How do you choose your opening?

[wineandgolover]

I have to wonder if pros think the opening is the most important part of the game mainly when playing other pros, and if their opinions would differ were they watching a game between two low dans or weaker.

For certain. I've heard them say just that.

[Eerika Norvio]

I think that even the pros who think the opening as most important stage of the game, would agree that as long as a player has critical flaws in middle and endgame, they are the areas to be improved. Good opening doesn't protect that much from screwing up later in the game, and yet good middle game and yose often turn games around. I think this is simply because of the order of the stages. It is easier to determinedly lose somewhat later.

[SmoothOper]

I think that even the pros who think the opening as most important stage of the game, would agree that as long as a player has critical flaws in middle and endgame, they are the areas to be improved. Good opening doesn't protect that much from screwing up later in the game, and yet good middle game and yose often turn games around. I think this is simply because of the order of the stages. It is easier to determinedly lose somewhat later.

OMG are we having the your opening doesn't matter discussion again? Here let me solve the riddle for you. Since strong players care about the opening, however you don't care about the opening therefore you must be weak.

[Eerika Norvio]

I didn't say it doesn't matter at all. Only that it's relatively unimportant compared to middle- and endgame.

Caring about the opening doesn't make a weak player strong, either. If an amateur player is weak, it's because he or she cannot read.

[topazg]

I think that even the pros who think the opening as most important stage of the game, would agree that as long as a player has critical flaws in middle and endgame, they are the areas to be improved. Good opening doesn't protect that much from screwing up later in the game, and yet good middle game and yose often turn games around. I think this is simply because of the order of the stages. It is easier to determinedly lose somewhat later.

You think...?

There are people who think that it makes little difference how they play in the opening. Ridiculous! A game is often decided in the opening.

Yet if you neglect the fuseki, you can't hope to make progress at go. After all, it's the basis of your whole game.

Two of many, but I think your hope to put the words in the mouths of professionals is perhaps misdirected.

[Bantari]

I think that even the pros who think the opening as most important stage of the game, would agree that as long as a player has critical flaws in middle and endgame, they are the areas to be improved. Good opening doesn't protect that much from screwing up later in the game, and yet good middle game and yose often turn games around. I think this is simply because of the order of the stages. It is easier to determinedly lose somewhat later.

You think...?

There are people who think that it makes little difference how they play in the opening. Ridiculous! A game is often decided in the opening.

Yet if you neglect the fuseki, you can't hope to make progress at go. After all, it's the basis of your whole game.

Two of many, but I think your hope to put the words in the mouths of professionals is perhaps misdirected.

I think you are both right. Or not.

Solid fuseki is the basis on which to build the game. In particular, its the basis on which you can build the understanding of the later phases. When your fuseki is good, you will have an edge, even if your later mistakes prevent you from winning.

On the other hand, if your chuban and yose are really terrible, the best played fuseki will not save your games - you'll just keep losing.

So:
- given a crappy fuseki, it is very hard, but not impossible, to with with good play afterwards.
- given a crappy chuban and yose, it is pretty much impossible to with, even with the best fuseki.

Of course - evaluations are done with the appropriate level in mind, and 'crappy' or 'great' are relative terms. At pro levels, things might look different, but this is now what we are talking about in here. Different worlds.

To clarify - The pros see it differently because they move in different circles. Their opponents, and so their view of the world, is centered around other pros - and none of them have anything truly 'crappy'... so bad fuseki often can (and sometimes does) decide their games. Same can be said about yose, I think.

On the other hand, I don't think that when a pro plays a low-level amateur who just happened to play a great fuseki - the pro expects to (or even does) lose the game. Since the game is decided in fuseki, and all that.... So - large superiority in chuban and yose can make up for inferior fuseki. Superiority in fuseki does not always saves from a loss after a crappy later play.

Anyways - I bet even among pro games there are a lot of examples where one pro played the fuseki better and still lost the game at the end. Among amateur players - this is extremely common.

[speedchase]

What I would take away, is something that I think should be relatively obvious. If you want to be good at go you have to be good at fuseki chuban and yose. one or two of the above isn't enough.

[Eerika Norvio]

Well I didn't say (or at least I didn't mean to say) that opening doesn't matter at all and it should be neglected. Only that of the three main stages of the game, it needs least attention, and also this might only be true for low dan or weaker players. And perhaps it's eventually matter of opinion, not fact, since I have read about professionals that think endgame is the most important, those that think it is middle game and those that emphasize opening.

