Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: Proper and Improper Moves

This chapter in Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go is mainly taken up by a series of problems designed to give the reader a sense of what a ‘proper’ move is.

Based on these problems, if someone asked me to define a ‘proper’ move as a move that is thick, strong, nice moves that don’t leave any bad aji lying around.  They are the kinds of moves that you naturally want to make; connecting solidly, capturing solidly, summing everything up tidily without leaving behind cutting points.

Kageyama notes that it becomes harder and harder for middle- and high-level amateurs to make proper moves.  Therefore, I was rather alarmed when I got all of them right without much thought.   The correct answers just…looked right, and I couldn’t justify any of the alternatives to myself, given that Kageyama told me to look for the proper move.  I am distressed that, in some cases, I can’t imagine why some of the alternatives were given.  Even if they are less proper, why would stronger players be tempted to choose some of these moves over the correct ones?  The mind boggles.

In any case, the idea is that one plays nice, solid, proper moves whenever one can.  Quietly building nice, solid foundations prepares the battlefield for later ferocity.  If the situation is dire, however, then one might have to scramble a bit…there might not be time for proper moves.

I was recently quite impressed when watching a US Go Congress game of Yilun Yang’s on KGS….  To me, it seemed like Yilun Yang played nice, quiet, calm moves in situations in which I would imagine that many players would be thrashing around in a panic.  He won the game, somehow making it look so effortless to breeze to victory playing normal moves.

Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: Good Shape and Bad

“Good Shape and Bad” is another one of those chapters in Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go that touches very briefly on a very big topic.

He talks about how go has its own aesthetics, and how moves with ‘good shape’ tend to feel natural and beautiful to professional players.

The way he writes about some of the moves is wonderful; it really inspires one to try to see the board with Kageyama’s eyes.

For example, here is how Kageyama describes a diagram which makes good shape (something I think of as a ‘j’ shape, I suppose because it resembles a stumpy version of the ‘j’ shaped group in James Davies’ Life and Death):

Black’s hand should be trembling with eagerness to play 1.  He should be overcome with emotion.

How could one not desire to feel this way during one’s games?

Throughout this chapter, Kageyama discusses several board position from the point of view of shape and demonstrates how making good shape leads to getting ahead, holding initiative and pretty much everything else that’s good in life.

What sorts of bits and pieces shall I extract during this reading?  Here are a few general ideas that Kageyama develops throughout this chapter:

• Don’t make good shape just for the sake of it.
• Sometimes bad shape is the only move.
• Try not to put yourself in the situation where bad shape is the only move!
• Read things out.  Seriously.
• Sometimes, a good move for you is a move that your opponent would like to play to make good shape.
• There are some shocking ways that groups can be killed or reduced.  When thinking about such life and death problems, thinking about moves that give or take away good shape is often a good ‘way in’.
• (Hee hee!  There exists a ‘bulky 7′ nakade shape!)
• It’s been said before, it will be said again: empty triangles are officially Not Great.

I suppose one of the main things I’d like to think about more explicitly in my games is to try to think up moves that accomplish whatever goal I have in a certain area (attacking, escaping, making life, etc.) but that also leave the seeds for making good shape, and/or force my opponent to make bad shape.

For example, the shape that Charles Matthews calls the ‘table’ shape (A) is one stone away from the lovely shape (B) that black would have if black got to play 1 in Diagram 44.  (Does this have a name?  It looks like a flower to me.)

Maybe thinking about the potential of stones to form nice shapes would be helpful.

Kageyama gives a good example (the dreaded crosscut in the corner!) near the end of the chapter of a situation in which stones are sacrificed in order to make good shape.  I’m sometimes too reluctant to give up stones, and end up struggling to keep unimportant stones whilst my opponent takes over the rest of the board.  Sometimes this occurs when I am not sure which stones are most important.  Perhaps thinking about how to get good shape might offer clues as to which and how stones could be sacrificed.

Of course, as Kageyama warns, it won’t do just to mimic good shapes.  I suppose the big question is, what is it that makes good shape good.

Things that come to mind from the examples are making potential for eye-space, connecting stones together, making a shape thick enough to withstand attack or to escape a sticky situation, creating a robust enough position that the group of stones can serve more than one function….

I suppose there are many more things that could be said about what makes good shape good, but I’ll leave it here for now and close with yet another glorious Kageyama quote….

You must become infatuated with good shape.  White 1 has to spring to mind every time you see Dia. 19.  If you do not feel the same tightening in your chest as when you close your eyes and picture the face of a lover, you do not love good shape enough.

Position of the Week – 1

In the absence of anything happening around these stones, can the two black stones be connected or has white just cut?

Click here for the discussion.

Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: How to Study Joseki

Kageyama’s chapter on How to Study Joseki in Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go is an illustrated warning to all would-be joseki memorisers. Sure, Kageyama says, you can go about blindly memorising all the joseki you want, but there are a few things to remember:

* There are tens of thousands of joseki.

* Joseki sequences must be played with sensitivity to the entire board.

* Just because a move is in a certain joseki doesn’t mean it isn’t the worst possible move in the universe, given the whole-board situation.

* If you don’t know the reason for each and every move in a joseki, you might fall to bits when your opponent plays a move that’s not in the joseki sequence you’re following.

Kageyama states that studying joseki is indeed key to becoming stronger, but the focus of such study should be on understanding each and every move, so that when one looks at the board, one can find the right move for the circumstance, rather than just blindly recreating a pattern.

