or board areas where the temperature is very high before cash claiming moves. This rather implies a separate categorisation of big moves and urgent moves. There's also the argument that if something is urgent, by its very nature it has a large impact on the final points value of the game, and could therefore be seen to be "very big" as well - in that case, you could argue that the bigger it is, the more urgent it is, and the more urgent it is, the bigger it is, and therefore they equate to the same thing after analysis.

Discuss

[EdLee]

Urgent is bigger.

[lefuet]

if the big move is bigger than the urgent one, the urgent is not urgent

[topazg]

Urgent is bigger.

So urgent is big that's gone over a sufficiently high threshold of big-ness? In other words, all urgent moves are big, but not all big moves are urgent?

[Li Kao]

We could say "play the best move", but that's not really helpful. Categorizing moves as urgent or just big is just a heuristic to help us deal with our limited calculation ability.

I think "big" is used for moves where you can easily estimate the how much it gain. If I play this move I gain x territory/influence.
An "urgent" move influences the strength of groups and thus has a big effect on the dynamic of the whole game.

So I take the proverb as: People tend to underestimate the effect of the long term effect of "urgent" moves, it's bigger than it looks at a glance.

If you can say "strengthening my weak group will gain me 30 points in the long run because I know exactly how much the opponent will gain from attacking it" then you don't need the concept "urgent" moves. But I for one am far too bad at go to read that, so I have to rely on heuristics. And one such heuristic is that the strengthening a group or attacking your opponents group is bigger than it looks.

Something related would be the "Flow" MW likes to talk about in his games. Grabbing the flow can be worth much more than a big move that only gains you points.

[Kirby]

My feeling is that urgent moves, particularly in the early game, are moves that are big which also have a potential long-standing effect. For example, if you have a weak group that can be attacked, it may be urgent to strengthen it. If your opponent attacks it before you strengthen, his move is big, but also has many future benefits, which can continue to impact the flow of the game.

A move that is only big in the opening, on the other hand, I typically associate with primarily being a move that doesn't have as much of a followup. Playing an extention to get more territory seems like an example of this.

In the endgame, I'd say that urgent and big are the same.

This is all just my feeling, though.

[EdLee]

In other words, all urgent moves are big, but not all big moves are urgent?

Yes. Only move > urgent > big > small/slow > 0.5 ko > pass > die in gote.

[daal]

The pitfall I suspect is thinking about the meaning of the words, when in fact they should be viewed as terminology. I think the key distinction is that an urgent move affects the stability of groups, whereas a big move simply stakes a claim in an open area of the board.

[entropi]

In other words, all urgent moves are big, but not all big moves are urgent?

Yes. Only move > urgent > big > small/slow > 0.5 ko > pass > die in gote.

... > kill your own living group > resign

[topazg]

The pitfall I suspect is thinking about the meaning of the words, when in fact they should be viewed as terminology. The key distinction is that an urgent move affects the stability of groups, whereas a big move simply stakes a claim in an open area of the board.

That's interesting, and not one I've used before - I quite often use urgent for non-group-stability (like wedging two facing corner shimaris). I have used it sometimes in Kirby's sense (big = cashing points in gote, compared to urgent = big but with further redeemable value), but not that one.

It's very interesting to see how many different views there are - makes it hard to feel comfortable in referring to big and urgent separately in my current Malkovich game. I think I'll stick with "big" and "really big" and try to explain why

[Kirby]

In other words, all urgent moves are big, but not all big moves are urgent?

Yes. Only move > urgent > big > small/slow > 0.5 ko > pass > die in gote.

... > kill your own living group > resign

Hmm... I'd almost go as far as to say that:

resign > kill your own living group...

Though, I suppose there may be some situations where "kill your own living group" could be allowable (eg. ignoring a ko threat that would kill your own living group, or maybe teasing your opponent because you think you can win even by killing your own stones - I'm not sure if the latter is that advisable, I suppose).

[jts]

I have, so far, assumed that the difference between big moves and urgent moves is closely related to the difference between gote moves and {dual sente, sente, reverse sente} moves. Is the urgent move bigger than the big move? Well, uh, kinda. In the same way that 1 point in dual sente is worth more than 3 points in sente, which is worth more than 5 points in gote. But they're bigger in different ways. Part of the value of urgent and sente moves is the moves that they let us play later, while all the value of the big/gote move is right there on the board.

[Bill Spight]

I suspect that this question relates to CXUD's question in the thread about connecting and cutting over influence ( viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4136 ). I. e., connecting and cutting are urgent, while influence is big. (I don't think he means influence as in influence vs. territory, but a simpler and more general idea of influence, such as that which programs use to estimate territory.)

Anyway, big in the proverb does not refer to the size of a play, but to its type. (Technically, it refers to a region of the board where you make a play.) Big plays sketch out large positions or prevent the opponent from doing so. Their primary point is influence, that is, their effect upon empty points. Urgent plays are fighting plays. Their primary point is their effect upon stones.

[topazg]

Anyway, big in the proverb does not refer to the size of play, but to the type of play. (Technically, it refers to a region of the board where you make a play.) Big plays sketch out large positions or prevent the opponent from doing so. Their primary point is influence, that is, their effect upon empty points. Urgent plays are fighting plays. Their primary point is their effect upon stones.

Would you describe a move that is territorially big (perhaps on the 3rd line, approaching an enemy group) and tactically urgent (destabilises the enemy group) as both "big" and "urgent" not because of it being _really_ big, but because it has both of the above properties separately? Does the fact it's urgent (and therefore the sort of move you're both desperate to play) increase it's "bigness" to you?

[entropi]

... > kill your own living group > resign

Hmm... I'd almost go as far as to say that:

resign > kill your own living group...

Though, I suppose there may be some situations where "kill your own living group" could be allowable (eg. ignoring a ko threat that would kill your own living group, or maybe teasing your opponent because you think you can win even by killing your own stones - I'm not sure if the latter is that advisable, I suppose).

Hehe, somebody may suspect that his group can be attacked and become a big ko and may decide to eliminate this possibility. It may also be an unfortunate move that happens to eliminate the ko possibility by killing his own group unconditionally. Even further than that, this guy may see in the review that his group had in fact been unconditionally alive

But I certainly don't know anybody who would play a move like that, no no no I have never seen such a player, no no it's not me, NO NOoo oo o ...

( I would post the game but it would be too embarassing for me )