About reasons of play

[asura]

There is a difference between feeling a move is good and then searching a reason for that or if you first search the best reason and then decide the move.

I'm sure a stronger player could convince a weaker player with a good *sounding* reason that a bad move is good or that a good move is bad.

All in all there are proverbs and knowledge for everything. Which of those applies depends 100% on the concrete position. The "only" value of all the strategies is caused by the fact that people cannot read out the concrete situation good enough.

[nacroxnicke]

I think it's different to evaluate with the language itself, verbalizing the situation, to evaluate the situations with a go mindset, without speaking really, just by looking or reading what is going on, like using the go experience to evaluate what's going on. I think a lot of people can give reasons about the moves in a very verbally mode, but my question is if that verbally process goes on while playing or one evaluates without so many words by just intuition (for example one can say that the cut may affect the other group while explaining, but one may have readed that the cut makes the other group encircled and without really saying "Oh that cut looks bad, because i don't have eyes and I have few liberties, and I can't sacrifice it to gain that because it cost much more" he will defend it.)

For example, in fightings a lot of people counts liberties, I'm finding myself most of the time trying to read the fighting rather to count liberties, but those are two aproaches, one more statiscally than factually, the thing is that if you do both you may improve i think.

Anyway, today teaching a guy Atari Go, he set up a ladder with his first move after a few plays when he was suggested that he needed to reinforce first before trying to capture (it was awesome seeing such a new player extending from a crosscut), the proverb says "From a crosscut, extend", but we all know that is not true everytime, in this situation it was good because he set up the ladder, my observation was that as he did made that move without knowing the consequences but it was the proper move... There are a lot of moves that we also make that have strong consequences and we don't really know them, we just make our reasoning without words or by reading (the language of go itself), so maybe verbalizing is a important part on all that (this is for sdk players, not dan players ).

[Polama]

Personally, I play better when I keep a running narrative in my head. Something like: "If I approach, white will have to defend or run out. Hmm, I don't have much room to profit in a chase. Ok, let me try to build up the other side first...my group's a little weak, but it should be fine, let's go back to the other corner. Oh! He defended! I thought for certain he'd run out. Do I seal him in? No, that area still isn't the most interesting, let's reinforce the other group, that's bigger..."

As others have noted, tactics deserve reading, and your subconscious seems rather adept at finding moves, but semi-verbal thought helps me stay focused on the whole board. It isn't even necessarily explicitly strategic musings, just keeping track of why we got to the board position so I don't get caught trying to save sacrificed stones or running out in a way that hurts another group.

[xed_over]

A thing I have wondered lately is if it's really necesary to give reasons to all the moves verbally while playing

It usually annoys my opponents, and gives away my plans that I was hoping they might otherwise overlook.

[skydyr]

I think it's different to evaluate with the language itself, verbalizing the situation, to evaluate the situations with a go mindset, without speaking really, just by looking or reading what is going on, like using the go experience to evaluate what's going on. I think a lot of people can give reasons about the moves in a very verbally mode, but my question is if that verbally process goes on while playing or one evaluates without so many words by just intuition (for example one can say that the cut may affect the other group while explaining, but one may have readed that the cut makes the other group encircled and without really saying "Oh that cut looks bad, because i don't have eyes and I have few liberties, and I can't sacrifice it to gain that because it cost much more" he will defend it.)

There's certainly evidence that the process of recalling and verbalize traits of crime suspects by witnesses can affect their memory of the event, and that they have a more accurate recollection of the event and perpetrator prior to verbalizing it. It wouldn't surprise me if the act of verbalizing a reason for a move changes your perception of a move for better or for worse. I know I have certainly talked myself out of moves that are the best move in a given position and were my initial feeling in exchange for inferior ones in the past.

[oca]

In my opinion, both reasons and intuition are valid for identifying moves to consider.

Let's imagine, just for one second, that this statement is wrong...
What would it mean... I see only three cases :

Let's start with the easiest one :
1) Only intuition is valid for identifying moves -> ok, I see this one, that should look like my games

2) Only reasons is valid for identifying moves-> humm... may be... may be not... I can't reject that possibility, but I don't feel confortable with it... (and I don't like statement that start with "only" anyway...)

And finally...

3) Neither reasons nor intuition is valid for identifying moves -> if reasons and intuition are invalid then what is valid ? it should be the divine move so...