Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:12 am
Ooh, I'll do more low hanging fruit!SmoothOper wrote:OK, I will believe you that tsumego is necessary, if you can show me one example of a tsumego that arises out of a Chinese Fuseki.
Life In 19x19
Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://www.lifein19x19.com/
Balanced Attack
Page 4 of 6
tenuki, black to play, status?Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:41 am
Here's one that's slightly less of an obvious one ...
White to live with his K3 group:
Source game ... 13th Chinese Ricoh Cup, round 2 -- Chen Yaoye vs. Mao Ruilong (courtesy of Go4Go.net):
White to live with his K3 group:
Source game ... 13th Chinese Ricoh Cup, round 2 -- Chen Yaoye vs. Mao Ruilong (courtesy of Go4Go.net):
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:17 am
golem7 wrote:SmoothOper wrote:Everyone talks about a Professional as if they were an oracle of the game. I am pretty sure this is not true and that professionals are very concerned about strategy
Of course Pros are concerned about strategy. We all are. But you're missing the point. For making good strategical decisions you need to know the status of groups (thick, dead, alive, weak, strong, unsettled, light, cuttable, whatever). That way you can decide whether to tenuki, follow-up, direction of play in general. But therefore you need very good reading. And that is what practise (tsumego) is all about. If, say, you defend a group that was already alive or make attacks that don't threaten anything big, or don't work at all (because you cannot read it out), it's almost like a pass. Your opponent can tenuki and you'll lose a lot of points and/or momentum.
Your first diagram unfortunately shows that you cannot yet judge the status of groups accurately. White is clearly in a disadvantageous position. Black is making solid territory while white has two unsettled groups to look after. Please listen to the advice of others: tsumego will help you way more than musing about strategy which you cannot understand without proper reading. I'm not saying: don't study strategy. It helps, of course and can be fun, but it will only take you so far. Reading is the basis of everything. If you want to get stronger, that is.
Well, I haven't seen a tsumego, from you golem7 ...
so we'll wait for a little while for you to respond, before we assume your theory of tsumego strategy and your understanding of my approach is undeniably flawed.Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:16 pm
What on Earth are you asking? What are you trying to prove? Did you somehow think that the Chinese Fuseki creates a position where no reading ability is necessary?SmoothOper wrote:OK, I will believe you that tsumego is necessary, if you can show me one example of a tsumego that arises out of a Chinese Fuseki.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:38 pm
hyperpape wrote:What on Earth are you asking? What are you trying to prove? Did you somehow think that the Chinese Fuseki creates a position where no reading ability is necessary?SmoothOper wrote:OK, I will believe you that tsumego is necessary, if you can show me one example of a tsumego that arises out of a Chinese Fuseki.
I am asking golem7 to contribute something, so that I can ridicule him for being an amateur, and not knowing any strategy.
Admin: Please be reminded that personal attacks are not be allowed in this forum if that is what you intend
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:23 pm
I've read through this thread a few times from start to finish, and I'm still not exactly sure what you're looking for, SO. You use the term "Balanced Attack" and then give an example that seems to have derailed the conversation.
Your definition seems to describe the game of go as a whole, not some special strategy. The best plays in go give multiple options to score (one criteria given in your definition). Almost all games of go require the management of multiple weak groups, all interacting in a lacework of strength and weakness.
What kind of positions do you think to use "Balanced Attack"? When in the game are we looking? Is this late in the opening, after players have begun to commit to a strategy but before the main groups have quite settled yet? Does the point in time during the game matter, or are you looking for some sort of balanced tactic that can be applied generally (with details based on the specific positions)?
Nothing you've said yet has led me to believe that Tsumego won't be a major factor in developing such a balanced attack ... tsumego is just such a powerful learning tool ...
That being said, I've never actually studied tsumego seriously, so I might not be one to talk.
Your definition seems to describe the game of go as a whole, not some special strategy. The best plays in go give multiple options to score (one criteria given in your definition). Almost all games of go require the management of multiple weak groups, all interacting in a lacework of strength and weakness.
What kind of positions do you think to use "Balanced Attack"? When in the game are we looking? Is this late in the opening, after players have begun to commit to a strategy but before the main groups have quite settled yet? Does the point in time during the game matter, or are you looking for some sort of balanced tactic that can be applied generally (with details based on the specific positions)?
Nothing you've said yet has led me to believe that Tsumego won't be a major factor in developing such a balanced attack ... tsumego is just such a powerful learning tool ...
That being said, I've never actually studied tsumego seriously, so I might not be one to talk.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:35 pm
SmoothOper wrote:hyperpape wrote:What on Earth are you asking? What are you trying to prove? Did you somehow think that the Chinese Fuseki creates a position where no reading ability is necessary?SmoothOper wrote:OK, I will believe you that tsumego is necessary, if you can show me one example of a tsumego that arises out of a Chinese Fuseki.
I am asking golem7 to contribute something, so that I can ridicule him for being an amateur, and not knowing any strategy.
I am asking SmoothOper to not resort to personal attacks and chill out.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:57 pm
Araban wrote:SmoothOper wrote:hyperpape wrote: What on Earth are you asking? What are you trying to prove? Did you somehow think that the Chinese Fuseki creates a position where no reading ability is necessary?
