Life In 19x19

Progress is not always linear. Some people improve slowly but steadily, year after year. Others improve very quickly at the beginning and then get stuck. But if you feel you are doing something wrong and you don't know what, maybe a stronger player in your club could help you point out 2-3 weaknesses to work on?

How many games did you play so far, approximately?

My interests are far different, zafuri, I play to have fun not reach any particular goal.

>[Background info: I rank myself 15-10k. The real number is not important to me so I don't play online on a server and I don't play competitively. I play go only for recreation and to teach new players. Oh, and because the equipment is so much fun to look at and touch. I have too many bowls, too many boards, too many stones!]<

At every step, as I have progressed toward single digits, I realize how little I can ever possibly know about this game. At this stage, I have a solid visual dictionary of silly mistakes that I try not to commit any longer. I try to stop often, catch my breath, and survey the whole board. I try to resist the urge respond too quickly or locally. I have begun to assess and then make some crucial moves before making big moves. I have begun to understand the importance of having a strategy. And those budding abilities allow me to alter that strategy as my opponent thwarts it.

But stronger players have two skills I cannot deal with effectively and these hold me back (not that I care much, just how it is): 1) Their superior knowledge allows them, within a dozen moves, to know exactly how much I know and then to play directly and precisely to my weaknesses; 2) They tend to believe they are accomplishing something by punishing my poor moves. This is more insulting and demoralizing than they realize. What they call "teaching moves" are, for them, may be common sense, but they are incomprehensible to me; such plays are past my ability to appreciate and assimilate. All it accomplishes is convincing me there's no reason to play go with that cad again.

zafuri95 wrote: On KGS I hit 6K and halfway I moved over to OGS because my local Go club started a group on that server to get everyone together for discussions and arrange league games.

I've only won a few games out of the games I'd played recently. Like 3 out of 10 that kind. Too many consecutive losses had put me in doubt and I kept on thinking "What have I done wrong?"

I've dropped my rank to 10k on OGS and I'm working my way back up.

One thing that you may not have considered is that a given playing strength is not rated at the same rank on different servers. If you were to go back to KGS, you may find that the 6k rank is still accurate there, even though it's a lower rank on OGS.

Another thing to consider is that sometimes you drop in strength as you are starting to integrate something new into your game, only to jump ahead past your previous high water mark once it becomes more practiced.

bogiesan wrote:My interests are far different, zafuri, I play to have fun not reach any particular goal.

It's only a game.

bogiesan wrote:2) They {stronger players} tend to believe they are accomplishing something by punishing my poor moves. This is more insulting and demoralizing than they realize.

While it is true that some players enjoy beating up on weaker players, I have never met one at the go board. And, judging by what I hear, they not only punish mistakes, they make poor or questionable plays in order to induce mistakes from their weaker opponent. While you may find it demoralizing to have your mistakes punished, my guess is that your opponent probably does not mean to insult you by doing so.

jlt wrote:Progress is not always linear. Some people improve slowly but steadily, year after year. Others improve very quickly at the beginning and then get stuck. But if you feel you are doing something wrong and you don't know what, maybe a stronger player in your club could help you point out 2-3 weaknesses to work on?

How many games did you play so far, approximately?

Ahh, I've to embarrassingly say, for 19x19 games, not even over a hundred. I only started playing 19x19 games when I started this thread. So maybe I still yet to lose my first 50 games

Then you could set a goal like: reach KGS 1d after 1000 games (but don't play blitz). Or if the goal is too remote, set a goal like "reach x kyu after y games". It may or may not work, for me it didn't but it's certainly doable.

Cool. That's quite an alternative though not really to my liking.

That aside, in many games I'm forcibly trying to apply theories I learned so perhaps that can be the reason I kept losing. Many games I threw into AI analysis I was leading until one point where I blinked and my opponent turned tables, yet I do not know why and how to prevent, I guess I'm still at learning stage.

I'll work slowly and prefer steady approach. Preventing mistakes and understand basic tactical moves and how to answer them.

Speaking of which, how does one understand the direction of play (not opening, mid game that kind) ?

I don't think that "direction of play" is a well-defined concept. To my limited understanding, it includes ideas like

• Making different areas of the board interact with each other.
• Visualizing how current groups will develop, where new groups could be created,...
• Determining in which direction to make a wall to get the most efficient result, or try to predict in which direction the opponent will make a wall. In particular, when attacking a weak group, decide whether to attack from the left, or from the right, or from the top.
• Imagine the development of moyos, and decide whether to expand one's moyo, or to reduce or invade the opponent's moyo.