And many players do make progress neglecting the fuseki. It will become a bottleneck at some point, but that point usually isn't at kyu or low dan level.

[topazg]

I think you are both right. Or not.

FWIW, I wasn't advocating a position that the fuseki is the most important part of the game, merely pointing out that it is false to state that professionals hold a general opinion that it is less important than the rest of the game

For those that care, I actually advocate study of all areas (and find it frustrating how many reviews stop prior to the yose), and only decided to pipe up because I don't think the fuseki should be undervalued any more than it should be overvalued.

[SmoothOper]

Its like Lee Changho, sure he touts his end game, but he knows if he doesn't play his standard baduk he is gonna get it handed to him. In theory he should be able to play the mini-Chinese because the beginning doesn't matter and he has superior end game abilities, but when he does play the mini-Chinese he gets demolished. So yeah, his opening doesn't matter, but he better play that one opening that he knows well.

[oren]

Two of many, but I think your hope to put the words in the mouths of professionals is perhaps misdirected.

Maeda Ryo said the focus of most players should be in the middle game and early end game and that opening is less important while at the US Go Congress.

I also think the opening is important but not as important as other areas. The two quotes you pulled you have to take in the context of trying to sell books on the opening and may have been ghost written as well.

[skydyr]

Two of many, but I think your hope to put the words in the mouths of professionals is perhaps misdirected.

Maeda Ryo said the focus of most players should be in the middle game and early end game and that opening is less important while at the US Go Congress.

I also think the opening is important but not as important as other areas. The two quotes you pulled you have to take in the context of trying to sell books on the opening and may have been ghost written as well.

The impression I get from statements like these is not that you can get away with a bad opening, but that your opening only needs to meet a minimum bar to leave the game in a state where it is possible to win in the middle and endgame. Where that bar is depends on the level at which you play, of course, but once you get beyond it at your level, the size of later mistakes begins to occlude any accrued advantage.

[Splatted]

Personally I doubt it's possible to have an understanding of the opening that far exceeds your middle game because the two phases are so inextricably linked; the opening is all about preparing for the middlegame. Sure, up to a certain point you can rely on memorisation and basic principles, but actually understanding it requires the ability to discern how your moves will shape the game as it progresses.

I've been wondering if the transition between opening and mid-game might be a very valuable point to study because you'll learn what to do in the middle game in a way that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of your opening.

[topazg]

I suspect they're all more or less equal in value as areas of study. The opening is undeniably where the biggest moves are played, but I also suspect it's the area where the potential loss of points for making an error is smallest, hence the need for fighting and reading skill. It's also the stage of the game that leaves the longest period in which to claw back a deficit on the board.

I doubt however that you can ever progress to professional level play without being exceptional in all three areas - show me a pro that disregards the opening and just wins his games in the middle game fighting and endgame, and I'll change my opinion

[Bantari]

I suspect they're all more or less equal in value as areas of study. The opening is undeniably where the biggest moves are played, but I also suspect it's the area where the potential loss of points for making an error is smallest, hence the need for fighting and reading skill. It's also the stage of the game that leaves the longest period in which to claw back a deficit on the board.

I doubt however that you can ever progress to professional level play without being exceptional in all three areas - show me a pro that disregards the opening and just wins his games in the middle game fighting and endgame, and I'll change my opinion

But we are not talking about pros here, if I am not mistaken. We are giving advice to a low-level amateur, like all of us here, no?

As an extreme example - consider a beginner...
Whole board strategies are important, and you certainly cannot get good/pro without it. But at that level their influence on the game outcome is minimal, if any at all - when (a) the beginner would not understand anyways, and (b) he loses huge groups because he has no clue about two eyes yet... What is the point in this context to stress how important understanding whole board strategies is?

You can make the same argument here - you cannot be a pro without in-depth understanding of whole board strategies. But in the context of this discussion, this just completely misses the point. For now, whole-board strategies are just not that important to teach or explain or delve into. Just learn about life-and-death and some basic tesuji - this is the stepping-stone to the next level.

Just like, in this case, for a kyu player (I assume, or low dan ama, or whatever) an in-depth knowledge of a specific fuseki (or fuseki in general) is much less important than many many other aspects of the game. Some understanding of basic fuseki principles is more than enough. The games are decided elsewhere.

I am not really sure how to make it any more clear.