There are, of course, some good diagrams showing how standard joseki moves can be suboptimal with respect to whole-board situations and how punishing joseki mistakes can go wrong when one doesn’t understand the purpose of each move in a joseki.

As previously stated, the proper study of joseki isn’t the very next thing on my go to-do list. I don’t feel I have subtle enough understanding of go to understand why a certain move is the very best possible move in a given circumstance. I can make some guesses, but that’s about it at the moment. For now, I’ll continue to experiment with different openings in my own games, trying out various variations so that when I get to the study of joseki, I’ll have a repertoire of personal experiences upon which to draw.

As most of the rest of what I got out of the chapter is heavily reliant on the diagrams, I think I’m going to leave it at that for now.

My love affair with OGS (Online Go Server)

Recently, I came across an article called “Playing opponents that outrank you” at Lose 100 Games. The author talked about how he had been hesitant to request games from stronger players and mentioned that one place where he has felt comfortable challenging stronger opponents was in the ladder tournaments on OGS (Online Go Server) .  He gave great instructions about how to join, so I won’t repeat that here; suffice it to say, I followed his advice and started an account on OGS.

I must say, I really, really like OGS.  I like it so much that I’ll use the word ‘really’, and I’lluse it twice in a row.

I’ve always preferred face-to-face games to playing on online real-time servers.  I’ve played a lot on KGS, but I usually end up playing quick games against bots on those types of servers.  These games always feel like ‘throw-away’ games; I’m plonking stones down rather than doing any thinking.  I do play real people occasionally, but somehow, I feel more like I have to work up to it; I tend to do it mostly when I know I’ll be playing in a real-life tournament soon, and want to get some practice in.

OGS is set up for turn-based games, so the pace is slower and less hectic than real-time go servers.  This really appeals to me as I can take some time thinking over moves.  I sometimes feel a bit time pressured on real-time servers; I’m sure a lot of this is in my head, but I still sometimes rush into moves because I worry about making the opponent wait…particularly if that opponent is stronger.

OGS has a wonderful ‘analyse moves’ link that you can press which opens up a board that lets you play out variations.  You can also download the .sgf at any time and play out sequences on your favourite .sgf editor.  (I’ve found this very useful for games that move reasonably slowly.  I work through a sequence and keep a record so that I can quickly refer back to the paths I’ve worked out for each possible variation, should I so desire.  I hope this isn’t considered ‘bad form’!)  One can also enter conditional moves in advance, so that you don’t need to be online if you’re playing pretty predictable hane-connect endgame moves or that-3-3-invasion-of-a-4-4-point-sequence or whatnot.

Although I am quite shy about playing people in general online, somehow the OGS ladder tournaments feel much less intimidating to me.  I think it’s because they’re set up so that anyone can challenge anyone, and there’s the expectation that people lower down the ladder will challenge you.  I’ve only just started and I’ve already challenged and been challenged by multiple people of all different sorts of ranks.

Also, the structure of the ladder tournaments gives one a nice sense of purpose and progression.  I have only just started playing in the ladder tournaments, but so far it’s been a wonderful way to play a variety of people of different strengths.  You can choose who you play, so you can choose weaker, stronger or evenly matched opponents…and anyone can challenge you.

My main goal is to improve my game, but I must admit, it’s nice to see my rank in the ladder change as well.  I suppose it’s a sort of shorter-term reward.  I get the sense that encouraging tournament play is important to the developers, which I really appreciate.  I’ve found real-life tournaments to be very motivational organising study, and I expect the ladder tournaments will be very good in terms of keeping me in the habit of playing actual games online.

This isn’t to say I don’t like real-time servers. I’m sure I’ll spend just as much time on KGS, winding down after long days by playing quick games with GadgetoBOT and NukoBot and whats-his-face-bot who is always trying to avoid the headcrabs. Watching games between strong players unfold before your eyes in real time is also pretty nifty.

However, the bottom line is that on OGS, I feel more inclined to play real games of go against real people, in a format that I find very enjoyable. I’m hopeful that this relationship will last long after the honeymoon….

---

Addendum

There are a couple little practical things to note about OGS.

First, the ratings don’t quite match KGS or BGA ratings.  (I’m back to being a double-digit kyu on OGS! If that’s not motivation to improve, I don’t know what is!)  There are several bots that you can play anytime who respond reasonably quickly; these guys were really useful for establishing and solidifying one’s rank.  (I believe one needs to have finished two ranked games to start the ladder tournaments; playing a couple bots are a quick way to do this.)

Second, you can send a personal message to people to thank them for a game.  You can also rate them by clicking on their name and going to their profile page. (I think it may be a good idea to add a subject to any personal messages.  I’m not 100% sure my subjectless messages were actually sent…at least, they didn’t appear in my outbox.) Most of my opponents so far have been quite friendly and helpful. So far, it has felt like a very welcoming place.

Finally, I wanted to say thanks again to Lose 100 Games which introduced me to OGS.

BGA KGS Tournament

I have not been slacking off; I have been playing go online.

The BGA KGS Tournament has started and will last all of August.

There are only 27 of us so far, but players can sign up any time during the month and can participate without being BGA members, so perhaps the numbers will increase a bit.

(This accounts for one online game; the others I have been playing at OGS. I’ve rather fallen in love. More on this soon.)