Anyway, whatever the terminology, none of the preceding topics is easy.

zafuri95 wrote:Speaking of which, how does one understand the direction of play (not opening, mid game that kind) ?

Direction of play is one of those concepts that the bots are telling us we have to reconsider. That said, there are some things that still hold true.

For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Box shape
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

The enclosure in the top left wants to develop towards the top side, because and work with it to form an ideal box shape framework. We say that the enclosure faces the top side.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Box shape, not!
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

By contrast, if the top left enclosure faces the left side, then and do not form an ideal framework.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Direction of play (?)
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 1 , O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Carrying the idea further, was considered an ideal approach for Black, given the top left enclosure, because it starts to develop the top side for Black. Before the 20th century, a was also considered ideal, but it was easier to pincer than the high approach.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Popular no komi opening
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Carrying the reasoning even further, was considered a good reply to -- it still is, BTW --, because it prepares , in anticipation of a possible top left enclosure. IOW, followed by is the correct direction of play.

This reasoning takes a few steps, and there is some doubt with each step. And it may be correct. However, the bots are telling us that any effect is small, 2% or less.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Bot opening
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . 5 . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Through we have one of the openings played by AlphaGo. Elf likes , but violates the direction of play. AlphaGo prefers a, but it violates the direction of play, as well, since it allows an ideal pincer in relation to the top right enclosure.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm6 Bot opening, continued
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 6 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 4 X 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

allows , which leads to an ideal Black development of the right side. Just looking at the board, Black looks ahead. But remember that White has the move and Black is giving 7½ pt. komi. Elf thinks that the play up to now has been even. (Elf also is more optimistic about Black's initial chances than other bots, but that's another question.) OC, Elf could be wrong. But, IMHO, it is unlikely that is a game losing play.

What follows is my opinion.

It is not that plays dictated by the traditional understanding of direction of play are bad. Rather, the line of reasoning behind it is open to question. (This is true, BTW, of long variations, even ones that claim to be one lane roads. Each move is open to question.) In addition, there are other good plays, perhaps even better plays on the board early in the game. But late in the opening or early in the middle game, the plays indicated by direction of play are much more likely to be the best plays, because the good alternatives have already been taken.

So is it worth studying direction of play if you haven't already? I don't think so. The plays that accord with direction of play in the late opening or middle game can be derived from simply considering development, which is easier to do and has fewer steps of reasoning.

Thank you for the insights !
I'm well aware of the direction of play in the opening and the reasoning behind and that was a very detailed explanation

I've spoke to the stronger players in my club, apparently they all agreed my weakness is in the "middle-game" as many times and often, my advantage in the opening does not translate to a win - even bots agreed too after I ran analysis with KataGo.

Few things I noticed:-
1. I'm having hard time dealing with attachments
2. I did not translate good attacks into profits, i.e. missing out on defensive points.
3. My judgement on which point to play in the middle game ran out of radar after opening. I understand from Baduk Doctor's advise that if there's no weak group to attack, you can think of reduction plays and that's only as far as I know.
4. Tesujis does not always involve life and death. Cutting and connect, eye stealing, etc. are also important.

Would there be any suggestions on improving mid game judgments? I know there's this "Attack and Defense" of the Elementary Go Series and that's the current book I'm reading now. It seems the concepts are striking at my weaknesses that I'm eager to solve.

Are there any other resources / methods that I can look for to improve middle game?

Your questions are too general, everybody has a problem with the middlegame, hard to say anything without concrete examples. Maybe you need to work on tesuji? This is an advice I often hear from Bill.

I don't think there is a general method of handling attachments. If the opponent attaches, you basically have 5 options: hane (2 possibilities), extend (2 possibilities) and tenuki. Hane can lead to complications because can be followed by connect-connect, or extend-extend, or crosscut-extend... and you need to read variations and decide which one is best... Maybe this book can help https://senseis.xmp.net/?CrossCutWorkshop but I don't have it so I don't know for sure.

You say that you miss defensive points. Maybe that's a sign of lack of reading? Leaving weaknesses is OK if you are aware they exist, and know how to respond if your opponent attack them. Or it could be a problem of shape ? Bad shape may create weaknesses, e.g. because of lack of liberties.

jlt wrote:Your questions are too general, everybody has a problem with the middlegame, hard to say anything without concrete examples. Maybe you need to work on tesuji? This is an advice I often hear from Bill.

Yes I'm working on tesuji at the time being to be tactically confident so I can work further on fundamentals of strategy thinking.

I'm trying to embrace a more open minded approach to the game as I was too stubborn to give up my own group of stones often in games. I find that sometimes it is better to let go than hold on and use the aji to one's own advantage.

