Life In 19x19

Joelnelsonb wrote:Thanks for the reminder Ed, however, I most certainly did not intend to begin a religious debate by any means. The point about Jesus being my ultimate Go mentor was just mentioned to help understand my point. I always strive to play perfect. That's it. You don't have to know Jesus from Adam's house cat to understand what I mean.

Illogical. The last person I knew called Jesus was a student who failed my class - for the second time. He was a nice guy, but I doubt he would have been to great at go.

Kirby wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:Thanks for the reminder Ed, however, I most certainly did not intend to begin a religious debate by any means. The point about Jesus being my ultimate Go mentor was just mentioned to help understand my point. I always strive to play perfect. That's it. You don't have to know Jesus from Adam's house cat to understand what I mean.

If you strive to play perfect, and your opponent makes mistake that is bigger than a 1 point loss, what do you do?

Make a mistake worth "bigger than a 1 point loss less one point"?

The whole point is to say something like this: I believe that if the best player in the world were to play the worst player in the world, he wouldn't totally dominate him and kill every stone that the weaker player played, instead, he would stake out a winning position early on, and then would proceed to passively play defense and make only "fill in" moves rather than attack and would deliberately win by a point or two. This is the mindset that I believe I should approach every game with, regardless of the opponent. In other words, take the path of least resistance. Before the game begins, the easiest plan to follow would be a plan that aims to only control 181 points. A plan that aimed at 182 points would be a little harder to pull off. Therefor, go with the easiest plan, the path of least resistance, and plan to let your opponent have as much as he wants to take, just short of winning the game.

Joelnelsonb wrote:The whole point is to say something like this: I believe that if the best player in the world were to play the worst player in the world, he wouldn't totally dominate him and kill every stone that the weaker player played, instead, he would stake out a winning position early on, and then would proceed to passively play defense and make only "fill in" moves rather than attack and would deliberately win by a point or two. This is the mindset that I believe I should approach every game with, regardless of the opponent. In other words, take the path of least resistance. Before the game begins, the easiest plan to follow would be a plan that aims to only control 181 points. A plan that aimed at 182 points would be a little harder to pull off. Therefor, go with the easiest plan, the path of least resistance, and plan to let your opponent have as much as he wants to take, just short of winning the game.

Do you know how hard that actually is? The better player could have a perfectly laid plan which depends on reasonable but not excellent moves on the part of his opponent but then the weaker player makes a 30 point blunder in the late endgame. How are you going to recover from that and win by one point?

And just out of curiosity, why did your original post take about this object called a moku when your current post talks about points? Have you changed the subject?

Joelnelsonb wrote:The whole point is to say something like this: I believe that if the best player in the world were to play the worst player in the world, he wouldn't totally dominate him and kill every stone that the weaker player played

Lee Sedol would do this to me, because his fighting ability compared to mine is like a nuclear missile compared to a handgun. He wouldn't even have to attack to drop groups like flies. It's the same when I play kyu-level players even.

Kirby wrote:If you strive to play perfect, and your opponent makes mistake that is bigger than a 1 point loss, what do you do?

Joelnelsonb wrote:It depends, if he makes it earlier in the game than I fall back and play far more passively in order to better achieve a balance outcome. If it happens later then little can be done; your opponent has just spoiled a brilliant game...

Not to disparage your goal of aiming for one point wins, but to me this exchange indicates that, if you also have a goal of improving, your opponents are too weak. If you want to improve, you should not be practicing passive play.

Shaddy wrote:If your goal is to play perfect Go, you should be striving to win by more than 300 points against other DDKs.

Joelnelsonb wrote:On the contrary, I've gone back to playing against smartgo (a very weak app) and I attempt to beat it by only 1 point every time. This is true balance, in my opinion. You are entirely missing the point. One exercise I do is to play against myself and try to get black to control exactly 181 points every time.

As I said.

You know, you can kill two birds with one stone by playing against the weak version of smartgo with a proper handicap, and then striving to win by one point. If you give a proper handicap you cannot afford lax plays.

Everyone seems to be missing the entire point. It's not a bad thing to win by more than 1 moku (japanese term for point), however, you're game plan should be to only control 181 points. If you still don't get what I'm saying, well, I can't elaborate more. The easiest way to win the game is to only strive to do the minimum necessary to win. That's all. If you don't agree with that, you're just another human. If you don't understand that, you're just slow.

