Life In 19x19

Don't put ego in winning or losing.

There will be people who you will always be able to beat giving 3 stones.
There will be people who will always be able to beat you giving 3 stones.

Neither of these facts makes anyone a lesser person.

If winning were truly that important you could always just play people in the first category. If winning were that important to everyone else, the people in the second category could always just play you. Just do you best in ever game, work hard to get better, worry about the process and not the current result.

Mef wrote:Don't put ego in winning or losing.

There will be people who you will always be able to beat giving 3 stones.
There will be people who will always be able to beat you giving 3 stones.

Neither of these facts makes anyone a lesser person.

If winning were truly that important you could always just play people in the first category. If winning were that important to everyone else, the people in the second category could always just play you. Just do you best in ever game, work hard to get better, worry about the process and not the current result.

I disagree, result tells everything in go, and I will someday win the people who always can beat me giving three stones. If I worked hard and the result is bad, this means I haven't worked hard at all. I always want to win.

lovelove wrote:I disagree, result tells everything in go, and I will someday win the people who always can beat me giving three stones.

This could be true for YOU -- some day, perhaps no human, not even the top pros,
can give you 3 stones: congratulations to YOU. But for the majority of the Go population, what Mef said is true.

lovelove wrote:If I worked hard and the result is bad, this means I haven't worked hard at all. I always want to win.

Of course, fighting spirit and competitive spirit are great, and wanting to win is natural and OK,
and YOU are entitled to feel and live this way.
What do you mean by "the result is bad" ? Does not winning mean "the result is bad" for you?
In a pro tournament with 50 pros, there can only be one champion (the "winner") --
if you define winning the championship as the only "good" result,
and all other results are "bad", then are you saying the other 49 pros "haven't worked hard at all"?
If yes, then this is ridiculous and an insult to them.

EdLee wrote:

lovelove wrote:I disagree, result tells everything in go, and I will someday win the people who always can beat me giving three stones.

This could be true for YOU -- some day, perhaps no human, not even the top pros,
can give you 3 stones: congratulations to YOU. But for the majority of the Go population, what Mef said is true.

lovelove wrote:If I worked hard and the result is bad, this means I haven't worked hard at all. I always want to win.

Of course, fighting spirit and competitive spirit are great, and wanting to win is natural and OK,
and YOU are entitled to feel and live this way.
What do you mean by "the result is bad" ? Does not winning mean "the result is bad" for you?
In a pro tournament with 50 pros, there can only be one champion (the "winner") --
if you define winning the championship as the only "good" result,
and all other results are "bad", then are you saying the other 49 pros "haven't worked hard at all"?
If yes, then this is ridiculous and an insult to them.

You fully understood my sentences, except your last, "then are you saying the other 49 pros "haven't worked hard at all"?
If yes, then this is ridiculous and an insult to them."

If I go to a tournament and lose, I will not think I worked hard. However, this is just for me, it can be insulting myself, but I'm not insulting others.

Not to make territory.

I wish I had known what "connected" really meant. I always felt like either it's not as binary as experienced players made it out to be, or the goban is always so full of cutting points that "connecting to protect a cut" is a hopelessly advanced topic because a beginner can never figure out when it's important.

Uberdude wrote:That Go is highly addictive and will take over your life.

Actually, because someone told me this, I delayed learning for about 6 years. Still, I like the post because the person in question wasn't convincing enough.

In the beginning and sometime still now I had the feeling that in go everything can be solved by knowing a certain pattern. Every problem can be solved by knowing a certain pattern and a way to handle it. For example: (white hane -> black extend) Howhever soon after starting to play on tygem I realised that in go (almost) everything is possible and there is no need to limit your mind in any sense.

Reading and Counting is all that is required to get a good result.

If i knew this from the beginning I would be where I'm now (not far :p) by no time instead of by almost a year ...

otenki wrote:In the beginning and sometime still now I had the feeling that in go everything can be solved by knowing a certain pattern. Every problem can be solved by knowing a certain pattern and a way to handle it. For example: (white hane -> black extend) Howhever soon after starting to play on tygem I realised that in go (almost) everything is possible and there is no need to limit your mind in any sense.

Reading and Counting is all that is required to get a good result.

If i knew this from the beginning I would be where I'm now (not far :p) by no time instead of by almost a year ...

I still have no clue if this is true. After reading so many books and doing so many problems where one move is considered as correct and (all) others are considered as 'mistakes', I feel like there is only one style: solid. If my opponent attacks like a madman, I will just play the calm and 'correct' moves and beat him that way.

On the other hand, these crazy or 'different' styles also have their merits. And we all distinguish different styles in professional play, from Takemiya's Cosmic Go, to Seigen's light play and Lee Sedol's fighting prowess.

It seems that in close fighting there might be correct and incorrect moves, but because of the global effects of every move a local loss could be a global win and the other way around.

Go is so mysterious and difficult. /

otenki wrote:Reading and Counting is all that is required to get a good result.

Really, this is enough to be low dan.

The evaluation of thickness and influence will lead to higher dan, but even pros cannot do this perfectly. I think this is why most pros have territorial style: thick(but slow)-territorial, fast(but thin)-territorial, fighting-territorial.

Boidhre wrote:Very few people who learn how to play chess take it up as a hobby. In this country anyway.

Richard Bozulich once told me that, as part of his market research before starting Ishi Press, he had found out that in the fall of 1967, 100,000 go sets had been sold in the Eastern U. S. At that time the membership of the AGA was somewhere around 600, as I heard.

Bill Spight wrote:

Boidhre wrote:Very few people who learn how to play chess take it up as a hobby. In this country anyway.

Richard Bozulich once told me that, as part of his market research before starting Ishi Press, he had found out that in the fall of 1967, 100,000 go sets had been sold in the Eastern U. S. At that time the membership of the AGA was somewhere around 600, as I heard.

Well then, you'd think they could just start manufacturing boards that didn't immediately fall apart....

Mef wrote:

...in the fall of 1967, 100,000 go sets had been sold in the Eastern U.S.
At that time the membership of the AGA was somewhere around 600, as I heard.

Well then, you'd think they could just start manufacturing boards that didn't immediately fall apart....

I was more curious about the contrast between ~100,000 and ~600.

Mef wrote:Don't put ego in winning or losing.

There will be people who you will always be able to beat giving 3 stones.
There will be people who will always be able to beat you giving 3 stones.

Neither of these facts makes anyone a lesser person.

If winning were truly that important you could always just play people in the first category. If winning were that important to everyone else, the people in the second category could always just play you. Just do you best in ever game, work hard to get better, worry about the process and not the current result.

But losing streaks hurt so so much. ]:

I need to stop avoiding looking at games i lose. Even if the mistakes are dumb and obvious...

I sometimes think that, if I'd known when I was a beginner what I know now about the game (including how far I've come and how far I still have to go), I never would have started playing.