By move three I was thinking "what the hell? How do I respond to this?" Some moves at first glance appear so stupid, however it quickly becomes apparent one cannot react by playing normally. In this game I found myself slipping away from the upper hand in the game. I was totally confused and had no idea what either player was doing, and less so my opponent's aim.
I fear I have slipped into a style of playing which relies entirely on memorised strategies and lines of play - a very conventional kind of play. I do not like to trust myself to the game, preferring to trust strategies and sequences I study or whatever. I tend to "over-joseki", for example, and I struggle when required to deviate from the sequences I have memorised. Rather than devise my own strategies or use my intuition, I tend to play mostly preconceived and established lines of play - and I run into a lot of trouble when playing against radically unconventional opponents.
Has anyone else done the same? How did you overcome this kind of mindset? Any higher ranked players have any advice?
Thanks
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:44 pm
by Uberdude
At your level you don't really need to care about any strategic meaning of those weird opening moves he played. Just focus on the basics of connecting, making strong shapes etc. and you should do fine. But you are right that such unconventional play can help reveal the superficiality of our understanding of Go.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:53 pm
by Annihilist
Uberdude wrote:At your level you don't really need to care about any strategic meaning of those weird opening moves he played. Just focus on the basics of connecting, making strong shapes etc. and you should do fine. But you are right that such unconventional play can help reveal the superficiality of our understanding of Go.
"Baby steps - you're too young to understand"
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:08 pm
by snorri
Regarding the game posted. Are you sure you were losing it?
Takemiya mentioned this in one of his lectures. His attitude toward the game is a very positive, optimistic one and he said that if he comes across an opponent who plays something strange and new he takes joy in it. "Hey, I've never played this way before. This should be interesting." I think that attitude, more than anything else, will help. In games like this, and really in all games, it's important not to worry about losing.
I think other trap we fall into when encountering play we have been taught is suboptimal is looking for punishments that are more severe than are warranted by the position. A lot of strange-looking plays only lose a little, are often self-punishing and are often---if they are mistakes---much smaller mistakes than the blunders that can occur later in the game due to reading errors.
You should track this opponent down and try to get another game. Enjoy it!
.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:15 pm
by LocoRon
Why ask for advice if you're just going to criticize the advice you receive?
And your simplification of Uberdude's advice completely omits the ramifications of his advice.
In the game you posted, black's strategy is basically asking for a fight. By concentrating on connection and shape, you make it harder for black to get, or win, that fight.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:18 pm
by Uberdude
Annihilist wrote:"Baby steps - you're too young to understand"
I hope you didn't take my post negatively. What I mean is it is a hard question for me as a 3 dan to work out some special strategy to deal with those strange first moves (other than just play normal opening moves which is probably a pretty good strategy anyway). But if I played that opponent spending 2 seconds per move and not caring about them at all I would crush him. Why? Because I am stronger my basic shapes will be much better so he will just collapse in all the local battles and it doesn't really matter that he has a stone on 8-7 or where ever.
And as snorri says that game seemed fine for you, but the sort of shape problem I talk about is move 24 at f4: you create a one point jump from f6 which he has already peeped at e5 so he can just push through at f5 and cut you. Instead something like g6 looks good: a strong connected shape which hurts g7 and attack both those black stones on the lower side on a large scale. Or c8.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:50 pm
by Annihilist
Uberdude wrote:
Annihilist wrote:"Baby steps - you're too young to understand"
I hope you didn't take my post negatively. What I mean is it is a hard question for me as a 3 dan to work out some special strategy to deal with those strange first moves (other than just play normal opening moves which is probably a pretty good strategy anyway). But if I played that opponent spending 2 seconds per move and not caring about them at all I would crush him. Why? Because I am stronger my basic shapes will be much better so he will just collapse in all the local battles and it doesn't really matter that he has a stone on 8-7 or where ever.
And as snorri says that game seemed fine for you, but the sort of shape problem I talk about is move 24 at f4: you create a one point jump from f6 which he has already peeped at e5 so he can just push through at f5 and cut you. Instead something like g6 looks good: a strong connected shape which hurts g7 and attack both those black stones on the lower side on a large scale. Or c8.
