Life In 19x19

One of reasons I stopped playing chess was getting to a level where it became obvious that my opponents were well versed in opening theory. At that point, it becomes very difficult to eke out a victory. I briefly looked into openings, but frankly couldn't be bothered.

I am approaching a similar level in go, it seems, although I would say that the comparison isn't as stark. It still seems possible to play with a certain degree of logic and come out ok, but perhaps I am not at a high enough level? I realise that not having several joseki's (is the plural correct? Doesn't look right to me!) under my belt will at some point handicap me and place a ceiling on advancement, I was wondering if people had an idea of where this level might be? Obviously this is fluid depending on the player, but there are probably a few people here who feel the same - what level have you managed to attain?

It could easily be said that if you loved the game, it wouldn't be study. I just don't want to spend 100's of hours learning joseki, which I find one of the least appealing aspects of the game.

Thanks for any input you may have.

bleep wrote:I realise that not having several joseki's (is the plural correct? Doesn't look right to me!) under my belt will at some point handicap me and place a ceiling on advancement, I was wondering if people had an idea of where this level might be?

Joseki are like sheep. No "s".

At what point does not knowing joseki handicap advancement? 4 dan, maybe.

I would differentiate between "knowing joseki" and "knowing tesuji, shapes, sente, etc." A lot of times when I'm reviewing I say "...and this is joseki," because it sounds gentler to me than "...and this is obvious." But it probably gives the people I'm reviewing for the wrong idea.

For example, in this common sequence:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Corner
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 5 7 3 . . . . .
$$ | . 6 1 2 . O . . .
$$ | . C 4 X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

This is joseki. It should also be pretty obvious, on basic principles. comes before , even if B ultimately wants to play , because it creates cutting points. comes before a play at because W would prefer to connect his stones, and if he can't connect them, he wants to give B a cutting point to fix. isn't the only joseki move; it's one of the many points in every joseki where one player has a choice of direction. However, if B wants to defend the left side rather than cutting off the lonely stone on top, is an especially efficient way to do it, since it reduces to two liberties. connects and , prevents B from playing E18, and threatens a sente move at the marked point. is a forcing move which makes the marked point gote again.

However, lots of quite good players don't play , or even . That's not a problem with joseki-memorization, it's a problem with fundamentals.

Sorry if this is excessive detail. It sounds dull when you spell out all of it, but the point is that every move makes sense, and no other move works quite as well for the same purpose. I grew to dislike chess openings too, which is probably the main reason I stopped playing chess seriously quite early. But I don't think Go has the same problems. (To the extent it does, it's actually with the fuseki, not the joseki, and an "inferior" fuseki probably only costs you 2-3 points, whereas an inferior chess opening might cost you a knight.)

Given your attitude towards joseki, I'd approach it like I do.

Don't worry about it. Occasionally you'll stumble into something new and get clobbered. Look it up then. It'll be easier to remember what (and why) is best.

But for the most part, don't worry about it. You'll be fine.

Bill Spight wrote:At what point does not knowing joseki handicap advancement? 4 dan, maybe.

This sounds about right to me.
I made it to a weak 5d without worrying about joseki in any specifics. After that, I realized that I need to put some study time to get better and it all went downhill from there...

wineandgolover wrote:Occasionally you'll stumble into something new and get clobbered. Look it up then. It'll be easier to remember what (and why) is best.

This, very much so!
Best advice for up to [fill in appropriate skill level] player with respect to joseki I ever heard! As Bill said, the skill level here might be 4d or so.

Combine that with the common sense for the 'obvious' that jts was talking about (not sure I totally agree with him, though, but that was my approach as well), and you're on your way.

It is possible to hide missing joseki knowledge up to 4d by fighting and choosing non-standard openings. However, studying joseki theory is one powerful means for becoming 4d, because one can learn all the necessary fundamentals and basics of strategy. Regardless of whether one learns or postpones learning many josekis, one needs to know at least the 100 or 200 very frequent standard josekis and invasion / reduction josekis.

Many thanks for the replies.

That's pretty pleasing to hear. As a casual lover of the game I'm simply hoping to reach 1D, so that ceiling is fantastic. For now; I suppose when I get there, the goalposts will move.

I think I will try that advice given about looking up a joseki that destroys me. That's something I wouldn't mind doing at all. I go over most of the games I play looking for errors anyway, so I don't really see it as study per se. What is the best way to go about doing that?

jts, I was pleased to note that I usually respond in the fashion you gave, and what you said make sense, thank you.

Thanks for the joseki clarification Bill.

I also come from a chess background and was frustrated with how scripted openings were and how essential opening knowledge was. I was told when I started Go that there were no openings... which is patently false, but it's certainly less opening-rigid than chess. And other than a handful or two of joseki or so, you can get by without knowing a ton of joseki. What I like about joseki is that they are all positional and are only good depending on the global position. So I feel more like I'm making choices in what I want instead of feeling bound into a set pattern of moves. In chess you are stuck in a long sequence of moves in certain variations from which you can't deviate. In Go you can choose among many joseki depending on what you want and what the rest of the position suggests. It's much more open and flowing.