Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:

karaklis wrote:...

Until you're about strong SDK, you don't know yet what to read, so that is what you have to learn first.

I kind of disagree. IMO, the scenario you describe happens because you do not yet have enough practice. Yeah, you may read out some pointless stuff at first, but if your focus is solely on reading, your selection of candidate moves will become refined.

Well, it depends upon what you mean by reading. If you mean calculation of variations, for an early invasion, give me a break! Most kyu players cannot reliably read out a 3x3 square, and invasions usually occur in areas 2 - 3 times that size. To ask a rank beginner to read out invasions is to ask him to court frustration.

More modest goals, are, however, possible. For instance, it may be feasible to read out whether an invasion can be contained. But an important thing, as karaklis points out, is to learn the objects of reading. Is there enough room (or play) for the opponent to live? to make an eye? Etc. Not to discourage reading. But, as Sakata (among others) points out, an important part of reading is judging the results of your calculations. If by reading you mean not only calculation, but selection of moves to read and assessment of results, then yes, reading is very important.

Inkwolf wrote:Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

First, some general comments. In general, invasions, especially invasions early in the game, cannot be contained. If you can do so, that is usually a good idea, especially early on, because you can use the influence you get to make territory elsewhere, sometimes even on the other side of the board. More typically, you attack invasions without either killing them or containing them. Your gain comes from accomplishing other goals while you attack. Often the first response to an invasion is to solidify your own territory while preventing the invader from making life. If you can prevent the invader from making a base, that is even better. Then the invader runs out into the center, and you build up strength by continuing the attack. Especially early in the game, attack on a large scale. That may not be severe in terms of threatening to kill the invasion, but you do not expect to kill, anyway. Often the right attack is one where the invader does not know whether to reply or not. Also, when attacking a running group, it is often a good idea to get in front of it. That will not usually contain the group, but it may threaten to do so.

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

karaklis wrote:

Kirby wrote:I kind of disagree. IMO, the scenario you describe happens because you do not yet have enough practice. Yeah, you may read out some pointless stuff at first, but if your focus is solely on reading, your selection of candidate moves will become refined.

I don't see where we disagree. The lack of practice is the point: You will have gathered enougth practice once you have reached a strong kyu grade, maybe 2-3k. At 6-7k (that's the area where I am currently) you cannot read out sequences, because it is exactly as you said: you read out pointless stuff. After reading you have to judge the situation, and that's where mid-SDK and weaker players still fail at.

I guess, in short, I don't think it is that beneficial to come up with proverbs on how to deal with invasions (eg. in this situation, do X).

A general topic like "invasions" is so generic, that "what you should do" depends completely on the situation. So I don't think that there is one piece of super-advice that will tell someone "what" to look for. Rather, take the situation. Consider some possibilities. Pick the one you like best.

If it doesn't work well, try something new next time.

daal wrote:Kirby, I'm curious of what you think of David's advice below. It is essentially echoes what Yilun Yang recommends in the chapter "Choosing the Direction of Attack" in Vol 1 of his Workshop Lectures, and seems to respond to Karaklis' need as well.

gogameguru wrote:Work out which area of yours you think is most valuable. Approach the invading group in a way that starts sealing that area off. If you can also keep the pressure on that group, it's a bonus. You'll learn how to do that second part with experience.

I think it's good advice, but I don't think it's good if it keeps you from exploring possible good outcomes.

I can think of the following "invasion":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . X . . . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . W . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Ignoring the rest of the board, I believe that it is impossible to say the best way to deal with this invasion. You have to think of possible responses:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . X . b . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . a W c . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . d . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

and pick the resulting sequence that you like best.

To say that "b is the answer to this invasion", for example, is limiting, I think.

Bill Spight wrote:...

Well, it depends upon what you mean by reading. If you mean calculation of variations, for an early invasion, give me a break! Most kyu players cannot reliably read out a 3x3 square, and invasions usually occur in areas 2 - 3 times that size. To ask a rank beginner to read out invasions is to ask him to court frustration.

