Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:

Buri wrote:Maybe the problem with joseki texts is that they are systematic!

This statement says nothing because there are very different systems with which josekis can be presented. Some systems do not encourage learning - others do. (And not all josekis texts are systematic at all; often missing structure is a great problem.)

That's the kind of stuff beginners like me can really use.

More important than specific josekis is general advice on the fundamentals.

I think the opening requires a lot more training than people think.

Why? I understand such a statement from a 3 kyu, but why does a beginner need much opening theory?! His best opening theory is to avoid all beginners' mistakes (such as playing premature endgame or not defending important weak groups) and choose the big spaces!

Well, I guess that depends on what exactly constitutes the opening. I don’t know that there is always a definitive line that separates the opening from the beginning of the middle game, or at least a beginner such as myself is not able to clearly distinguish when exactly the middle game begins, though I tend to think of it as beginning when the corners and sides have mostly been played and yes, when invasions or reductions begin. I would say that Opening Theory Made Easy is most valuable for its specific principles (family feuds waste resources, don’t attach to weak stones, etc.), which can really be applied to many parts of the game, not just the opening.

If the opening is defined as just playing the corner points, side enclosures, and perhaps a few joseki sequences, then I agree that this doesn’t seem to take much study. If I remember correctly, Janice Kim discusses basic opening principles in volumes II, IV, and V of her Learn to Play Go books, so perhaps this is sufficient if one wants to know the very essentials of the opening. I recall that Volume IV: Battle Strategies mostly discusses middle game attack and defense strategies at a basic level, so I should probably give that book another read. It’s interesting how much clearer I’ve found some of these books as I progress and read them for a second time.

So, maybe the book has been more useful for the early middle game, depending on how that is defined. Nonetheless, I find it enjoyable to read and feel like it has certainly improved my understanding of the game overall.

EdLee wrote:it's so basic and intuitively obvious I probably first heard of it at around 28k

Good luck for you! Most DDKs do not apply the principle regularly.

charlieb30 wrote:I guess that depends on what exactly constitutes the opening.

Might be:) Anyway, when hearing "opening theory", I am reminded of such things: "The symmetry of the 4-4 allows tenuki." "Avoid opposing 3-4s as the defender." "Consider the positional relation [from a corner] to stones elsewhere, in particular the adjacent corners." I am also reminded of stupid "advice" found in too many books: "Corners, then sides, then center." "Urgent moves before big moves." Another class of opening theory deals with specific study of specific opening patterns.

From your description, Otakes book has little of that. (I do not recall; it is too long ago that I browsed through the book quickly; I was too strong for it when it appeared and was already reading thick opening dictionaries :) )

RobertJasiek wrote:His best opening theory is to avoid all beginners' mistakes (such as playing premature endgame or not defending important weak groups) and choose the big spaces!

RobertJasiek wrote:I am also reminded of stupid "advice" found in too many books: "Corners, then sides, then center." "Urgent moves before big moves."

Isn't the advice contained in the two italicized passages the same, except for wording?

Mh… for me as a mere ca. 12k the two italicized passages are different: The first one (defend important weak groups) seems easier to grasp, less aetherical. Well, I guess I can understand “weak” even more than “important”, I guess. The second passage seems waaaaay over my head—how shall I be able to distinguish between urgent and big?

(Concerning 1) "Defend important weak groups" and 2) "Urgent moves before big moves.")

hyperpape wrote:Isn't the advice contained in the two italicized passages the same, except for wording?

It is not the same. Rather: the two are very different.

(1) applies also if there are no "big moves" (in the sense of oba). "Urgent moves" can be also moves that do not defend weak groups (have too little life potential), e.g. defending an important aji or greatly stabilising shape of a group's end. (2) suggests a relative order while (1) is an imperative supposed to be always applicable (if looking at the principle's text alone).

Bonobo wrote:Mh… for me as a mere ca. 12k the two italicized passages are different: The first one (defend important weak groups) seems easier to grasp, less aetherical. Well, I guess I can understand “weak” even more than “important”, I guess. The second passage seems waaaaay over my head—how shall I be able to distinguish between urgent and big?

That I agree with. I think it doesn't merit "stupid" but I do prefer the directness of defending important weak groups. That sort of difference is what I meant by wording.

hyperpape wrote:I think it doesn't merit "stupid"

The stupid thing is to call a "big move" big instead of calculating its relatively small size by miai counting. Urgent and big moves are sometines comparable by miai counting, but the "principle" fails to give this advice. I needed 17 years to figure that out, which is an indication of the very great degree of stupidity of "Urgent before big".

Those teaching that principle explained neither evaluation of "urgent" nor of "big", so effectively they kept people dull.

RobertJasiek wrote:I am also reminded of stupid "advice" found in too many books: "Corners, then sides, then center."

I wonder why then professionals usually play in the corner first and then at the side before they advance into the center. Could you please outline why you would consider such an advice "stupid"?

RobertJasiek wrote:

hyperpape wrote:I think it doesn't merit "stupid"

The stupid thing is to call a "big move" big instead of calculating its relatively small size by miai counting. Urgent and big moves are sometines comparable by miai counting, but the "principle" fails to give this advice. I needed 17 years to figure that out, which is an indication of the very great degree of stupidity of "Urgent before big".

Those teaching that principle explained neither evaluation of "urgent" nor of "big", so effectively they kept people dull.

I don't think it makes sense to criticize beginner advice on the grounds that it doesn't include miai counting.

karaklis wrote:I wonder why then professionals usually play in the corner first and then at the side before they advance into the center.

Fashion.

Could you please outline why you would consider such an advice "stupid"?

1) Early stones near the corner have little impact on the middle game.

2) The principle is too static; it fails to consider cases when the center is the most important or when a side is more than the corners. Even worse, for such cases, the principle gives the wrong advice. It is better not to use a misleading principle.

hyperpape wrote:I don't think it makes sense to criticize beginner advice on the grounds that it doesn't include miai counting.

1) The principle has not been advertised as being only overly simplifying beginner advice.

2) Beginners do not need to understand miai counting.

3) A principle using "urgent move" and "big move" must explain clearly the meaning of these terms; this is not done. Furthermore, the principle does not enable one to compare degrees of urgency with sizes of big; instead the principle suggests that any urgent move would be better than any big move.

4) Even beginners should not be taught things that they have to unlearn later. Instead of principles to be learnt as beginners and then forgotten as intermediate players, they should be taught permanent principles.