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: Territory and Spheres of Influence

And now, on to the next section of Kageyama’s Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: Territory and Spheres of Influence.

One of the biggest points Kageyama makes in this chapter is that one should not count one’s chickens before they hatch; in the opening, players often think of an area where they have several stones as territory when it is still invadeable.  This can lead to inflexible play where players doggedly try to hold on to what they consider their territory and miss the opportunity to use their sphere of influence more effectively.  Letting the opponent live small whilst you build great thickness is very often better than hanging on to a little bit of territory. Instead of being distraught when an enemy stone is plunked down in your area of influence, Kageyama reminds the reader that this is a cause for celebration!

Kageyama also gives the reader a little pep talk about playing the opening that appeals rather than the opening that one feels one ‘should’ play.  If ginormous enemy frameworks seem frightening, plays can be made in the middle of the side to prevent them.  If terrtitory is preferred to spheres of influence, then tighter moves can be played.

That being said, Kageyama goes on to discuss when it is preferable to develop larger-scale spheres of influence and when it is preferable to play more territorially-biased moves.

When the board is completely open in the beginning, playing solid territory moves can be a bit slow.  One needs to spread out and build up influence that can be used later; else one might find oneself stuck with some very solid, but very small territories at the end of the game.

When approaching a strong enemy position, Kageyama suggests that playing more solid, territory-creating moves is often better than looser sphere-of-influence-building moves.  This is in keeping with the ‘don’t play too close to thickness’ proverb; playing loosely next to thickness invites an attack, so solid plays are preferable in these situations.

‘Don’t play too close to thickness’ applies to friendly stones as well as enemy stones.  Once one has built up a nice, thick wall, play farther away.  Seek out the opponent’s weak spots and attack.  Hopefully, this will invite fighting in the shadow of one’s big, thick wall.  As Kageyama says, “One cannot expect to turn thickness directly into territory.  The correct strategy is to have it stare down at the enemy, silent and threatening”.  The benefits come from the fighting that ensues elsewhere on the board; the opponent can’t expect a huge result in your sphere of influence, and if you can cause him or her to thrash about a bit, territory will build up elsewhere.  (This is one of those things that is easier said than done, in my experience…but I’ll keep trying, Kageyama!)

In the final part of the chapter, Kageyama details some middle game situations that involve using thick walls.  In one problem, he demonstrates a couple points that have been my downfall in some of my own games of late.

First, sometimes simply spitting the opponent’s stones isn’t very useful.  If you’re simply wedging stones between two groups that are going to live without taking any profit for yourself, the moves aren’t doing you any good and may be helping the opponent take profit instead.

Second, sometimes there’s no need to make a big fuss trying to cut an enemy off when he’s simply running away and taking no profit.  You don’t necessarily need to kill the opponent’s stones with your big, thick walls; sometimes, making them scrape for a living or run sheepishly to their friends is an excellent result.

Finally, sometimes that tried-and-true two-space extension along the third line isn’t the most appropriate move!  If you’re stones are sandwiched inbetween two big, thick, enemy walls, then other moves might be called for – like a one-space extension on the third line or a knight’s move to the fourth line.  (I have no idea when and how to play like this, but at least it’s something new on the radar!)

Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: The Struggle to Get Ahead

This chapter in Kageyama’s Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go is divided into two sections, one discussing situations where lines of stones are in contact (or a close to each other) and the importance of making the types of moves that keep your stones ‘ahead’, and a discussion of entering an enemy’s framework before it is too late…and how to do so sensibly.

This chapter is dense with interesting discussions of common positions.  There are some analyses of joseki and fighting tactics that I feel would be worth rereading after starting a proper study of joseki, or after reading, say Attack and Defence.  As usual, I have very possibly made mistakes in my interpretations.  (Hmm. Maybe I need to come up with a standard disclaimer.)

The struggle to get ahead

• When rows of stones touch, the situation may be more urgent than it might seem.  The struggle to get ahead is often very important.
• These sorts of situations are where the ‘hane at the head of two stones’ proverb often comes into play.
• Of course, when you hane, be prepared for the cut.
• Don’t invade at the 3-3 point too soon – yes, you get a little profit, but it also gives the opponent huge centre influence.  Wait until giving the opponent such influence doesn’t matter so much.
• Don’t crawl any longer than is necessary – get ahead at the earliest possible moment.
• Pressing moves can sometimes help the opponent get ahead.  Perhaps when playing them, it might be useful to think about them from the point of view of the opponent attempting to get a step ahead?
• Perhaps one could say that a reason that pushing from behind is usually bad is that it helps the opponent’s stones get ahead?
• One-point jumps into the centre can be seen as a struggle to get ahead.  Just as one looks for opportunities to hane when lines of stones are in contact, look for opportunities to make knight’s moves when lines stones are one-point jumping into the centre.