I am asking golem7 to contribute something, so that I can ridicule him for being an amateur, and not knowing any strategy.
I am asking SmoothOper to not resort to personal attacks and chill out.
I don't think I need to justify discussing strategy at any level(beginner to dan and further), so the tsumego-nuts can chill out. I said it in another thread, I suspect it got under some peoples skin, and I will say it again just for a kick. More than 90% of tsumego problems have no practical application in any given strategic framework Chinese Fuseki or otherwise, and are utter wastes of time.
Admin: Please be reminded that trolling is not allowed in this forum.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:42 pm
SmoothOper wrote:I don't think I need to justify discussing strategy at any level(beginner to dan and further), so the tsumego-nuts can chill out. I said it in another thread, I suspect it got under some peoples skin, and I will say it again just for a kick. More than 90% of tsumego problems have no practical application in any given strategic framework Chinese Fuseki or otherwise, and are utter wastes of time.
You're doing it wrong.
I am trying to have a civil conversation, though you're making it difficult on me, SO. I'm a naturally non-combative person when it comes to threads and there's been an awful lot of tedious back-and-forth in the threads you've started (not really your fault, just an observation that I'm turned off by how each thread has devolved). That being said, I always want to provide something to think about, or my own perspective, when interesting topics come up.
It's become very hard to figure out what this thread should actually be about, but I'll try to be as coherent as I can.
I agree with you that strategy should be discussed at every level. I disagree with your assessment concerning tsumego, but we'll set that aside for a moment. You've brought up the Chinese Fuseki, so let's start there. For the sake of space, I'm going to put my diagrams behind HIDE tags ...
==============================
The above diagram has four hot-spots where White can try to make something happen within Black's current area (and, of course, there's a 3-3 invasion at 'z').
Before looking at White's options, it's a good idea to look at what Black is trying to accomplish. Black has a couple things going for him. First, all his stones loosely support each other, which will help to attack any invading White stones. Black will usually have one more stone than White will on the right side, giving a nice advantage in fights. From there, Black wants to exert influence along the top and bottom sides, and eventually into the center.
The inside areas (labeled 'b' and 'c') try to rip apart the budding Black framework on the right. However, diving into both areas (as your first example indicates) gives Black the opportunity to attack both 'b' and 'c' groups and build up even more influence towards the top and bottom sides of the board. It's this reason (Black's gain of influence towards the top and bottom) that many in this thread believe that White would end up in an inferior position if those two invasions were attempted starting with
. As can be seen from the example game given a little later, playing both invasions can be a good idea later on in the game ... with supporting stones towards the top and bottom sides and in the center.A more "balanced" approach to attacking the Chinese Fuseki would be to limit one side (either top or bottom) and then look to invade as well. This can lead to positions like the following:
I would call the above a "balanced" attack against the Chinese. It negates the top side influence that Black was building and successfully invades the bottom right portion of Black's framework. Black's weaker points have shifted around the board. White can consider the points 'a' through 'd' next. Attacking these points does not necessarily mean playing directly at those points, of course.
====================
Is this the kind of discussion you were looking for?
I'll close with a small bit of advice. I know you are trying to have a discussion about a topic you think is important. I also realize that you believe the answers you are getting concerning tsumego are irrelevant to your actual questions. Whether or not I believe you are mistaken (in fact, most of the above discussion on strategy has relevant tsumego that could be studied to help guide the choices both Black and White will have to make, at least in my opinion), the tone of discussion in your threads has consistently been off-putting to me. Not all of that is your doing, but you are not blameless. I honestly believe you would get better responses if you refrained from responding to any posts that irk you.
Just my 2 cents.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:34 pm
Do you also believe that homework, for academic subjects, or practice, for instruments/sports/etc. is a waste of time? A pianist rarely if ever plays the simple pieces that he learns when beginning to play the piano, and many math homework problems I've done have never shown up (with the same numbers) again. According to your ideas, all of these are utter wastes of time.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:16 pm
If "No pain, no gain" is a false statement, then the ultimate sportsman is probably a couch potato analyst.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:12 am
Shaddy wrote:Do you also believe that homework, for academic subjects, or practice, for instruments/sports/etc. is a waste of time? A pianist rarely if ever plays the simple pieces that he learns when beginning to play the piano, and many math homework problems I've done have never shown up (with the same numbers) again. According to your ideas, all of these are utter wastes of time.
I have a similar approach to music. Some people will spend hours practicing scales others will spend hours on very specific etudes mastering a specific technique. I spend hours memorizing and practicing songs and iterating on the difficult portions of the songs. Etudes and scales are secondary though some people swear by them.
It is a different approach, I will admit that I won't be able to play any piece of music that is set in front of me or improvise in any key, which may be a prerequisite of a professional musician, but I can play songs that people recognize, and they do sound good, and sometimes they are challenging pieces.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:28 am
Marcus wrote:SmoothOper wrote:I don't think I need to justify discussing strategy at any level(beginner to dan and further), so the tsumego-nuts can chill out. I said it in another thread, I suspect it got under some peoples skin, and I will say it again just for a kick. More than 90% of tsumego problems have no practical application in any given strategic framework Chinese Fuseki or otherwise, and are utter wastes of time.