That aside, I've updated my study schedule and it looks like below:-

PRACTICE (Daily)
1. 手筋 - 精讲与精炼 (Tesuji: Lecture and Practice)
2. Lee Chang Ho's tesuji and Life and Death series

THEORY (in reading order)
1. Shape Up for a Stylish Baduk (Daily read)
2. Milton Bradley's: Improve Fast at Go (Next daily read)
3. Elementary Go Series: Attack and Defense (Weekend self-taught theory class)

GAMES
1. Daily 1 game with review
2. Weekends 2 games at least with review

zafuri95 wrote:I'm trying to embrace a more open minded approach to the game as I was too stubborn to give up my own group of stones often in games. I find that sometimes it is better to let go than hold on and use the aji to one's own advantage.

A good lesson.

zafuri95 wrote:

jlt wrote: That aside, I've updated my study schedule and it looks like below:-

PRACTICE (Daily)
1. 手筋 - 精讲与精炼 (Tesuji: Lecture and Practice)
2. Lee Chang Ho's tesuji and Life and Death series

THEORY (in reading order)
1. Shape Up for a Stylish Baduk (Daily read)
2. Milton Bradley's: Improve Fast at Go (Next daily read)
3. Elementary Go Series: Attack and Defense (Weekend self-taught theory class)

GAMES
1. Daily 1 game with review
2. Weekends 2 games at least with review

Today's update is some of my realization on my own study materials. I've come to realize the shapes I studied do not always come up in real games, not sure if it is still effective to understand the "shapes", but when they do came up, I find that I can immediately spot the weaknesses and give maximum pressure in fighting. I still lose big board fights sometimes though, and now I understand what it means by "only enclosed groups can be killed" because too often I hit their weak spots but they ran out anyway and I got a very awful position for chasing the opponent's too far.

I'm trying to draw similarities of playing and learning Go akin to learning a new language. So I'm sticking to my study schedule for sometime now with a little addition to kifu replays. I'm an aggressive player myself so Iyama's game drew my attention the most. I treat replaying kifu as "reading articles" in language learning.

GOAL
To reach 5k by July **Currently: 10k ~ 8k**

PRACTICE (Daily)
1. 手筋 - 精讲与精炼 (Tesuji: Lecture and Practice)
2. Lee Chang Ho's tesuji and Life and Death series

THEORY (in reading order)
1. Shape Up for a Stylish Baduk (Daily read)
2. Milton Bradley's: Improve Fast at Go (Daily read)
3. Elementary Go Series: Attack and Defense (Weekend self-taught theory class)

GAMES
1. Daily 1 game with review, and replay Iyama's kifu (multiple replays with memorization and understanding)
2. Weekends 2 games at least with review

Here's some weekly updates on my progresses:-

1. I've been practicing sometime across the week with OGS's Spectral 4k bot.
2. I occasionally won some games but generally I got punished by the bot.
3. I find that I gave my opponent influence too easily. Even though I get the territory I wanted, due to the massive influences I don't get to fight or reduce them at all. It looks like I need to buckle up and learn how to balance influence and territory.
4. I've been doing tesuji drills and life & death on daily basis.
5. My "Shape Up!" reads doesn't help me too often, I don't come across many situations where I can put them to use. But I keep reading it since I committed and tried to create a collection of shapes that I will encounter most often to refer. Hope it helps.
6. The book that helped me the most was Elementary Series: Attack and Defense. I took a peep at "All About Influence" to fix my worry and anxiety to handle thickness / influence. I may include that book into my study in future.

Conclusion:-
I'm trusting the daily drill of tesuji to help my games, and I wish I calculate more often in games. The time pressure puts me to play on "feeling" too often and I think that will develop really bad habits, I'm trying to shake this off. I'm also learning more on practical theories that I will encounter more often so I can put them to use. Concluding this week's performance, I'm still at the same rank at OGS 10K and no changes despite all the wins and losses. I hope I'm able to see my OGS rank progresses in coming weeks. I've also started an IGS account at 10k and have not played any game yet as OGS is my main server now. I'll continue this weekly reflection post on Sundays for coming weeks.

Weaknesses encountered:-
1. Influence handling
2. Direction of play
3. Josekis (Not corner josekis, they are josekis of reduction, invasion etc.)
4. Lacking fighting spirit (Wanted to settle down too often and choose sub-par moves and put less pressure to opponent, not confident to handle cuts)

I've also posted my sgf for reviews at "Game Analysis" session. AI reviews don't help because I don't understand the "whys". Please point out what I can do better to improve