Life In 19x19

Bruce Pandolfini is a famous chess instructor and author, featured in the film Searching for Bobby Fischer back in the 90's. He writes a regular column over at chesscafe.com from which I take this excellent advice:


"Just because one is losing does not mean that one has no meaningful input. Students should be made cognizant of a great truth. That is, once opponents get the advantage, they want their opponents to give up. Recognize that desire, and you may be able to exploit it. Much of it has to do with seizing control. The best way to take control, especially when you're losing, is to slow things down."

http://www.chesscafe.com/bruce/bruce162.htm

True for go too, except for the advice about slowing things down.

In chess, if you slow things down, the game becomes longer, your opponent gets more and more nervous and may try to force the issue, and hence opportunity arises. In go, the length of the game is much more fixed, and slowing things down is not going to help. If you just solidify positions, and allow your opponent to do the same, opportunity is slipping away.

Instead, I find that one of the best ways to deal with a losing position is to create as much aji as possible, without trying to exploit it. Your opponent is more likely to get nervous about it than you are, as he feels he has the game in the bag, and nervous people make mistakes...

Great advice.

Also, to add to what Herman's said, don't go all out right away when you're losing in Go (unless you're seizing a good opportunity). That's what your opponent wants, and it will give them a chance to land the finishing blow.

Instead, play thickly and carefully, because you're losing anyway. Play thickly and search constantly for an opening. When you see a chance, then go all out and use your thickness to turn the tables.

I know it seems counter-intuitive, but even pros use this strategy, because it works.

"You can get a flavor for it when observing kids with a winning position in offhand games and even in tournament contests. They will make a move and simultaneously say "move" or "it is your move," as if the other side has to move instantly. By taking more time, however, and playing with greater confidence, the defender is likely to frustrate the aggressor. The result is that when the turn comes back to the attacker, he or she may reply reactively, without much thought, impetuously trying to win before the victory has been secured. That reflexive responding increases the chances for a turnaround enormously. And it all starts with a simple decision – to slow things down."

He doesn't seem to be talking about slowing things down on the board. He's talking about taking your time in a physical sense.

Does anyone know of particular resources that deal with the psychology of go?

I battle a lot of emotions during the course of a game, which is why the Pandolfini advice resonated with me. I frequently experience the desire to see my opponent give up when I have a winning position, a mistake which is compounded by the fact that I am generally stronger in the first 50-75 moves of a game. But I also struggle to be resolute when I have a worse position. Honestly, in both circumstances, when either player has a significant advantage, I feel I am fighting my emotions as well as my opponent.

I am sure there must be many players who are known for either ruthlessly converting advantageous positions or turning around lost games. One would presume they have some deeper insight into the emotional control required to win games.

cdybeijing wrote: One would presume they have some deeper insight into the emotional control required to win games.

Perhaps this is not the case, but rather that they have better internalized the fact that a lead in a game is not a decisive factor. What I mean is that they might not need to control their emotions, because they don't get riled up in the first place every time the tide changes.

Dusk Eagle wrote:"You can get a flavor for it when observing kids with a winning position in offhand games and even in tournament contests. They will make a move and simultaneously say "move" or "it is your move," as if the other side has to move instantly. By taking more time, however, and playing with greater confidence, the defender is likely to frustrate the aggressor. The result is that when the turn comes back to the attacker, he or she may reply reactively, without much thought, impetuously trying to win before the victory has been secured. That reflexive responding increases the chances for a turnaround enormously. And it all starts with a simple decision – to slow things down."

He doesn't seem to be talking about slowing things down on the board. He's talking about taking your time in a physical sense.

I think when chess/Go players refer to tempo they are referring more to position development rather than the time it takes to play. Like fully developing and deploying a large scale moyo, once created they can be strong, but it takes so many moves, and the opponent can interfere with them, they are considered slower, though occasionally you see competing large scale moyo games.

cdybeijing wrote:Does anyone know of particular resources that deal with the psychology of go?

