Life In 19x19

Good shape is very, very easy. It's the bit before that's hard.

Many people have an odd notion of what good shape means. Some people think it implies a catalogue of useful shapes and spend hours searching for it. Charles Matthews' book tends towards this view.

There are other people who try to dream up definitions based on words like "efficiency". That misses the mark, too. Sort of putting the cart before the horse.

The definition of good shape by a Japanese expert is something much simpler: "the vital point for defence".

However, that should be expanded a little. It is a bit more than simple defence. It is the move that renders a position long-term "thick", in the proper sense of thick, i.e. solid, secure from immediate attack (nothing to do with outside influence). Without the good shape move the position is still thin (i.e. has defects). With the good-shape move in place, any further move would be overconcentration. In that sense efficiency can be prayed in aid, but the trouble with focusing on efficiency is that you start thinking about getting extra points, or ko threats. Doing that actually often leads you into bad shape.

If you play good-shape moves you are playing thick moves. If you play thick moves you are playing in the style of play that the Japanese call orthodox. If you play that way, you need to be patient and learn to reap your rewards late in the game. In principle that's very easy to understand and do, but in practice most of us get carried away by the thrill of a fight and end up revelling in bad shape.

But, assuming you really want to play in the safe, orthodox way (and even fighters do for much of the time), the tricky part is learning to identify one's weak points, or what threats can occur, not just now but some way down the road.

fwiffo: your remarks about the second position suggest to me that you viewed this correctly as a "defend the vital point" position, but your remark about looking for a way into the centre in the case of the first position suggests to me you were looking for "efficiency". If so, that would be what led you astray. Bill's remarks about the weaknesses in the corner show the correct approach. Good shape defends weaknesses and makes thick positions - nothing else.

Well, in the second example, white is completely sealed in, and is forced to make life locally. I've always understood that making life locally is the last resort. And some of the problems in the book are about making shape while moving out. Some involve finding a tesuji for shape, or making a sacrifice. Some are about finding a vital point for defense, though only a few are about making life locally. But I think your point about thickness is exactly right. All the problems are about making a thick position. I would like my play to be thick!

I guess I'm better at spotting soft spots to poke at when attacking than I am at finding shape points for defending. Which is silly, because that's mostly the same thing. Maybe I'll try turning the problems around. All the points for attacking that toapzg pointed out are points I am able to find easily if I think about the problem in terms of how black should attack. If I think in terms of how to preempt those attacks, maybe I'd see or maybe I'd at least get close.

I'm about your strength and I have the same probelm as you with that book. I find alot of the probelms difficult and do not find the right answers. But I like the book itself and it has alot of great probelms and I learn something every time I have read it.

Maybe a couple years late on this thread, but I love this book. It's teaching me many new concepts on how to make proper thickness, and shape using defects in opponents positions, and how to correct mine. I am missing alot of the problems on my first runthrough but I can feel myself learning and applying these concepts onto the board when i play games.

Looks like Gu Li studied the first problem to help him win the Chunlan Cup this year, go to move 19



P.S. Not sure if it is this book, but one of the shape problem books by amateurs should be read with caution, I recall some anecdote about a pro, maybe Mingjiu Jiang 7p, looking at the problems and saying quite a few were dodgy, either outright wrong or not the only move. Of course he could be wrong too, I would hope Bozulich would have got a pro to check his problems (or maybe he sourced them from a pro).

No, he obviously studied Go Seigen - ; )



And yes, this is the book with some questionable (from a pro's perspective) answers: http://senseis.xmp.net/?MakingGoodShape.