How to study
Jakub Zeilinski
due to illness and other commitments in life. In the few months I spent
playing go regularly, I reached the rank of IGS 17k. At that time, I read
Janice Kim's "Learn to Play Go", the first volume of "Graded Go Problems
for Beginners" and half the second. I've been considering doing some work
with the "Graded Go Problems", "Elementary Go Series", or "Get Strong at
Bo" books to improve. I was wondering what the most effective method for
quickly gaining stength is -- what sequence of topics (tesuji, L&D,
endgame, opening theory, joseki, etc.) is best for organizing one's study.
I gather it's good to do some of each as one progresses, as in the Graded
Go Problems, but I'm curious which of the more specialized texts I ought to
start with to improve the fastest and get the best perspective on the game.
Any comments on when and how to study joseki would be appreciated too.
Bantari
Hmm... in my experience, almost everybody's study habbits are a
little different, so all I can say is what I myself consider to be the
best course for around 17k.
Ok - here is the core material:
Firs and foremost, study Life&Death. A lot! Try to analyse
simple L&D problems, and if you cannot fully understand them try to
memorize them. The best book for this is, in my opinion, "Life and
Death" from Elementary Go Series. But other books are OK too. If you
need more problems, try the "Get strong at L&D", but I think the EGS book
is better.
Second, and almost as important, is the study of basic tesuji.
Same approach as with L&D. Again, the EGS book "Tesuji" is excellent. I
found the "Get strong at tesuji" book too easy and unorganized to be the
main text on the topic, but its good for additional problems.
Third - play games. Fast games, slow games, any games. Try to
use the ideas you have learned from the books. And do not worry about
losing - the more you lose, the more you learn. Try to go through your
games with a stronger player - but do not always take his word for
granted. Many times stronger players would try to explain you things you
are not ready for yet, but do not worry about this - just grab whatever
buts and pieces of knowledge you can from such lessons. Many time
stronger players will explain moves by offering some generalization which
will mean nothing, like "This move is too low". Do not worry about it
for now - try to understand, but if you do not, still play your game.
Fourth - think for yourself. Try to make moves you understand,
even if people tell you these moves are inferior to other moves. If you
win/lose due to moves you do not understand, you usually do not know why
you lost/won. If you lose due to moves you understand, you might learn
not only to change your moves, but more importantly - to adjust your
understanding and thus consciously think for better moves. It is easier
to understand more advanced moves if you know why the other moves do not
work - and then you are also more ready to accept the reasons.
This is pretty much it at your level. If you look for expanded
material, here is what you might want to try:
End-game - "The Endgame" book from EGS is very good, and, as the
follow-up, the "Get Strong at Endgame" is ok. Do not worry about the
endgame too much for now, but make sure that as you soak in the L&D and
Tesuji, you make the endgame your next priority. It might not be
absolutely necessary to nitty-gritty calculate the exact value of each
endgame moves, but recognizing elements like sente, gote, double sente,
and so on will help you make better decisions - not just in the endgame.
There are many standard endgame moves/tesujis (bending on first line,
monkey jump, and so on) the knowledge of which is very useful - and not
hard to learn. Try to understand them and how to play/counter/defend,
but do not worry about numbers too much for now. These standard moves
belong maybe to the "core material" and should be study as part of
"Tesuji" section.
Joseki - try to learn some, maybe from the "38 Basic Joseki" from
EGS. Do not try very hard to memorize the patterns, just to try to
visualize final positions - for example, "Aha, W gets the influence here
while B gets the corner" and try to think how further game should procede
- for example, what are good follow-up moves, and so on. Again - do not
worry if this temporarily sets back your win/loss ratio - you are on the
right track, and sometimes it is necessary to make a step backwards to
make two steps forward. Stay away from the "Get strong at Joseki" books
for now - they are a little too advanced, I think.
Opening theory - There are two good books on elementary opening
theory - "In the beginning" from EGS and "Opening Theory Made Easy" by
Otake. Both offer many ideas, and in some ways they complement each
other. Its good to have them both. "Get strong at opening" is too
advanced for you, I think. A good practice I have found with respect to
openings is to pick one simple opening and concentrate on it full time -
play it in your games whenever you can, and so on. At your level I'd
suggest some teritorry-oriented pattern, like maybe parallel komokus, or
maybe komoku and san-san... but it sure depends on your temperament. I
just think that its easier to understand territory play than moyo-and-
influence play. I might be mistaken, though.
