NoSkill wrote:Points aren't important in go.
Fighting and thickness..
Splatted wrote:@moyoaji & Pak0: I'm afraid I remain completely unconvinced. It's true that 6 points is a lot for a single move, but fighting is inevibitable and if you find yourself at a disadvantage you're likely to lose more than 6 points.
I am very confused as to why you aren't understanding this. In go, you win by scoring more points than your opponent. Fighting is only valuable because it earns you points - as pak0 already stated.
Basically, this is what you are saying: "Scoring an early touchdown in football doesn't matter because there is a lot of football left to be played in the game." I don't care how important controlling the line is, or how valuable having a good kick unit is, or whether or not our running back is better than the other team's. If my team gets a touchdown in the first minute, we are winning. We may or may not win by the end of the game, but being ahead is the first step in winning.
And this is completely missing the point of what I said anyway. I am not advocating that playing purely for points wins go (although if you don't know how to play a territorial game you are missing a big part of go strategy), what I am saying is that because points are earned more easily in the corners it is better to play there first. And, if you want to play for thickness and fighting, you should play a 4-4, 5-4, 5-3, 6-4, 6-3, or 5-5 stone instead of a 3-3 or 3-4 stone.
However, don't be upset if your opponent wants to let you have a giant corner when you play one of these moves - be thrilled. A 4-4 is not a magic move that automatically gives you outside influence. I can take it away in a heartbeat by playing the 5-5. Now your 4-4 is only facing the corner and will have no bearing on any fights that occur later in the game. So why don't people play this way all the time? Because the one who played the 4-4 should say: "Oh, you want to give me a 20 point corner? Well, I wanted outside influence, but I guess having a massive corner is okay too." And because fighting is a part of go and because your opponent doesn't do what you want them to when facing thickness they will simply reduce anything your outside wall tries to create and make sure you get less than 20 points on the outside instead of playing super aggressively and trying to fight you when you have a wall. Then they win because they have more points and you can't reduce their corner because, after all the fighting is over, go is a game of territory - a game of points.
skydyr wrote:My understanding is that the corners are important because they are the easiest place to make a stable group (which is different from territory), and stable groups are important as one prepares for midgame fighting.
This is definitely a good way to think about corners. Having safe groups is key in the mid-game and any group that isn't safe becomes the source of an urgent move (for either side). I would say this would go along with my thought that the corner is urgent. However, the reason being because it is the fastest way to get a stable group on the board. Yet there are those who play a territorial strategy in go and win doing it so I don't think it's wrong to value the corners for the points they can give you.
Go strategy is broader than anything we've brought up here. I think some could argue that the corners are valuable because the moves there are flexible. If you play on a side you typically need to make a two-space extension or run for the center, but in a corner you can choose to go for a side, or stay in the corner, or head toward the center meaning any stone played there has 3 options and your opponent can only eliminate one so you'll still have a distinct choice afterwards - or if they don't eliminate one you have 3 ways to build from your corner.
)