Life In 19x19

Someone had told me that a KGS instructor names "shygost" (not sure if I have the name right) had a checklist of self-questions to ask before putting down a stone. I think the first three went something like this:

• Am I safe?
• Is my opponent vulnerable?
• Where are the big points/advantages?

Does anyone have the complete list?

"The List" can be found here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?shygost#toc1

The most basic list:

* Am I ok? (am I about to get hurt or hassled?)
* Is the opponent ok? (can I chase or hassle the opponent to get profit?)
* Where is big area? (going for wide area or big points)

Priorities in the opening:

1. Playing in response to issues (things that are too good to pass up or to let happen, i.e. I have a wall and can use it to attack or extend from).
2. When your 3-3 or 4-4 stone is approached, respond (unless something else is urgent).
3. Playing in empty corners.
4. Playing in unfinished corners (single stones on the 3-4, 3-5 and 5-4 are unfinished corners)
5. Start a joseki in a “2 stone finished” corner that is to your advantage.
6. Approaching the 3-3 or 4-4 stone.
7. Sides.
8. Center.

General rules:

* Don’t get surrounded in sente.
* When living or getting points: Corner first, side second, center third.
* When running away: Don’t get cut (no knight's moves).
* To attack: Take away a running direction from him. The one that gives you most profit or that makes it hardest on him (usually corner first, side second, center third).
* When chasing: Getting cut is fine (chase with the knight's move).
* Don’t contact weak stones (weak groups might be ok to contact, not weak stones).
* Do contact strong stones (if you can’t mess with the stone later, it’s strong).

Many thanks Araban!

Araban wrote: 2. When your 3-3 or 4-4 stone is approached, respond (unless something else is urgent).

I thought one of the reasons for playing a 3-3 was that it could ignore an approach? Or is it the case that the approach is not so urgent as an approach on the other positions?

Phelan wrote:

Araban wrote: 2. When your 3-3 or 4-4 stone is approached, respond (unless something else is urgent).

I thought one of the reasons for playing a 3-3 was that it could ignore an approach? Or is it the case that the approach is not so urgent as an approach on the other positions?

Not really, the big reason for playing a 3-3 is to get the corner in a single move. Ignoring an approach can be pretty painful; consider the 4-4 approach to a 3-3. If you ignore it and the game has just begun, that is exactly the same as your opponent playing a 4-4 and you directly invading it with a 3-3 - which is clearly not good for you because the amount of thickness you give to your opponent doesn't compensate for your corner points.

Ah, that makes sense. So what about my second hypothesis? A 3-3 is less urgent to approach because the other corners are usually more urgent?

Phelan wrote:Ah, that makes sense. So what about my second hypothesis? A 3-3 is less urgent to approach because the other corners are usually more urgent?

The corollary is also that 3-3 and 4-4s are less urgent to enclose Hence, 'taking the corner in a single move'.

To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

Phelan wrote:Ah, that makes sense. So what about my second hypothesis? A 3-3 is less urgent to approach because the other corners are usually more urgent?

One reason a 3-3 stone is not that urgent to approach is that the player with the 3-3 doesn't have a very good followup himself, so you (the approaching player) don't have to be in a big rush to get there first.

Thanks guys, that clears it up.

kirkmc wrote:To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

averell wrote:

kirkmc wrote:To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

I think you meant to say "Play the best move." (This statement does not have any content, though.)
The point is the difference between 'urgent' (a move that is primarily related to safety, your own or your opponent's) and 'big' (a move that is primarily related to points).

SpongeBob wrote:

averell wrote:

kirkmc wrote:To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

I think you meant to say "Play the best move." (This statement does not have any content, though.)
The point is the difference between 'urgent' (a move that is primarily related to safety, your own or your opponent's) and 'big' (a move that is primarily related to points).

No, I meant to say biggest. If urgent situations weren't also bigger point wise people would not play them. The distinction between big and urgent in go terms is artificial, and it's only useful in teaching people to watch the health of groups more, because they don't realize the related point swing otherwise.

averell wrote:No, I meant to say biggest. If urgent situations weren't also bigger point wise people would not play them. The distinction between big and urgent in go terms is artificial, and it's only useful in teaching people to watch the health of groups more, because they don't realize the related point swing otherwise.

I've heard it said that this is why Go Seigen's games can be hard for amateurs to follow - he knows this point very well and in some fights practically every other move invites a massive "you kill me, I kill you" type trade.

averell wrote:

kirkmc wrote:To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

I agree. The difficulty for a beginner or weaker player is to recognize what is "urgent," which is what the first two of shygost's three questions help him do. Asking oneself these questions is a way of staying focused. Sure, it's just a variation on a theme, but I personally found it to be more effective than the sage advice "urgent before big."

averell wrote:No, I meant to say biggest. If urgent situations weren't also bigger point wise people would not play them. The distinction between big and urgent in go terms is artificial, and it's only useful in teaching people to watch the health of groups more, because they don't realize the related point swing otherwise.

Not artificial, but rather irrelevant beyond a certain skill level. For many of us however, and for anyone needing such guidelines, not playing an "urgent" move usually guarantees point loss, whereas playing a "big" point offers only a potential gain. Most of my follow-ups after ignoring the urgent move do not have Go Seigen quality.