Life In 19x19

There was a comment addressed to me in a Malkovich game that I'm playing, and I feel like it hit the spot on a feeling I have when I am playing games.

Namely, they (accurately) observed that, when I am playing go, it seems like I just want the game to end. I think that this is a definite feeling that I have, but I had previously thought that it was completely natural.

When I start out a game of go, there is a chance I will win, and a chance I will lose. Of course, I prefer to win. At the start of the game, though, there is uncertainty in what my opponent can do. As a result, there is always some doubt inside of me that says, "maybe you will lose".

So I typically try to eliminate this doubt. As such, if I am able to kill my opponent quickly, or gain a big advantage quickly, or bring the game to an end quickly, I feel more at ease - the doubt of my chances of winning goes away.

Is this unnatural? Do you guys prefer to play drawn out games? If the game is close and drawn out, isn't it stressful? Is my feeling of wanting to win as soon as possible unnatural?

I can certainly sympathize with this- it's hard to avoid the urge to just go for a commanding lead early when a chance arises and then just maintain it. But I'm reminded of what Day9 said: good play is all about being comfortable with a marginal advantage. Even if you're only ahead by a few points, you should ideally have enough confidence in your endgame abilities to just keep things simple, which I think is different from just rushing to end the game by dealing a finishing blow.

when I start a game with a big kill or an opponent's joseki mistake or sth like that, the rest of the game tends to be really stressful- because (i guess) my opponent figures "well, if i don't do some crazy stuff i'm cooked, so let's just set the world on fire". so i actually prefer a drawn-out game where i'm ahead by a small margin- maybe 5-10 points.

Since reading the article The Marginal Advantage, I have been much better at settling a game down for my advantage than I was before. However, I felt the urge to go for it all bubble up quite hard in my recent tournament game against Actorios. With a group that I was unsure whether I could kill or not, I had to step back and remind myself that the moyo I had built was enough, and to fix my shape before it collapsed rather than go for the reckless kill.

Kirby wrote:Is this unnatural? Do you guys prefer to play drawn out games? If the game is close and drawn out, isn't it stressful? Is my feeling of wanting to win as soon as possible unnatural?

It's very natural and I know the feeling. And I think for casual games I just let the feeling overwhelm me and try to end games quickly too because I don't have time to count with precision.

But in tournament games, with the luxury of a larger time bank, I savor in the possibility that I could very well win the game under the opponent's nose by meeting his demands. I think it's less stressful actually, for reasons similar to what Shaddy said. It can be a nerve-wracking experience trying to maintain a lead into the endgame with aji-ful groups when your opponent tries to overplay and bury the game into complexity. If you can win by letting his group live, or giving him that moyo that he really wants, then the route to victory will be shorter and easier. You just need to count and count well.

And +1 for Day[9]'s article that a couple of people already linked .

Thanks for the link, Dusk Eagle. It was interesting.

I can understand Shaddy's reasoning, too... But there is still a concern that I have:

If I can end the game quickly - say in 50 moves, then I no longer have to worry about anything, because I've already won.

But if I try to get a "calm" win, the game might take 5 times as long or more. Having more moves in the game seem to provide more opportunity for me to mess up. Of course, I can see the case where it is stressful if the opponent tries crazily to win. But if I can get a decisive win in 50 moves, then there seem to be fewer chances for me to screw up.

Does anybody have any input on this idea, in particular?

Is this just bad because people don't always resign ?

One more thing:

Araban wrote:...I savor in the possibility that I could very well win the game under the opponent's nose by meeting his demands. ...

The word "savor" here seems to indicate that this is an enjoyable experience.

I've heard people before say something similar to this. Is it really that enjoyable to let your opponent have what he/she wants? I actually feel like I enjoy trying to mess up my opponent's plans.

Kirby wrote:Thanks for the link, Dusk Eagle. It was interesting.

I can understand Shaddy's reasoning, too... But there is still a concern that I have:

If I can end the game quickly - say in 50 moves, then I no longer have to worry about anything, because I've already won.

