If you see a good move, look for a better one.

[daniel_the_smith]

I read the advice in the title as "don't stop your search prematurely." I'm not quite sure I'm following John's objection, despite having read it a couple times-- John seems to be reading "if you see a good move, look for a better one" more restrictively than I am? "Better" is extremely vague...

[Kirby]

...I'm not quite sure I'm following John's objection, despite having read it a couple times...

Can't go back on an argument once you've started, right?

[Kirby]

Numbers of good reasons do not equate quality of a move. It depends, besides other things, on hierarchical dependencies of reasons.

I think that this is a good point. In addition to hierarchical dependencies, there could simply be the fact that some reasons are more important than others. For example, you might have one reason to play a particular move: to save my 50 stone group. But this single reason could very well outweigh other plays on the board for which you can come up with multiple reasons.

[daal]

John's objection seems to me less a contradiction than simply another tack on what we should be doing when choosing a move.

If you see a good move, look for a better one

and

look() for more reasons why any move - including the one () tried - is good

are both wise suggestions, and both point to the fact that our human deficiencies - particularly not taking the time to do our best - limit our abilities as go players.

The more that we are aware of the possibilities inherent in a move, the better it becomes. Ez4u's original comment points to the fact that when looking for a move, if we find one that's good - be it for one or several reasons - we shouldn't start shouting "mission accomplished" and plonk it down. He says we should keep looking to see if there might be a better move. This implies a comparison with the "good" move and does not suggest exclusion. On the contrary: looking for a better move most often means trying to find a way to earn added benefit to what your good move already accomplishes.

Ez4u sees a common mistake in our thinking - that we decide too quickly. If however we don't just play the first good move we find and continue our search for a great move, but then fail to adequately compare a second choice with the first, then this is simply another mental error which does not negate the original advice.

In short - the common enemy is Micky Mouse.

you might have one reason to play a particular move: to save my 50 stone group.

I hate it when I do this.

[karaklis]

As a kyu player I often fail to assess which move is better. That's why I mostly agonize to choose between two or more moves. How can we judge which move is better?

As for finding multiple-prupose moves, is there somewhere a list of purposes available which to look out for?

[RobertJasiek]

How can we judge which move is better?

By applying analysis methods or values and making strategic choices and strategic planning. Read books about these topics! (1)

As for finding multiple-prupose moves, is there somewhere a list of purposes available which to look out for?

One list? Lots of lists! The text form is of little importance though. What matters is the contents of principles. Read those books with (more than a few) principles! (1)

***

(1) For a start, my two books have 9 major analysis methods (and more submethods), 16 particularly important values, 275 principles etc.

[Mef]

As a kyu player I often fail to assess which move is better. That's why I mostly agonize to choose between two or more moves. How can we judge which move is better?

As for finding multiple-prupose moves, is there somewhere a list of purposes available which to look out for?

Perhaps for a starting point something like this would suffice?

[cdybeijing]

I read the original article on ChessCafe.com - thanks to ez4u for reminding me of that site and the insight there to be had for go players.

Actually, other than the concept used for this thread, I took away something different from the article that I will have on my mind as I play:

Your positional judgment is not likely to improve the more time you spend thinking about a position, although your analytical judgment will (up to a 20 minute or so limit). Therefore, in faster games, or as you face time pressure, spend less and less time accordingly on positional decisions.