Entering the enemy’s sphere of influence

• Do not jump right in the middle of the enemy’s sphere of influence.
• If someone jumps right in the middle of your sphere of influence, stay calm and don’t make lots of crazy attacking moves that end up wasting the potential of your position.
• Look, estimate the score, okay?  Just, start practicing this.
• You need to know if you’re ahead so that you can decided whether to play slow sensible moves or to take drastic action.
• When entering an enemy’s sphere of influence, don’t be too greedy!  You can’t expect lots of territory.
• In the enemy’s sphere of influence, be prepared to give up stones in order to gain leverage.

Note to self: revisit the section on the shoulder play framework reduction, the probe in Diagram 25 (this has bit me before!), the last eight diagrams, and the earlier discussion about this joseki sequence.

Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: The Stones Go Walking

This chapter of Kageyama’s Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go contains one of my favourite quotes in the entire book:

‘Are White 2 to 8 really so bad for Black?’ I can hear the question coming, so here is my answer.  ‘Bad?  Preposterous would be a better word.  Look at Black’s compressed position.  Look at White’s outer influence.  Fall in love with that thick white wall.  Realize how good White’s result is.  If you cannot understand this, lay the position out on the go board every morning as soon as you get up and chant the words, “White’s thickness is superior.”‘

Okay, so walls have been on my mind lately. I have this bad habit of playing too close to my walls, and sometimes I trick myself into trying to use them to wall off a bit of territory. In a recent KGS game, I built a nice, beautiful wall, but was disappointed because my opponent managed to make a measly little group live underneath it. I built another nice, beautiful wall, then used it to wall off a useless handful of points. Why do I do these things? Because I’m not not listening to you, Kageyama! I’m forgetting the fundamentals!

Much of this chapter relies heavily on the diagrams to try to get across a taste of the ‘stones go walking’ concept. Kagayama emphasises the importance of keeping stones ‘in step’, particularly when they are in close contact. He stresses that this does not mean blindly following the direction of your opponent’s play or relying on memorised sequences.

One situation he mentions is where white attaches to the black 4-4 stone and a crosscut ensues. As Kageyama predicts, this is something I fear as a weak player. Note to self: spend some time thinking about how to deal with this. Note to potential opponents: please engineer excuses to make me respond to this crosscut. You’ll win big and I’ll get some practice!

(Hmm. Diagrams with number added by hand in gimp are a bit of a faff. There must be an easier way to do this!)

Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go: Cutting and Connecting

Oh, Kagayama! Fear not – I haven’t forgotten you! I’ve just been digesting slowly, and writing even more slowly, okay? Surely, you approve of such an approach?

Cutting and connecting. When my game fall apart, it’s almost always because I didn’t cut or because I didn’t connect.

I suppose one of the most difficult problems for me is knowing when what looks like a cut is actually a cut (and not just a kind donation of a stone or ten to my hungry opponent), and when what looks like a connection is actually a connection. Of course, there’s also the related problem of recognising moves that cut or connect two groups that I don’t believe can be cut or connected.

However, right now we’re focusing on the fundamentals. So. Here are my (potentially flawed) back-of-the-envelope notes from Chapter 2 in Toshiro Kageyama’s Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go.

• Play ‘correct’ moves whenever possible.  Only resort to less ‘correct’ moves when the situation is dire and drastic action is needed to gain control of the game.
• “Cut where you can cut.”
• Connect to avoid being cut whenever possible.
• Never peep when you can cut.  (Peeping instead of cutting often serves to strengthen the opponent and weaken you.)
• “Even a moron connects against a peep” (unless another move is horribly urgent, like a ko in the early game).
• Ko fights early in the game are often large.  Kageyama’s advice for dealing with such a ko: “while your opponent is thinking over his ko threat, connect the ko and invite him to make two moves in a row wherever he likes, thus guarding yourself from temptation.”
• Cutting and connecting are concepts that apply just as much to whole-board thinking as close combat situations.
• Instead of thinking ‘I am defending territory’, think ‘I am connecting my stones’.
• Do not destroy your opportunities to connect your stones.  This is sometimes more important than things that look tempting, like walling off a little bit of territory or killing an opponent’s stone.
• Beware of having many isolated groups of stones.  If you have five or more independent groups, you’re often losing.

Diagrams 1, 2, 3 and 4 are critical.  Diagram 25 is one of those pictures worth a thousand words.