Life In 19x19

Tami wrote:It`s unfortunate to have to say this, but from now on I intend to ignore any needlessly argumentative comments. I had a little vision, you see, of finding myself sitting at a computer ten years from now, suddenly realising that I had grown old while trying to get the last word in an endless and pointless squabble. Therefore, I won`t play that game any more.

A belated response to the above quote, and not to #288.

http://xkcd.com/386/

But maybe you knew that already.

In response to another of Tami's posts, I have also thrown away a won position against Helen Harvey, in my case by over-attacking followed by panic. The balance of good and bad in the universe is not disturbed: every time a player is left fuming after such a loss, there is an opponent congratulating him/herself on his/her tenacity.

Bill Spight wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:

when a student i French class asks for an orange, he gets, "Bon dit!"

Why not bien dit?

Perhaps my memory is incorrect. And I do not know French, so I am guessing, but perhaps it is something like the difference between "Well said," and "Said correctly." (?)

Edit: Or maybe it is just, "Bon!"

C`etait tres jolie! I enjoyed that quote very much

Bill Spight wrote:BTW, Tami, would you like to see another interesting ancient game?

Would I ever!! Yes, please

A castle game, with a few sportscaster comments.

I`ve just added 100 points to my FICS blitz rating (Yes, I do like to play chess sometimes.) I tried a technique mentioned in Kevin Spraggetts`s article (I give the link in the Amateurs thread here). In between moves, look away from the board. It makes you ten times more aware of relationships between the pieces. I`ve been trying it with go, but I find the effect a bit frightening. Inner sight can be much more vivid than physical sight, and you might not be able to cope with it.

Talking of visualisation, I would like to present an idea.

Principles of Shinogi and Sabaki based on the writings of O Rissei

0) Judge the opponent`s position

STRONG --> Make sabaki WEAK --> Make shinogi

Sabaki

1) Decide how far in your can go - if line 3 is dangerous, then line 4, if that is dangerous, line 5 and so on.
2) Play high
3) Play lightly - save only important stones
4) Use diagonals and attachments
5) Make full use of the aji of discarded stones
6) Aim for ko when in trouble

Shinogi

1) Look for forcing moves
2) Try to break out or connect up with allies
3) If you can`t get out, make 2 eyes
4) If you can`t live, then sacrifice the stones as usefully as possible

Now, let`s watch Sabaki - The Movie in our mind`s eye!



And here is Shinogi - The Movie, with alternate endings!



I think quite likely you don`t even need to make a mental war movie to understand strategic points, but the point I`m driving at is that visual thinking is vastly more quickly grasped than verbal descriptions. So, instead of checklists and verbal principles, I`m going to try rethinking go principles in as purely a visual way as possible. I`m find it hard to explain, but now that I`ve imagined the Sabaki and Shinogi war movies, I`m finding it easier to think of those concepts in purely go visions. Try it for yourself - you might find that my idea makes sense.

Anyway, words describe pure thought. However, pure thought can also be translated to visual analogies, which are quicker than words. However, once the concept is understood, pure thought is faster still.

Well, well. I`ve decided to be a bit more systematic. As mentioned before, when you`re not content with your level (how well you perform "naturally"), then it`s a good idea to bring everything back into the cognitive domain, and to try to straighten your thinking.

I have too many books and not enough order - it`s been getting confusing. So, I`ve decided to concentrate on

* Working through my copy of the Nihon Kiin Life and Death Bible (基本死活虎の巻, ISBN 978-4-8182-0554-3) - blindfold

* Working through Rin Kaiho`s pocket joseki dictionary (ポッケト簡明定石事典, ISBN 978-4-8399-4461-2) - blindfold

* Chart up all that I have learned about fuseki theory from Ishida, Mimura and other sources (including L19!)

I experimented with blindfold techniques while playing live games, but although it has some benefits, it tends to become overwhelming. It helps a lot while playing chess, that I am certain of, but with the goban being so large, you get too frightening a sight of the "abysmal depths of go" (with apologies to Nabakov). However, as a method of really trying to get the structure and essence of a Life and Death shape or joseki, I think it`s very helpful, although very difficult at first.