No no, fair enough. But it seemed condescending to imply that I don't need to worry about the strategical intention of my opponent's moves in this particular game. I don't think you intended it, but nonetheless that's how I read it.
I was interested in why someone would play like this - what is the intention, what is the aim and what is the reasoning. Because by deviating so radically from conventional play, it is difficult to understand these things. By understanding the aim of these moves, one can then discern how to react to them. I do care about the strategical meaning of such moves - regardless of my level, I feel it is important to understand them.
Edit: In hindsight, it seems apparent he only wanted to make square patterns. Looking through his game history I think he was a troll. So maybe there was no strategical purpose.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:56 pm
by illluck
Annihilist wrote:
Uberdude wrote:
Annihilist wrote:"Baby steps - you're too young to understand"
I hope you didn't take my post negatively. What I mean is it is a hard question for me as a 3 dan to work out some special strategy to deal with those strange first moves (other than just play normal opening moves which is probably a pretty good strategy anyway). But if I played that opponent spending 2 seconds per move and not caring about them at all I would crush him. Why? Because I am stronger my basic shapes will be much better so he will just collapse in all the local battles and it doesn't really matter that he has a stone on 8-7 or where ever.
And as snorri says that game seemed fine for you, but the sort of shape problem I talk about is move 24 at f4: you create a one point jump from f6 which he has already peeped at e5 so he can just push through at f5 and cut you. Instead something like g6 looks good: a strong connected shape which hurts g7 and attack both those black stones on the lower side on a large scale. Or c8.
No no, fair enough. But it seemed condescending to imply that I don't need to worry about the strategical intention of my opponent's moves in this particular game. I don't think you intended it, but nonetheless that's how I read it.
I was interested in why someone would play like this - what is the intention, what is the aim and what is the reasoning. Because by deviating so radically from conventional play, it is difficult to understand these things. By understanding the aim of these moves, one can then discern how to react to them. I do care about the strategical meaning of such moves - regardless of my level, I feel it is important to understand them.
I would tend to agree with uberdude. The issue is that your opponent probably doesn't really have a aim other than to not play conventionally - there could be many different and non-mutually exclusive aims for move 3 (e.g. psychological, aggressive, centre-oriented) that discussing it at anything more than a superficial level will in effect be a treatise on Go in general :p You really can't discuss the aim without the basics to back it up.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:06 pm
by Annihilist
illluck wrote:
Annihilist wrote:
Uberdude wrote:I hope you didn't take my post negatively. What I mean is it is a hard question for me as a 3 dan to work out some special strategy to deal with those strange first moves (other than just play normal opening moves which is probably a pretty good strategy anyway). But if I played that opponent spending 2 seconds per move and not caring about them at all I would crush him. Why? Because I am stronger my basic shapes will be much better so he will just collapse in all the local battles and it doesn't really matter that he has a stone on 8-7 or where ever.
And as snorri says that game seemed fine for you, but the sort of shape problem I talk about is move 24 at f4: you create a one point jump from f6 which he has already peeped at e5 so he can just push through at f5 and cut you. Instead something like g6 looks good: a strong connected shape which hurts g7 and attack both those black stones on the lower side on a large scale. Or c8.
No no, fair enough. But it seemed condescending to imply that I don't need to worry about the strategical intention of my opponent's moves in this particular game. I don't think you intended it, but nonetheless that's how I read it.
I was interested in why someone would play like this - what is the intention, what is the aim and what is the reasoning. Because by deviating so radically from conventional play, it is difficult to understand these things. By understanding the aim of these moves, one can then discern how to react to them. I do care about the strategical meaning of such moves - regardless of my level, I feel it is important to understand them.
I would tend to agree with uberdude. The issue is that your opponent probably doesn't really have a aim other than to not play conventionally - there could be many different and non-mutually exclusive aims for move 3 (e.g. psychological, aggressive, centre-oriented) that discussing it at anything more than a superficial level will in effect be a treatise on Go in general :p You really can't discuss the aim without the basics to back it up.
