So, was talking to some folks about reading, and discovered something interesting that I wanted to put up for a poll.

I got to thinking about it, and I don't read a lot. I glance at the board, consider a few short variations, and if it looks like the results are OK for me, I go for it. This tends to me playing out long, complex fights that don't end well for me, in spite of being able to read them out instead.

I'm what I'd call an instinctual player. I have this shape I want the board to be, and my moves generally move in that direction.

A teacher of mine, when asked, informed me that when he had been seriously working at it, he read every move. Not only that, but he kept a running tally of the board count, that he adjusted every move or two.

Clearly, most of us don't play that way. SDKs tend to focus on local result too much, and most amatuers, I feel, don't read constantly, or consistently.

So what about you? In a serious game.. How often do you read?

I don't think there's one correct answer for me among the choices. Sometimes I read when I'm trying to kill something; sometimes I read when I think I've got sente and am trying to figure out where to attack/invade.

Of course, what usually happens is that I read out a sequence that looks good, play the first move, and find halfway in that my opponent plays a move I didn't expect, and everything goes pear-shaped for me.

For Fedya, and those like him, I have now made the vote multiple answer. You may change your vote if you have already voted.

Every once in awhile, I will play a move without reading.

I struggle to read in situations where the game is very open ended. I almost always read in close fighting.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

My situation doesn't fit the poll. I read most moves except when following a joseki or something similar. I wouldn't say I read compulsively, though. I like long time limits and I like to look ahead 10 or more moves most of the time. What I call reading is mostly watching moves flow on the board in my mind, unless I am looking at an unfamiliar shape or a situation I don't understand easily.

The poll doesn't fit my opinion of how it works, either.

The question is not "do you read" or "do you not read" at a particular point in the game. It is about the depth of your reading, or how many options you've considered.

If you are not reading, you are not playing go. You are just putting stones down.

Two moves can be played on the same intersection. The one that has thought and reading behind it means something. The one that's just put down on the board without any reading doesn't.

_________________
be immersed

i play mehcanical go

When my group's about to die.

I can think of five things I do when playing Go: reading out sequences, trying to find interesting moves (this may also be considered reading, but it's like finding the first move to read from), applying positional judgment (may also be considered reading), counting, or spacing out. This goes on whether it's my move or my opponents. I do space out or get distracted for a little bit every game, but I try to keep it to a minimum.

Your question does remind me of a quote from a professional go player though. Something to the effect of, "For amateurs, reading time is sleeping time."

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Let's talk about reading.

By reading, I mean, actually expend effort and time thinking about multiple lines of play.

I'm terrible about playing slow motion blitz, where I set long time limits, and play 5 second moves anyway. I have no idea how I got this way, I don't actually play blitz, and I used to take a lot of time to think.

I can 'see' about 5-10 moves, depending on the shape, how much tsumego I've been doing lately, how much sleep I've had, and how stressed out I am. I think about the board a lot, which direction I want to push a group I'm chasing, which way I want to play.. but I rarely stop, count the board, and read out my options, by which, I mean, sit down and read the 10-20 moves I'm capable of holding in my head, for multiple options.

When I say 'I play by instinct' I mean, 'I glanced at this situation, saw a pattern of about 5 moves that I thought suited, me, and charged ahead like a bull in a china shop.'

When I'm on, and can 'see' 10 moves ahead, I'm actually not bad like this. When I can suck my opponent into my tempo, and make him play like he's playing blitz too, the game almost always turns my way. If I'd slow down and think I'd probably gain 2 stones.

But, I'm lazy, and don't play enough serious games to actually feel like deep thought is required.

When I was very new, about 10k, I heard a similar quote to 'reading time is sleeping time', I heard someone somewhere, I forget where, declare about another player, "I don't know why he thinks so much. At DDK, everything he's thinking about is wrong anyway."

Realizing this was true, I stopped thinking so much. I played whatever move looked right, and dealt with the consequences afterwards. Over time, and through a 6 month period of grinding tsumego, I've trained my 'looks ok' to be a fairly deep glance.. but it's still not, to me, actually reading.

Only in the fuseki do I actually take the time to think very far ahead, trying to figure out where my opponent might answer this invasion, this defense, this attack, trying to keep the whole board balanced in my head. Annnnd, as soon as the fighting starts, I often forget all about that, and drive my opponent into a crucial area of my own territory. Hah. That'll teach them to live small all over my territory.

Anyway, to all those of you who read all the time, kudos on your good go!

in a slow, serious game, i read almost all the time, except of following notoriously known joseki, capturing a ko or facing well known shape, though in the last case i have to visualise the result anyway to check if it is ok. but i am far from being a computer - by reading i usually only confirm quality of moves that instinctively come to my mind

i read exhaustively only when facing a difficult close-combat situation

and seriousness of the game is an important factor for me, i read much more (and play much stronger) in tournaments than in casual games

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

Me too, and it's downright disillusioning. It makes me think: why bother to read at all?