Okay, this is not meant as an original theory of go openings, but simply me bringing lots of things together into a system.

First, there are 6 Orders - 0 to 5

Second, there are Riders - ideas that travel with you throughout the fuseki, to help you decide ambiguous cases

The six orders are as follows:

0th Order
Life and Death moves
Moves that make or break a base
Tennozan
Key shape points

1st Order
Corners

2nd Order
Shimari, Kakari (remember Ishida4, i.e., Ishida`s rules about choosing kakari), B-extensions (i.e., extensions from "big" corner plays, namely 44, 54, and 53)

3rd Order
Extensions from shimari, moyo expansions/restraints, ZPs (Zone Presses)

4th Order
Tsume, TtT (Threaten to Threaten a group - I suppose this could be considered a kind of tsume but..)

5th Order
Jumps into centre, Judge - "keshinogi" (see previous post about how to choose a plan), Probes

The Riders are

* All else being equal, choose the move with an Added Value (a follow-up or other additional benefit)
* All else being equal, choose the move that works more efficiently
* All else being equal, choose the "meeting point" of territories (based on Ishida)

Caveat - with 0th Order moves, I am not saying that you should always and without exception play Tennozan ahead of, say, a 2nd or 3rd Order move, but rather that 0th Order moves tend to be either Urgent or Vital. However, there could be occasions when you might legitimately play something other than an even a so-called "urgent move" - there is no compulsion to play any move in go, you are always free to choose whatever you just best. That said, the moves in the 0th Order are put there because they generally have extremely high priority.

Caveat 2 - this is simply me trying to make sense of a lot of things that I have read. Take up this "system" at your own peril - I won`t be responsible for any defeats other than my own!

Caveat 3 - there is a case for adding other moves to the 1st Order, such as Tengen or 63 or 64, but given my small ability at go, I prefer to KISS for now.

Tami, you've let the side down! You've turned into a Robert A hierarchical list, counting from 0 and inventing B-extensions????

Lists have their uses, but they have to be processed with the slow part of the brain, which is not the part you want to engage most often while playing go. Much better than making lists is doing the work of repetition and letting the brain sort out the hierarchy. You can help it by being observant about each of the points you make, but it will do a better job of sorting and making associations. With lists, however satisfying, we tend to assume we've done the work and so we put them in a drawer and forget about them.

Tami, have you compared your orders with Yilun Yang's? Or asked a professional to look at them? Whilst I think having lists as some form of internal "don't forget something important" reminder, I wonder if starting to prioritise your moves by what equates to a cognitively assessed checklist is probably dangerous ground.

John Fairbairn wrote:Tami, you've let the side down! You've turned into a Robert A hierarchical list, counting from 0 and inventing B-extensions????

Lists have their uses, but they have to be processed with the slow part of the brain, which is not the part you want to engage most often while playing go. Much better than making lists is doing the work of repetition and letting the brain sort out the hierarchy. You can help it by being observant about each of the points you make, but it will do a better job of sorting and making associations. With lists, however satisfying, we tend to assume we've done the work and so we put them in a drawer and forget about them.

Oh dear

It's only that I feel completely lost in the fuseki. I`ve been reading a lot recently, yet I still feel confused. I made this list really just to try to weave together the different threads, to make sense of things at some level. It was not really my intention to use it as a kind of self-program, at least not in a rigid way.

Do you think it would be better just to recognise that all of these ideas are useful and important, to study examples of their application, and not to try to impose a hierarchical order on them?

Do you think a compromise approach might be possible, where one falls back on a "playing order" in the absence of other information or ideas?

To be honest, I admire quite a lot of Robert`s ideas and methods, but feel he goes too far in the direction of systemisation. But is it so bad in itself to attempt to think systemically?

As I say, it`s just that I am frustrated by my lack of understanding, and thought this exercise would help me. I`m extremely open to criticism and guidance

Tami wrote:Do you think it would be better just to recognise that all of these ideas are useful and important, to study examples of their application, and not to try to impose a hierarchical order on them?

Do you think a compromise approach might be possible, where one falls back on a "playing order" in the absence of other information or ideas?