I battle a lot of emotions during the course of a game, which is why the Pandolfini advice resonated with me. I frequently experience the desire to see my opponent give up when I have a winning position, a mistake which is compounded by the fact that I am generally stronger in the first 50-75 moves of a game. But I also struggle to be resolute when I have a worse position. Honestly, in both circumstances, when either player has a significant advantage, I feel I am fighting my emotions as well as my opponent.

I am sure there must be many players who are known for either ruthlessly converting advantageous positions or turning around lost games. One would presume they have some deeper insight into the emotional control required to win games.

I've lost many a game where I was well ahead early on and I was impatiently waiting for my opponent to resign. When my emotions get in the way, I start making too many mistakes.

SmoothOper wrote:

Dusk Eagle wrote:"You can get a flavor for it when observing kids with a winning position in offhand games and even in tournament contests. They will make a move and simultaneously say "move" or "it is your move," as if the other side has to move instantly. By taking more time, however, and playing with greater confidence, the defender is likely to frustrate the aggressor. The result is that when the turn comes back to the attacker, he or she may reply reactively, without much thought, impetuously trying to win before the victory has been secured. That reflexive responding increases the chances for a turnaround enormously. And it all starts with a simple decision – to slow things down."

He doesn't seem to be talking about slowing things down on the board. He's talking about taking your time in a physical sense.

I think when chess/Go players refer to tempo they are referring more to position development rather than the time it takes to play. Like fully developing and deploying a large scale moyo, once created they can be strong, but it takes so many moves, and the opponent can interfere with them, they are considered slower, though occasionally you see competing large scale moyo games.

SmoothOper. I think you might not understand what a chess tempo is. Or are using a non-standard definition. You are correct that it is related to developing a position, but it's a little different. By my interpretation,as a 1400 elo chess player when I stopped playing regularly 2 years ago, so take this with a couple grains of salt; tempo is somewhat analogous to sente in go. There is a nuance to it though. Gaining a tempo is not just about forcing a response from your partner but also implies forcing him to spoil his development. As an example, you push your pawn, forcing him to bring his queen all the way back to its starting position. You have gotten to move your pawn for free while invalidating a move of your partners.(moving the queen out and then back cancel each other out tempo wise) There fore you have gained a tempo on your partner.

Tempo doesn't perfectly transpose into a go game, since you can't force a piece to move, but sente and kikashi have a reasonable resemblance. And if you are keeping sente, and playing good kikashi, your partner won't be interfering with you for a while.

That aside, I do agree with Dusk Eagles interpretation of a physical slowing down of the game. I recall reading something by an International Master chess player Jeremy Silman to this effect. When you are behind on the board you should think for as long as possible to find a sequence to either equalize the position or gain an advantadge(hopefully a mating sequence). Simply playing out moves without a clear plan in mind will not help you to turn the game around.

Twitchy Go wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Dusk Eagle wrote:"You can get a flavor for it when observing kids with a winning position in offhand games and even in tournament contests. They will make a move and simultaneously say "move" or "it is your move," as if the other side has to move instantly. By taking more time, however, and playing with greater confidence, the defender is likely to frustrate the aggressor. The result is that when the turn comes back to the attacker, he or she may reply reactively, without much thought, impetuously trying to win before the victory has been secured. That reflexive responding increases the chances for a turnaround enormously. And it all starts with a simple decision – to slow things down."

He doesn't seem to be talking about slowing things down on the board. He's talking about taking your time in a physical sense.

I think when chess/Go players refer to tempo they are referring more to position development rather than the time it takes to play. Like fully developing and deploying a large scale moyo, once created they can be strong, but it takes so many moves, and the opponent can interfere with them, they are considered slower, though occasionally you see competing large scale moyo games.

SmoothOper. I think you might not understand what a chess tempo is. Or are using a non-standard definition. You are correct that it is related to developing a position, but it's a little different. By my interpretation,as a 1400 elo chess player when I stopped playing regularly 2 years ago, so take this with a couple grains of salt; tempo is somewhat analogous to sente in go. There is a nuance to it though. Gaining a tempo is not just about forcing a response from your partner but also implies forcing him to spoil his development. As an example, you push your pawn, forcing him to bring his queen all the way back to its starting position. You have gotten to move your pawn for free while invalidating a move of your partners.(moving the queen out and then back cancel each other out tempo wise) There fore you have gained a tempo on your partner.