This seems to be a common problem among us amateurs. When we read, we read as far as we think we can and hope for the best. While this is presumably better than not reading at all, it is a big reason that we cannot play with confidence. In a related post, John Fairbairn wrote:

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

For me, I think I've become aware that my reading is simply inadequate to exhaustively assess most reading situations. From a strategic point of view, I'll normally have a general plan, and be somewhat aware of weaknesses in what I'm doing (e.g. this shape is a bit thin). I'll normally do some "basic instinct" reading of how easily punishable those weaknesses are, and if I can't find an easy way to punish them, I'll likely play out my plan. Life and death situations, and situations where certain tesujis look likely to crop up, I'll read in some detail to see if there are stronger ways of resisting, squeezes, shortage of liberties etc, and then play out what feels like the best line.

As other people have indicated, it's amazing how often your opponent can find a resource that you didn't expect! At least there are enough commonalities in shape that in simple situations I can feel reasonably confident I can read out the mostly likely stumbling blocks where typical tesujis and shape issues arise - as always with reading, tesuji knowledge and experience are vital - there are always some clever tesujis that will catch me out in almost every game, but I'm pretty confident that even reading for three times as long would be unlikely to pick them up, as most sequences I either will have read to the best of my limited ability, or the sequence / move will be a blind spot of mine.

I'd rather keep the game going that way, and go back and assess games where I end up with the impression that I had a complete blind spot to a really good move or sequence, in the hope that the process will improve my ability to look for it in a similar situation in the future.

Example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Sabaki technique
$$ --------------------------
$$ . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 5 4 3 8 . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 7 X 2 . . . . . . . . |
$$ . 1 . 6 . 0 . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . W . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------------[/go]

This is a fairly common sabaki technique, but was a complete blind spot until I read it in Cho Hun-hyeon's lectures on Go techniques (including a number of alternative possible lines if Black deviates, and when White can't play this safely etc). For a while now it's always in my assessments on 3rd line caps, and in general on knight's jump contact plays, but I don't know how long it would have taken to find it if I hadn't read it or had it played against me - I think reading technique improves with practice, experience of being on the receiving end, and reading as much material as possible on technique, sabaki, and tesuji.

PS, until then, I'd almost definitely have played this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Heavy
$$ --------------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 3 5 . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . |
$$ . 1 . . 4 . . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . W . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------------[/go]

Which Cho describes as unreasonably heavy.

At every move almost every position (except obvious only moves), what I do is

1-I select some initial moves to start (usually wrong ones)
2-I try to visualise the positions after the a couple of first instinct moves of the both players (usually incorrect visualisation and/or missing some tesujis)
3-I try to judge the results (usually misjudge)
4-I don't like any of the variations I visualized (long live pessimism)
5-I get impatient and play a different first move that I did not consider at all.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Reading is a difficult thing to define. I think a move-by-move slog, such as I play there, she plays that way, I respond, ... is certainly reading and everyone, (even pros) does it. We amateurs do it more than pros because they often read in a flash, as though they had the moves run on fast forward in their minds. Sometimes we amateurs can read this way, and the feeling of watching the moves instantly play out in a picture in your mind is wonderful. Even though this is not a move-by-move reading I would still call it reading. And the things Dusk Eagle described, positional judgement, counting, looking at shape, selecting a move from the whole board for further investigation, etc., all count as "reading" for me.

I liked the idea of Koshida that daal quoted John Fairbairn as quoting. The trouble is everybody has a limit beyond which further reading is not possible. A trivial proof of this is the fact that after the first move in a game White can't read out the rest of the game all the way to the end. I was just looking at John Fairbairn's book "Old Fuseki vs New Fuseki" and saw there that there was a point in the middle game, around move 95, when Go Seigen was unable to read out the situation, according to Go's own statement, so he made a cautious reinforcing move rather than forge boldly ahead.

A question I sometimes wonder about is whether, when we make a move based on "feeling" are we actually doing unconscious reading, say with the right brain? Someplace I read that pros have a vast array of go positions in memory and, when they have to choose a move thay look for a position in their memory (or experience) that partially (or totally) matches the one in the game and then analyse what happened in that position. I wonder whether we amateurs, with our limited experience and memory of positions, try to do the same thing as best we can, and this is where "feeling" or "intuition" comes from.

Reading is like tree branching. First branch is to choose the next move. Depth of reading is how long sequence you can visualize and branches are about spotting opponent's counters. I think most of the skill in Go is about improving the quality of reading. That is, discarding useless variations in favour of tesuji seeking.

I don't read deep, but I consider some possibilities before playing. I think this is best expressed as evaluation. I've been practicing this evaluation and decision-making in blitz games. I recommend you people give it a try. It's quite revealing what people's first thoughts are on such fast-paced games.