Defense first?

[kwhyte]

I've been looking over a bunch of old fuseki/middle game books, and they generally give a list of priorities, either explicitly or implicitly, something like this:

1) Keep your stones connected
2) Disconnect your opponent's stones
3) Get an eye base
4) Steal your opponent's eye base

Etc.

It struck me how uniformly they recommend fixing a weakness of your own above exploiting the same weakness in your opponent. The only real exception I found is that they do not generally put making a shimari clearly above a kikari.

Is there anything to this? Is there some good reason to put defense first, or s this just some bias of the style popular in Japan at the time my books were written?

[OtakuViking]

There is a clear idea behind the recommendation. This is one of the fundamentals that are inherent in Go and although some people like Gu Li and Sedol among others, are known for their fighting style, it does not mean that they neglect their groups and try desperately to make a base for that group while being chased around by the other player. Look at joseki for example, a great many joseki are concerned with building bases.

Anyway the logic of defending before attacking is grounded in insight. If you invade, but leave a big weakness in your position, the invasion will become a bad move if the opponent is strong enough. You see, while the invasion is being handled, the weakness could come in handy for the opponent, maybe even making miai of attacking the invasion and breaking apart territory using the weakness. Also, if you have 1 weak group and invade, making another, you immediately set yourself up for a splitting attack and in the end it is likely that you must give up one of your groups.

I remember reading something in Attack and defense about how even pros known for they aggressive style, defend regularly.

Defense can be a powerful attack. If you remove one of your weaknesses, the opponents weaknesses still remain.

(Just fyi making a shimari and playing kakari is usually thought of as the same in value regarding 3-4/5-3/5-4. 4-4 might be the same, dunno.)

But something like making a base for your stones in important areas aren't usually missed by strong players. There is a style where you leave your positions unfinished and create alot of confusion and start big fights, this is true. But if you don't know how to handle the situation properly, it is better to make a safe group and attack from solid positions. It is extremely hard to attack an opponent if you have weak groups all over the board. Also, sometimes a defense might be nessecary to ensure that you keep a large territory that you've spent many moves creating. Don't let your positions fall apart with one move from the opponent, but prevent them from falling apart in the first place.

If you get split, attacked and pushed around due to not defending at an appropriate moment in time, then you will most likely lose the game. Defense is actually a strong resistance. If your opponent can't touch your positions you're free to operate where you please.

Anyway I will stop trying to explain now, people much better than me will most likely give a shorter, more thorough and easy to understand explanation soon

[Shaddy]

Without actually seeing an example, I find this argument unconvincing, and I can't immediately conjure up a good example. I'm tempted to say it's style (but without actually seeing a position it's hard to say).

[OtakuViking]

I'm tempted to say it's style (but without actually seeing a position it's hard to say).

Exactly. That's why I was trying to generalize. I can't pull an example out of thin air either. I guess it comes with experience?

[Chew Terr]

The simplest way I've seen in my own games is this: if you can't be positive that your attack will end in sente, you might be gaining some profit while making your opponent stronger/safer to counterattack. Clench fist, then strike. That said, as with any heuristic, it's true except for when it's not.

[Magicwand]

what is defense?
good offense can also be good defense so... what is defense?

at SDK level... you will have a board position that has both black and white weak group.
if your weak group can attack opponent's weakgroup first and gain momentum then is it a defense?

i call it a timing. that first attack sometimes worth more than 50 points.
try to control your sente and draw sequence of plays that will give you momentum in sente.
you may tenuki 30 point loss to play such move and still might be able to come back to 30 point gote.

also...
if i know i am losing in the middle of the game... i will not spend my move on defense because it will simplify the game to a point where you can not win.

think about that..

[gowan]

Three points:

*If you attack when you have a weak group your opponent will likely be able to use your weakness to thwart your attack.

*The best defense accomplishes more than just defending, i.e. multipurpose moves. Often you can make a move that defends your group and threatens something else or otherwise leaves something for later.

*When you strengthen your own weak group your opponent's weak group becomes weaker.

[Uberdude]

I was reminded of this thread by the comment on move 110 in http://gogameguru.com/go-commentary-yam ... ind-games/.

"Even though the game is almost hopeless for W, he has to patiently connect here and wait for a chance later."

Defend first, so that later you have a chance for real attacks and a comeback, instead of flimsy attacks built on sand that will be rebuffed.

[Toge]

Creating strong position is a way to force opponent, or attack them. Consider the following: black's corner stones are settled with 1 and white's possible extension along the left side has obvious aji created by 1. Stage is set for attack.

$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O O . . . . . ,
$$ | . 1 X O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ ----------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O O . . . . . ,
$$ | . 1 X O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ ----------------------[/go]