More modest goals, are, however, possible. For instance, it may be feasible to read out whether an invasion can be contained. But an important thing, as karaklis points out, is to learn the objects of reading. Is there enough room (or play) for the opponent to live? to make an eye? Etc. Not to discourage reading. But, as Sakata (among others) points out, an important part of reading is judging the results of your calculations. If by reading you mean not only calculation, but selection of moves to read and assessment of results, then yes, reading is very important.

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

Kirby wrote:I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

SoDesuNe wrote:

Kirby wrote:I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

That happens, doesn't it? And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others. I tried pro lessons for a short period of time, for example, and did not find it very effective.

I also suspect that those that have the same rating for many years do not study as much as they could.

Bill Spight wrote:

Inkwolf wrote:Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

First, some general comments. In general, invasions, especially invasions early in the game, cannot be contained. If you can do so, that is usually a good idea, especially early on, because you can use the influence you get to make territory elsewhere, sometimes even on the other side of the board. More typically, you attack invasions without either killing them or containing them. Your gain comes from accomplishing other goals while you attack. Often the first response to an invasion is to solidify your own territory while preventing the invader from making life. If you can prevent the invader from making a base, that is even better. Then the invader runs out into the center, and you build up strength by continuing the attack. Especially early in the game, attack on a large scale. That may not be severe in terms of threatening to kill the invasion, but you do not expect to kill, anyway. Often the right attack is one where the invader does not know whether to reply or not. Also, when attacking a running group, it is often a good idea to get in front of it. That will not usually contain the group, but it may threaten to do so.

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

I agree with what you said, but I think this is almost impossible to put into practice without seeing in action for yourself first. This is why I liked shygost's lectures when I was weaker, despite disagreeing with some of the issues he presented as dogma. He was very good at demonstrating how to attack a weak group, and that helped me shoot through the 8-3k range. I wish I still had some of those lectures on my computer for others.

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:...

Well, it depends upon what you mean by reading. If you mean calculation of variations, for an early invasion, give me a break! Most kyu players cannot reliably read out a 3x3 square, and invasions usually occur in areas 2 - 3 times that size. To ask a rank beginner to read out invasions is to ask him to court frustration.

More modest goals, are, however, possible. For instance, it may be feasible to read out whether an invasion can be contained. But an important thing, as karaklis points out, is to learn the objects of reading. Is there enough room (or play) for the opponent to live? to make an eye? Etc. Not to discourage reading. But, as Sakata (among others) points out, an important part of reading is judging the results of your calculations. If by reading you mean not only calculation, but selection of moves to read and assessment of results, then yes, reading is very important.

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

Clearly you've forgotten what it was like to be a beginner. Without any sort of objective, experimentation just becomes placing stones in random locations. And by the time you realize all is lost, your too many moves removed from what got you into trouble in the first place, in order to make the mental connection between a failed or successful experiment.

As a beginner, not only did I not know where to play, I had no idea why one spot might be better than another. And usually because I couldn't read past my own move to figure out my opponent's objective and where he might play next.

Once I started to get a rough idea of an objective, only then I could start narrowing my search pattern for trying to read out what the next few moves might look like.

Bill Spight wrote:

Inkwolf wrote:Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

I think you've hit right on my problem.

I took a style test ( http://style.baduk.org/style/index.php? ) that said I was way too passive, and I've been trying to play more aggressively since then, Maybe too much. Some general rethinking of my entire strategy concept is clearly in order.

xed_over wrote:

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:...

Well, it depends upon what you mean by reading. If you mean calculation of variations, for an early invasion, give me a break! Most kyu players cannot reliably read out a 3x3 square, and invasions usually occur in areas 2 - 3 times that size. To ask a rank beginner to read out invasions is to ask him to court frustration.

More modest goals, are, however, possible. For instance, it may be feasible to read out whether an invasion can be contained. But an important thing, as karaklis points out, is to learn the objects of reading. Is there enough room (or play) for the opponent to live? to make an eye? Etc. Not to discourage reading. But, as Sakata (among others) points out, an important part of reading is judging the results of your calculations. If by reading you mean not only calculation, but selection of moves to read and assessment of results, then yes, reading is very important.

