Life In 19x19

AKaios wrote: When I play the game, sometimes it feels like I don't really have a strategy going into it, almost like I'm going in blind.

I've felt that way too. But if you go over the game and try to understand why certain moves aren't good, or better yet discuss the games with a stronger player and find a better move, you'll soon start being able to know what to do in these positions. And then you'll go up in rank. And then you'll have a whole new set of positions where you don't know what to do.

lemmata wrote:Try to play fewer games but make them slow ones.

Play more games but make them fast ones. Avoid the agony of deliberating over whether to play the stone here or there, when more than likely both points are the wrong spot. Play fast, crash and do it often. Very quickly you'll start realizing which moves are just bad. You'll build up a positional database and start getting a feel for what works and what doesn't.

Thunkd wrote:Play more games but make them fast ones. Avoid the agony of deliberating over whether to play the stone here or there, when more than likely both points are the wrong spot. Play fast, crash and do it often. Very quickly you'll start realizing which moves are just bad. You'll build up a positional database and start getting a feel for what works and what doesn't.

I tend to disagree with this, although not with particularly strong enthusiasm.

If a 17 kyu player wins against other 17 kyus by playing 10 kyu moves, that is not a good data point for your positional database. In fact, seeing a bad move work over and over again against bad players reinforces bad habits and may leave a player stuck at a particular level for a long time.

Of course, thinking long about your moves does not make a DDK play SDK moves. However, it does go a long way toward always (as opposed to sometimes) seeing ataris, snapbacks, ladders, nets, 2nd line liberty issues and other things that require reading ahead just 1 or 2 moves. SDKs and DDKs are separated by a paper-thin gap that amounts to mostly these basics.

There are some good reasons to play lots of fast games, but I think that slow games should be the main basis for learning. By the way, what players online consider a slow game would have at least 15-20 minutes of main time and a couple byo-yomi periods. The pros consider that to be blitz. So these games are not very slow at all when you consider that pros can read much faster than we can.

We also have to consider the fact that the OP sort of burned out once from playing too much go. He might need to pace himself a bit so that he can approach the game in a more relaxed way.

Greetings,
I would also respectfully disagree with te idea of playing a lot of fast games. There is no better way to learn bad habits. It is much harder to unlearn bad habits than it is to play thoughtfully from the start. Even if the thought is wrong it is at least right in principle. After that one can get help in correcting ones thinking.
I actually really regret the huge number of fast games I played when I started and how hard much has been to undo.
These days I really push hard for 45 minute games and review afterwards.
Best wishes,
Buri

Buri wrote:These days I really push hard for 45 minute games and review afterwards.

If an entire game took 45 mins, many would consider that a "fast" game.

sorry, 45 min per player.

oren wrote:If an entire game took 45 mins, many would consider that a "fast" game.

Buri wrote:sorry, 45 min per player.

45 mins. per player is still too fast for me.

Having said that, fast and slow are relative and it really depends on the individual.
To accurately diagnose whether someone is really playing too fast or too slow
(for their own good), I think we have to look at their games -- not just one game --
and look at how much time they spend on each move (and the move itself),
and go from there.

Around 10k, maybe it's OK to say 2 hours per person is too slow
and 3 second per move is too fast. But anything in between...?

Mivo wrote:... the biggest "problem" with Go is all that ballast and baggage that is attached to it. The belief that it's not just a game or recreational activity, but this huge, meaningful test of one's mental prowess, ...

I totally agree.

I love it when I meet "normal" people (non-computer/physics/scientific people), with just average IQ's who are really, really good at this game. Truck drivers, lawyers, artists, etc... little kids.

It is possible to not be mentally prepared for go: e.g., some people might not be able to do reading at all. If you can do this, then everything else (such as considering groups of stones as objects or strategy) is simpler.

xed_over wrote:

Mivo wrote:... the biggest "problem" with Go is all that ballast and baggage that is attached to it. The belief that it's not just a game or recreational activity, but this huge, meaningful test of one's mental prowess, ...

I totally agree.

I love it when I meet "normal" people (non-computer/physics/scientific people), with just average IQ's who are really, really good at this game. Truck drivers, lawyers, artists, etc... little kids.

Eh. Could we say that go is a huge, meaningless test of mental prowess? Would that satisfy everyone?

I'm unclear on the idea that the IT guy I call when pine isn't working correctly is less "normal" than the artist whose work I see in the Guggenheim. Surely the interest in go among computer people is connected to the status of go within AI research, and the interest in go among math people to its status within game theory.

His mention of IQs might make sense given that they usually measure the more traditional view of intelligence.

But disregarding that qualifier, I find it more interesting when I find Go players from less geeky fields. I think Portugal's case might be different from other cases in that for a long time, the best player is an artist and makes his living at that. He might still be the best player, but right now it's not so easy to tell.