Study games - both pro games and strong ama games. Do not worry
about understanding the moves - even the best of us often have problems
there. Pro moves are often justified by hundreds of moves deep reading
and years of knowledge. "Guess the right move"-approach is often
useless and pointless. What you should try to get from such games is the
overall flow of the game. Try looking at the whole-board position and
connect it to the moves made - he has influence there, how do players
play around it, do they play close, do they play far, do they try to use
it for points or for attack, and so on... It is usually not easy, but
might be potentially very rewarding. Just remember - do not get
frustrated if you cannot understand what's going on. Soak in the shapes,
especially in serious pro games. Try to spot ideas you learned from
Opening study and Joseki study in such games.
Hope it helps.
On 25 Mar 2001 19:33:18 GMT, Jakub Zeilinski (jmzi...@artsci.wustl.edu)
said...
--
________________________________________
-Bantari
e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Eric Osman
The value of doing those "graded go problems for beginners" books is
immense. At a minimum, keep a copy by the toilet. And listen up,
dan-level players. The volume 4 of that series is nothing to sneeze at,
and is something to write home about.
What happens is this: The more you do those problems, the more you'll
see things on the board.
For example, when you're under attack on the board, and you're tired
and don't want to think, the more problems you've been doing in that
graded go problems series, the more likely you are to find a correct
move .
Similarly, of all the times your opponent makes a wrong move, or
neglects to protect, you'll vastly increase the number of times you'll
catch their mistake and can bounce on it.
/Eric (2d aga, 3k* nngs)
Ted S.
<MPG.1528201c...@netnews.msn.com>:
>
> Hmm... in my experience, almost everybody's study habbits are a
>little different, so all I can say is what I myself consider to be the
>best course for around 17k.
>
> Ok - here is the core material:
>
> Firs and foremost, study Life&Death. [...] The best book for this
> is, in my opinion, "Life and Death" from Elementary Go Series.
[...]
> Second, and almost as important, is the study of basic tesuji.
>Same approach as with L&D. Again, the EGS book "Tesuji" is excellent.
[...]
> End-game - "The Endgame" book from EGS is very good,
[...]
> Joseki - try to learn some, maybe from the "38 Basic Joseki" from
>EGS.
[...]
> Opening theory - There are two good books on elementary opening
>theory - "In the beginning" from EGS and "Opening Theory Made Easy" by
>Otake.
Do you write for the Elementary Go Series by any chance? :-)
BTW: Your comment about winning/losing with moves you know is interesting.
My rating on IGS has fallen from 25k to 29k, and I frankly don't know what
I'm doing wrong in having my rating fall as opposed to what I was doing
right in getting up to 25k in the first place.
--
Ted, Fedya2 on IGS
To reply by e-mail, change .spam to .net
S.G.Fawthrop
something I put together a while back for a friend:
http://www.eklectika.net/ORIGINALS/HOW_TO_STUDY_L&D.HTML
The Nose Who Knows
> Do you write for the Elementary Go Series by any chance? :-)
The series (published by Kiseido) is very highly regarded in the
English-speaking Go scene.
> BTW: Your comment about winning/losing with moves you know is
> interesting. My rating on IGS has fallen from 25k to 29k, and I
> frankly don't know what I'm doing wrong in having my rating fall as
> opposed to what I was doing right in getting up to 25k in the first
> place.
My guess, from your postings here, is that you're starting to experiment
with many new ideas. Because you don't have the hang of them yet, you
aren't using them as effectively as you could, and they often fail.
Keep at it; discover the holes and misunderstandings in your current
play by playing lots of games (as you seem to be doing already). As you
refine the ideas you're trying out, you will make fewer mistakes and
your play will improve.
In short -- you currently don't need *more* things to try, but rather to
polish the things you are currently trying. Once you have improved your
level of play by being comfortable with the tactics you are using, then
it will be time to try some new things.
--
\
`\
_o__) BIGNOSE (13k KGS)
Bantari
> Do you write for the Elementary Go Series by any chance? :-)
Hehe... nope. But its still the best books around for double-
digit kyu players, I think. So, if a recomendation is in order, I
usually recommend them.
>
> BTW: Your comment about winning/losing with moves you know is interesting.
> My rating on IGS has fallen from 25k to 29k, and I frankly don't know what
> I'm doing wrong in having my rating fall as opposed to what I was doing
> right in getting up to 25k in the first place.