Fair enough
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:17 pm
by siowy
i think players at least somewhat understand the basics at around 1-dan level.
Before that level, strategy is not very important imo. My case in point is how young kids from China just plop down stones randomly and can still destroy most kyu players by just shape, tesuji and fighting.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:27 pm
by logan
In game example you showed your opponent will have a harder time making his stones useful and you'll have an easier time making them useless. So if you stick to steady & regular moves it will be easier game for you (and harder for opponent).
For example, move 14 you can go ahead and finish surrounding a corner. White get strong corner, Black useless stone, and White options to develop both sides.
Stones have ways to form most efficient use. Weird moves like this can be easy to over concentrate stones or show them as too far apart or weird distance to work well. This is more advanced way to think about abusing them.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:21 am
by xed_over
Annihilist wrote:
Uberdude wrote:At your level you don't really need to care about any strategic meaning of those weird opening moves he played. Just focus on the basics of connecting, making strong shapes etc. and you should do fine. But you are right that such unconventional play can help reveal the superficiality of our understanding of Go.
"Baby steps - you're too young to understand"
I can understand your feelings of being patronized. And its a quite common feeling when hearing such phrases as "At your level...". But its not intended, really. Its just that it turns out to be quite true that at beginning levels, its just not yet important to worry about what might appear to be some more advanced topics. Even at higher levels, it often still the common advice to focus on the basics.
I think snorri's post was the best in the thread so far. Take a positive attitude and have fun with it.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:57 am
by Unusedname
So what exactly are the basics. like ladders and nets?
or one point jumps and diagonals?
or tiger mouths and bamboo joints
or influence vs territory?
Also i feel like I don't count liberties often enough and i think this is a big reason why i'm not very good at fighting.
This just seems like a good place to ask for a more clear idea of what the basics are. Cause I do hear that a lot. And I would like to work on them. It's just I"m not sure how.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:05 am
by xed_over
Unusedname wrote:So what exactly are the basics. ... This just seems like a good place to ask for a more clear idea of what the basics are. Cause I do hear that a lot. And I would like to work on them. It's just I"m not sure how.
hahaha... I asked this very same question (and I think for the same reason) not long ago... viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6897
I'm not sure I got enough of a consensus to call an answer.
Re: Reacting to unconventional lines of play
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:21 am
by Unusedname
xed_over wrote:
Unusedname wrote:So what exactly are the basics. ... This just seems like a good place to ask for a more clear idea of what the basics are. Cause I do hear that a lot. And I would like to work on them. It's just I"m not sure how.
hahaha... I asked this very same question (and I think for the same reason) not long ago... viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6897
I'm not sure I got enough of a consensus to call an answer.
I actually really like this post.
I'd put the bar lower for "basics" than "fundamentals." I'd say that the basics are:
1. Liberties 2. Eyes 3. Connections
A brief elaboration.
Liberties. The idea that the liberties of a stone is what keeps it alive is go in it's purest form. The liberties of a stone or string are it's most basic property, and an awareness of the way liberties can be increased or removed is what I believe should be most deeply ingrained in a go player.
Eyes. The idea of eyes is an extension on the idea of liberties. Eyes are formed to protect liberties. Awareness of eyeshape i.e., the spaces that can become eyes is something I consider basic, because along with liberties, it is the property of the stones most essential to their life on the board.
Connections. Along with forming eyes, the way stones live is by being connected to other stones. The extent that stones are connected is a basic property. Awareness that connectedness is a spectrum, and not static, that it can change due to the surroundings, is basic to a go player.
So if you ask me, I'd say that the basics of go, what one should be aware of from the very beginning, is that the property of the stones is the space around them.
this and the way edlee said something like "The entire way I used to play before was thinking the wrong way."
Makes me want to try playing a few games just by seeing stones and groups as "has one eye vs has two eyes" and also "How can i stop this group from having two eyes" or "how can i split this group in two and still get an eye"
Idk it's hard to explain. Like have my moves focus more on the status of stones instead of territory. but yeah this is a good thread. thanks.