Tempo doesn't perfectly transpose into a go game, since you can't force a piece to move, but sente and kikashi have a reasonable resemblance. And if you are keeping sente, and playing good kikashi, your partner won't be interfering with you for a while.

That aside, I do agree with Dusk Eagles interpretation of a physical slowing down of the game. I recall reading something by an International Master chess player Jeremy Silman to this effect. When you are behind on the board you should think for as long as possible to find a sequence to either equalize the position or gain an advantadge(hopefully a mating sequence). Simply playing out moves without a clear plan in mind will not help you to turn the game around.

I agree with you that it resembles sente in some aspects but also tewari in other aspects IE playing moves that aren't necessary. IE if the knight gets chased by a pawn and ends up at a position where it could have been to start with mean while the opponent develops the pawn, which is why I didn't say sente probably tewari is more appropriate, but I think that is called an analysis style.

SmoothOper, please stop trolling. The original post did not mention the word "tempo", it said "time". You turned it into an extensive and unrelated discussion of the term tempo.

palapiku wrote:SmoothOper, please stop trolling. The original post did not mention the word "tempo", it said "time". You turned it into an extensive and unrelated discussion of the term tempo.

Do you have a problem pal?

-= Admin =- Yes, we have a policy against trolling. Please stop.

cdybeijing wrote:Does anyone know of particular resources that deal with the psychology of go?

I battle a lot of emotions during the course of a game, which is why the Pandolfini advice resonated with me. I frequently experience the desire to see my opponent give up when I have a winning position, a mistake which is compounded by the fact that I am generally stronger in the first 50-75 moves of a game. But I also struggle to be resolute when I have a worse position. Honestly, in both circumstances, when either player has a significant advantage, I feel I am fighting my emotions as well as my opponent.

I am sure there must be many players who are known for either ruthlessly converting advantageous positions or turning around lost games. One would presume they have some deeper insight into the emotional control required to win games.

I think there is some benefit to working with your emotions. A lot of my most fun games come about after seeing an opponents move and having this internal monologue:"Wow. Really? No, just No. I am NOT letting you get away with that idiotically greedy move." So my irritation becomes useful
Also as an experiment in objectivity, when your ahead try assuming that you are only a few points ahead. This way you don't play slack defensive moves, or at least that's the theory.

cdybeijing wrote:I frequently experience the desire to see my opponent give up when I have a winning position, a mistake which is compounded by the fact that I am generally stronger in the first 50-75 moves of a game. But I also struggle to be resolute when I have a worse position.

I empathize with this. Your brain must be craving the neurotransmitters that are released when you win. One idea is to try correspondence go. When you truly have a winning position on OGS, you can consider it a win and play one simple move per day until your opponent concedes. There is no frustration because your time is not held hostage by the game. You might even practice your counting and endgame by trying to win by a particular score. When you have a worse position AND plenty of time to think over where you can make trouble for your opponent, there is remarkable joy to be found in coming up with a plan to meet the challenge. It will also improve your ability to make such plans in non-correspondence games. If you have to come up with such a plan while being chased by the byo-yomi countdown, it is difficult to feel that the additional thought will make a difference. Such thoughts may compel you to resign and seek a new game that might reward you with dopamine and serotonin.

Play correspondence games for a few months and then go back to KGS/Tygem. You may find that your attitude towards go has changed. Disclaimer: May not work for everyone (but worth trying).

Slightly OT but did everyone read to the end of the article and the last question that Bruce was asked...

"Question The New Year is almost here and I am thinking of making my resolutions. I plan to win more often, to play less speed chess on the ICC, to play in more tournaments, to study the great chess books (all of them), to take lessons with a grandmaster, and to raise my rating hundreds of points (up from 1400). Now it is your turn. 1) Do you have any chess resolutions? 2) Are you willing to tell us what they are?...

Answer 1) Yes. 2) No."