I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

Clearly you've forgotten what it was like to be a beginner. Without any sort of objective, experimentation just becomes placing stones in random locations. And by the time you realize all is lost, your too many moves removed from what got you into trouble in the first place, in order to make the mental connection between a failed or successful experiment.

As a beginner, not only did I not know where to play, I had no idea why one spot might be better than another. And usually because I couldn't read past my own move to figure out my opponent's objective and where he might play next.

Once I started to get a rough idea of an objective, only then I could start narrowing my search pattern for trying to read out what the next few moves might look like.

I don't think the idea is different for a beginner and more experienced player. You say you had no objective, but now you do. How did you get to that point? I think you could have learned these objectives independently of proverbs or outside help.

Kirby wrote:

SoDesuNe wrote:

Kirby wrote:I guess I agree pretty much, but I'm not sure that I see why it's necessary to tell someone what their objective should be. I believe that this can be learned by experimentation.

I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

That happens, doesn't it? And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others. I tried pro lessons for a short period of time, for example, and did not find it very effective.

I also suspect that those that have the same rating for many years do not study as much as they could.

I do not think this is about some kind of "best solution". Everybody learns in different ways but I'm pretty sure no one learns Go with playing alone (practice/experience) and no form of guidance.
As far as I'm concerned, a Coach is the best thing. You took lessons from a pro player and it wasn't effective, but that just shows that being a strong player does not mean to be a good teacher.
But let alone the Coach, if you study Go, you study examples, principles and advice - again giving from other players. I can't see a way around that.

SoDesuNe wrote:...

I do not think this is about some kind of "best solution". Everybody learns in different ways but I'm pretty sure no one learns Go with playing alone (practice/experience) and no form of guidance.
As far as I'm concerned, a Coach is the best thing. You took lessons from a pro player and it wasn't effective, but that just shows that being a strong player does not mean to be a good teacher.
But let alone the Coach, if you study Go, you study examples, principles and advice - again giving from other players. I can't see a way around that.

Actually, I do not typically study examples, principles, or advice. I train with go problems. I try to train my brain to find solutions given a particular board position. This allows me to find a solution myself, rather than spitting out what somebody else told me.

It's possible that people learn in different ways, but in my experience, I do not get much from somebody else telling me what to do.

It could be me, too. Though I went to college, I didn't usually put much weight into what professors told me.

Kirby wrote:Actually, I do not typically study examples, principles, or advice. I train with go problems. I try to train my brain to find solutions given a particular board position. This allows me to find a solution myself, rather than spitting out what somebody else told me.

What is an opening problem except for an example designed to prove a point? Even tsumego are often chosen because they highlight particular techniques that the student won't see on his own.

Also, do you look at solutions to those problems?

It could be me, too. Though I went to college, I didn't usually put much weight into what professors told me.

I hope you mean "unconditional weight."

hyperpape wrote:What is an opening problem except for an example designed to prove a point? Even tsumego are often chosen because they highlight particular techniques that the student won't see on his own.

Also, do you look at solutions to those problems?

I believe that doing go problems are very much more oriented toward individual training/exercise than what you'd get in, say, a book on go theory, which tells you the correct moves - or, than getting lessons from a pro, for example.*

(By the way, I typically prefer life&death or tesuji problems, as opening problems seem a bit vague to me.)

I typically do not look at solutions to problems, except as a means of verifying that my calculations are the same as what the author came up with.

Yes, this verification does come from another person, but the bulk of my training does not rely on some canned proverb or advice.

... I hope you mean "unconditional weight."

I don't really know what you mean.


*Maybe I should give an example. I believe that taking a jog outside is more effective in strengthening my body than to have somebody push me around in a wheelchair. Both are effective for getting me around the block, but actual training and working for myself is what gets me stronger - and more able to move around freely on my own.