It's the endgame. You're behind by 2 points, and are about to lose, when your opponent misses an atari. You can capture 3 stones, and then you will win by 4 points. What to do?

The point being, of course, that go is a two player game, and it is arrogance to think that you alone control the flow of the game. Striving to win by one point is disrespectful to your opponent, IMO.

Like Herman said, it's actually somewhat cocky and arrogant to be able to control your opponent so much to engineer a win by 1 point or a half point. Against kyu or even low dan players it's impossible to do other than by good luck as their play is so bad and full of mistakes. You could be half a point ahead in late endgame and then they make a 2 point mistake. So you need to keep another 2 point mistake available for you to make to cancel theirs. This miai idea gets very complex because positions can interact and they might suddenly play several good moves in a row. However, for something like a 6d against a 3d the 6d can try to win by half a point, and people do sometimes do this to show off. Kim Seong-June, a Korean 6d who used to lived in Cambridge and co-authored Shape Up with Charles Matthews, could do this apparently. It is very hard though, far harder than winning by resign or 20-30 points or whatever would happen if they played normally.

Joelnelsonb wrote:The easiest way to win the game is to only strive to do the minimum necessary to win.

is bollocks.

Joelnelsonb wrote:Everyone seems to be missing the entire point. It's not a bad thing to win by more than 1 moku (japanese term for point), however, you're game plan should be to only control 181 points. If you still don't get what I'm saying, well, I can't elaborate more. The easiest way to win the game is to only strive to do the minimum necessary to win. That's all. If you don't agree with that, you're just another human. If you don't understand that, you're just slow.

Yeah, I agree that many seem to be missing the point, but you're the one who started the whole one point business, and numbers have a magical-like magnetic effect on many go players. Also, despite your stated respect for disagreement, the tone of your posts is something akin to "I have seen the light!"

Perhaps your point could be better be expressed so: A go game is about balance, and the best games are those in which the balance only slightly favors one player.

Here, one could argue that balance is not the objective of a go game, but rather a strategy. Another strategy however is efficiency, and if you are not making efficient moves, you are not playing the best go game. Do you see no difference in comparing the weight of two feathers and the weight of two mountains?

Another question: why do you assume that a perfect player would always win by one point, or even want to? Do you believe that there is a morally correct way of fighting a battle?

Maybe my theories wrong and maybe it just doesn't make sense to anyone else (I've mentioned that I have a rather odd approach to the game anyways). I guess I'll just have to report back in a few years and let everyone know how far it got me. It's just the only thing that makes sense to me; it's kinda along the lines of the proverb "wealthy people shouldn't pick fights". If you're ahead by only one point, then why risk playing aggressively? All you have to do is defend and passively play out the win (aiming for the 1 moku).

Regarding balance, perhaps a better sentiment is something along the lines of: go is a sharing game, you only need one more point than your opponent to win. So aim to play good moves that with good play from both sides give you a small advantage, do not underestimate your opponent and assume he is a retard and try to crush him by 100 points. However, you and your opponent are in fact both pretty far from perfect play so you will both make many mistakes large and small and when you/they do the other will naturally capitalise on them and then you can win/lose by lots (or maybe not as the see-saw of mistakes can also cancel out).

MOKU MOKU MOKU MOKU!!!!

Joelnelsonb wrote:The easiest way to win the game is to only strive to do the minimum necessary to win. That's all. If you don't agree with that, you're just another human. If you don't understand that, you're just slow.

Proverbs 19:20 wrote:Listen to counsel and accept discipline, That you may be wise the rest of your days.

You have dan level players explaining why you, a DDK, are wrong. And you call them slow?

Of course not. And I haven't seen anyone strait up tell me that I'm wrong; this is a discussion. And to reiterate my statement, I said that if you disagree with me than your're just another person, however, if after all the elaboration you still don't understand the point being made, yeah just slow (perhaps my attempt at humor is unappreciated as well). As the saying goes, a discussion is an exchange of knowledge, an argument is an exchange of ignorance. I see no one arguing here. Once again, I could be totally wrong about my theory, I'm just throwing this out there and bouncing my ideas off of people. Is there another reason for this forum?

Joelnelsonb wrote:Of course not. And I haven't seen anyone strait up tell me that I'm wrong;

You're wrong.