I don't think I'm all that much stronger than you, if at all, but intuitively this feels like a much sounder application of principles to me. Studying professional games and how they fit with your system could be an interesting exercise. Pick moves and directions based on your principles, hierarchy and general feeling, and then see how the professionals approached the board.

topazg wrote:

Tami wrote:Do you think it would be better just to recognise that all of these ideas are useful and important, to study examples of their application, and not to try to impose a hierarchical order on them?

Do you think a compromise approach might be possible, where one falls back on a "playing order" in the absence of other information or ideas?

I don't think I'm all that much stronger than you, if at all, but intuitively this feels like a much sounder application of principles to me. Studying professional games and how they fit with your system could be an interesting exercise. Pick moves and directions based on your principles, hierarchy and general feeling, and then see how the professionals approached the board.

Hi, topaz!

Sorry, I meant to edit my previous post to include acknowledgement of your earlier comment. Actually, I got the basic order from Fujisawa`s Reducing Territorial Frameworks, but attempted to incorporate other things into it.

I have been trying to explain examples from Mimura`s book using it, but I feel there is a bit of a danger of confirmation bias - you can twist wordy principles around to fit just about any situation.

Something that does seem right to me is the idea that principles and examples are complementary. They support and explain each other. You could explain the procedure for writing a fugue, and demonstrate it with Bach; or you could show some Bach, and then explain it in terms of principles. However, the only way to learn to write a good fugue is to practice, using both the principles and Bach (and others) for guidance.

Perhaps making a fuseki is like creating a fugue!

This go game really "does me `ead in" sometimes

Tami wrote:It's only that I feel completely lost in the fuseki.

Have you tried problem-books like Get Strong at the Opening or 501 Opening Problems?

SoDesuNe wrote:

Tami wrote:It's only that I feel completely lost in the fuseki.

Have you tried problem-books like Get Strong at the Opening or 501 Opening Problems?

I have Get Strong at the Opening, but I wish it would give more reasoning. Perhaps it`s all just case-by-case after all

It's only that I feel completely lost in the fuseki

I personally feel that none of the western books explain the fuseki well, but there is a tip from David Mitchell of the London Go Centre that seems to work very well. Find one of those problem books that require you to find the best move out of A, B, C, D, but instead of finding just the best move, rank all four options in order. It appears that the kind of thinking needed to do this is just different (and stimulating) enough to bring many aspects of fuseki into focus.

Obviously this means the source must rank the answers, but that is usually the case, and some knowedge of Japanese will help, but does not seem to be essential. This method can be extended with huge benefit if you can get a supply of back issues of the Igo Kansai (Kansai Ki-in) series because they offer the A to D type but also vary this by asking you to find the next move. When you look at the answer you will see around 40 points given, all with a mark out of 20, so the odds of finding your move and having it assessed are pretty high. Also, it can happen that there is more than one best move, which is more realistic than the usual "find the brilliancy". A further plus point is that Igo Kansai gives the percentage of people who wrote in with each answer, so you can see how your thinking compares with your peers.

A further advantage of this series - by far the biggest in my estimation - depends on reading the Japanese, and it is a little hard to explain without giving concrete examples, but the gist of it is that the answers are laconic and REPETITIVE. Over time, the repetition of moves marked down for being "too straightforward", "not urgent", "unnecessary" - or marked up for being "thick", "fical point for both players", "related to bases" - not only drills these ideas into your brain but each move has a score attached to it, so you end up giving your brain exactly the kind of information it needs to create neural networks all by itself.

I did offer to do a book based on this series to a publisher, but as next to nobody buys go books nowadays it was stillborn. In this new environment, maybe the Kansai Ki-in would also want a big cut, but we never got as far as asking them.

Tami wrote:I admire quite a lot of Robert`s ideas and methods, but feel he goes too far in the direction of systemisation

It depends on one's purpose whether it is going too far. Detailed discussion on request.

John Fairbairn wrote:A hierarchical list [...] With lists, however satisfying, we tend to assume we've done the work and so we put them in a drawer and forget about them.

Do you? Hierarchies, lists, principles and other methods are not for forgetting but for application!