But if I try to get a "calm" win, the game might take 5 times as long or more. Having more moves in the game seem to provide more opportunity for me to mess up. Of course, I can see the case where it is stressful if the opponent tries crazily to win. But if I can get a decisive win in 50 moves, then there seem to be fewer chances for me to screw up.

Does anybody have any input on this idea, in particular?

Is this just bad because people don't always resign ?

If you're certain you can end it, then why not? If it's not clear whether you can end it all by killing that 25-stone dragon due to complicated L&D, but you can see that letting your opponent's dragon live in gote will still put you in a comfortable lead, then I think the right choice should be obvious. It can be more likely that you'll make a critical mistake trying to kill the dragon than extending the game but with less bumpy roads to worry about.

Kirby wrote:The word "savor" here seems to indicate that this is an enjoyable experience.

I've heard people before say something similar to this. Is it really that enjoyable to let your opponent have what he/she wants? I actually feel like I enjoy trying to mess up my opponent's plans.

I enjoy both . It just depends who's winning.

I like giving people what they want when what they want seems to be several weak groups :p.

Kirby wrote:
If I can end the game quickly - say in 50 moves, then I no longer have to worry about anything, because I've already won.

The key word is "if."

It seems to me beyond question that if you can gain an overwhelming advantage, you should do it. Even if the opponent goes crazy on you as Shaddy suggests, with an overwhelming advantage you should be fine as long as you don't start gazing out the window thinking about lunch. But there is risk involved. If your attempt fails, you will invariably be left with thin positions everywhere, and your opponent will have a field day picking you apart like a thanksgiving turkey, and this tends not to be a calming experience.

Apparently the OP thinks playing go is all about winning and losing. I don't think that's the case. Such an attitude - I have to win in 50 moves - is certainly against the spirit of the game, though it's not uncommon.

kirkmc wrote:Apparently the OP thinks playing go is all about winning and losing. I don't think that's the case. Such an attitude - I have to win in 50 moves - is certainly against the spirit of the game, though it's not uncommon.

It's true, I suppose, that Go isn't all about winning and losing. Although everyone I know who sits down with an opponent to play Go, plays to win (things like teaching games aside).

The spirit of the game? That must be a cultural construct that likely varies from person to person.

From the original post:

Kirby wrote:Is this unnatural? Do you guys prefer to play drawn out games? If the game is close and drawn out, isn't it stressful? Is my feeling of wanting to win as soon as possible unnatural?

In the order asked: No, No, Yes, No.

However, long games happen, so best to be as comfortable with them as you can. In fact, when I play someone stronger, I sometimes think maybe I do draw it out: I simply try to maintain a playable position and hope for a lucky break.

What's a "long game?" Ten minutes; a half-hour; an hour or more?

Kirby wrote:If the game is close and drawn out, isn't it stressful? Is my feeling of wanting to win as soon as possible unnatural?

I also think that such games are stressful, but frankly, if the game isn't stressful, somebody isn't doing his job. Part of a player's strength is being able to handle the prolonged pressure that naturally occurs as the interdependencies of stones get more and more intertwined and your judgement is constantly being challenged by an opponent of equal strength, one ready to pounce on your slightest miscalculation. It may not be unnatural to hope to avoid this stress, but it is probably better to cultivate the attitude of someone who can weather any storm.

kirkmc wrote:What's a "long game?"

One with more than 50 moves.

Kirby wrote:One more thing:

Araban wrote:...I savor in the possibility that I could very well win the game under the opponent's nose by meeting his demands. ...

The word "savor" here seems to indicate that this is an enjoyable experience.

I've heard people before say something similar to this. Is it really that enjoyable to let your opponent have what he/she wants? I actually feel like I enjoy trying to mess up my opponent's plans.

I enjoy it very much when I am able to give my opponent what he wants- but with a twist that makes me come out ahead. It's even better if I can let him take exactly what he wants, knowing that it just won't be enough. And as for the increased chance of making a mistake if the game takes longer, well, I just don't worry about that. I'm always vigilant, of course- no reason to throw away a game over a silly mistake, but worrying about making mistakes tends to cause them.