You're doing it wrong.
I am trying to have a civil conversation, though you're making it difficult on me, SO. I'm a naturally non-combative person when it comes to threads and there's been an awful lot of tedious back-and-forth in the threads you've started (not really your fault, just an observation that I'm turned off by how each thread has devolved). That being said, I always want to provide something to think about, or my own perspective, when interesting topics come up.
It's become very hard to figure out what this thread should actually be about, but I'll try to be as coherent as I can.
I agree with you that strategy should be discussed at every level. I disagree with your assessment concerning tsumego, but we'll set that aside for a moment. You've brought up the Chinese Fuseki, so let's start there. For the sake of space, I'm going to put my diagrams behind HIDE tags ...
==============================
The above diagram has four hot-spots where White can try to make something happen within Black's current area (and, of course, there's a 3-3 invasion at 'z').
Before looking at White's options, it's a good idea to look at what Black is trying to accomplish. Black has a couple things going for him. First, all his stones loosely support each other, which will help to attack any invading White stones. Black will usually have one more stone than White will on the right side, giving a nice advantage in fights. From there, Black wants to exert influence along the top and bottom sides, and eventually into the center.
The inside areas (labeled 'b' and 'c') try to rip apart the budding Black framework on the right. However, diving into both areas (as your first example indicates) gives Black the opportunity to attack both 'b' and 'c' groups and build up even more influence towards the top and bottom sides of the board. It's this reason (Black's gain of influence towards the top and bottom) that many in this thread believe that White would end up in an inferior position if those two invasions were attempted starting with
A more "balanced" approach to attacking the Chinese Fuseki would be to limit one side (either top or bottom) and then look to invade as well. This can lead to positions like the following:
I would call the above a "balanced" attack against the Chinese. It negates the top side influence that Black was building and successfully invades the bottom right portion of Black's framework. Black's weaker points have shifted around the board. White can consider the points 'a' through 'd' next. Attacking these points does not necessarily mean playing directly at those points, of course.
====================
Is this the kind of discussion you were looking for?
I'll close with a small bit of advice. I know you are trying to have a discussion about a topic you think is important. I also realize that you believe the answers you are getting concerning tsumego are irrelevant to your actual questions. Whether or not I believe you are mistaken (in fact, most of the above discussion on strategy has relevant tsumego that could be studied to help guide the choices both Black and White will have to make, at least in my opinion), the tone of discussion in your threads has consistently been off-putting to me. Not all of that is your doing, but you are not blameless. I honestly believe you would get better responses if you refrained from responding to any posts that irk you.
Just my 2 cents.
Yes. That is interesting.
I was reading a go book the last night and the invasion at b was also recommended. I think there are a couple interesting varitions that need to be planned for though for example the kakari approach to the hoshi stone could be pinchered or tenukied, not sure either is recommended, but I am sure to see that against my amateur competition.
The pincher is fairly straight forward to respond to with a corner invasion. The tenuki is a bit more tricky, since it implies a double kakari, which can lead to quite some variations, some of them even involving tsumego **gasp**.
I guess I am still searching for that general strategic complement (whatever it may be) to the basic premise of building thickness picking on weak groups between the 3-4 and low extension, in the Chinese and secondly the mini-Chinese. Strategically, I don't think simple life and death problems are a good enough answer since black is able to make so much profit from these configurations.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:17 am
A constructive thing to do might be to play a Malkovitch against a stronger player, starting from the Chinese Fuseki. Presuming that you go wrong, you could see where your errors were strategic in nature or reading based.
Besides, playing go > arguing.
Besides, playing go > arguing.
Re: Balanced Attack
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:48 am
SmoothOper wrote:I guess I am still searching for that general strategic complement (whatever it may be) to the basic premise of building thickness picking on weak groups between the 3-4 and low extension, in the Chinese and secondly the mini-Chinese. Strategically, I don't think simple life and death problems are a good enough answer since black is able to make so much profit from these configurations.
The first thing to ask with setting up these weak groups is "Will it live and how?" If yes, then the second question is "Is living there helpful or harmful overall?" If no, then the second question is "Will leaving stones there as aji be helpful or harmful overall?" The answer to all these questions changes as the game develops. Black needs to be asking the same questions, of course, in order to decide if he needs to defend or not.
In either case, however, the way to evaluate profit and loss is counting, and the only way you can count is if you know the status of groups.
Regarding your more general question, it seems like you are describing a strategy (setting up an area of influence to provoke a favorable fight) and then asking for the strategy behind the strategy. The strategy is to make territory or influence while attacking by creating a favourable area for the attack, or to have your opponent cede a vast territory to you if he doesn't enter it. There's no deep down secret strategy in a strategy in a strategy. The only thing I can think of that you will find beyond that will be prepared lines and similar tactics, and if you learn some but can't analyse them, you will go wrong either when your opponent deviates or when you don't know how to follow up.
Did I misunderstand the question?