Hope you go up soon. I have often seen such wide fluctuations in
ranking in people at your levels. I think its a good sign - the pot is
stirring and the ideas are bubbling. Maybe you just need to re-think
what you were doing and the rating will soar. The rating at 25-30k level
is not very exact anyways. Do not worry - just do your thing. :)
Robert Jasiek
> Any comments on when and how to study joseki would be appreciated too.
Everybody should have a rough idea what joseki is all about:
fairly sharing a corner. At your level you do not need joseki
other than those simple ones with 1 to 6 moves, i.e. one
player takes one side, the other player the other side.
Forget about understanding advanced joseki. At your level
you have little chance because you make so many big mistakes
that any one such mistake can completely spoil every
advanced joseki. So keep things simple. When you are around
European 13 Kyu (I don't know what that is on IGS), you might
cautiously start studying more joseki. Intense joseki study
might begin around 10 - 5 Kyu. How to study joseki? Currently
you need to know only one thing: KEEP THINGS SIMPLE! When you
will have become stronger, you might be lucky if my books
about good ways of studying joseki (The Key to Joseki Study)
will be ready. Other joseki books fail to explain well how
to study joseki; they do little more than offering a more or
less useful selection of variants. Although I managed to
learn joseki that way, it was VERY time consuming, and
learning by analysing variants (and comments of the type
"Believe me - this variant is good for Black because the
following 20 diagrams show that White 1 does not work!")
oneself can only be recommended in view of the lack of
better joseki books so far.
--
robert jasiek
Dan Schmidt
| Firs and foremost, study Life&Death. A lot! Try to analyse
| simple L&D problems, and if you cannot fully understand them try to
| memorize them. The best book for this is, in my opinion, "Life and
| Death" from Elementary Go Series. But other books are OK too. If you
| need more problems, try the "Get strong at L&D", but I think the EGS book
| is better.
Most of LIFE AND DEATH is too hard for a 17k, in my opinion. I would
read up until the L groups, and then put it aside and do more problems
from GRADED GO PROBLEMS volume 2.
I learned most of my life and death (so far) from Cho Chikun's
dictionary, which has very gentle explanations, and GRADED GO
PROBLEMS.
Dan (5k AGA, 6k NNGS)
Bill Spight
> I was wondering what the most effective method for
> quickly gaining stength is -- what sequence of topics (tesuji, L&D,
> endgame, opening theory, joseki, etc.) is best for organizing one's study.
You can talk in general, but I believe that the personal equation is
very important. What topics do you enjoy studying? Which ones seem
easier to comprehend? That's where you will make the quickest progress,
as a rule. :-)
Now for general comments:
1) *Not* the endgame. The payoff is too small, though you can learn some
general principles.
2) Study pro games, and your own. For your own games, try to find the
game-losing move.
3) Fuseki, at least to a certain extent. The payoff is large, as a rule,
although some niceties in the opening are worth less than 1 point.
4) Throwing stones away. There are some books devoted to this topic, but
I don't think that there are any in English. The topic is dealt with in
books on tesuji, middle game, and joseki. You have to learn how to use
thickness (see fuseki). Here, too, the payoff is large. Many games are
lost through failure to throw stones away. IMX, learning to throw stones
away made the most difference in my strength than anything else.
5) Keshi and invasion. Large payoff.
6) Sabaki. Large payoff.
7) Shape and tesuji. Variable payoff.
8) Life and death, at least to some extent. Variable payoff. (If you
throw stones away, you don't have to make them live. ;-))
9) Joseki. I used to advise against studying joseki, but it is a way to
learn tesuji, life and death, and throwing stones away.
Good luck!
Bill
Simon Goss
>Most of LIFE AND DEATH is too hard for a 17k, in my opinion. I would
>read up until the L groups, and then put it aside and do more problems
>from GRADED GO PROBLEMS volume 2.
The L group itself, definitely.
Getting the full story on the L+1 groups, though, is *hard*. The basic
idea of killing by hane to reduce to the L group is simple and important
and it's worth learning which is the main (*) vital point to live for
each one, but all the twiddly cases involving extra hanes and stuff are
too hard for double figure kyu, IMO.
(*) "main" because, for example, this one has more than one way to live
with territory
| . O O O
| . # # # O O
| . . . # # O
| . . . . . .
+-------------
but the only one that is importantant is the 2-2 point, which is
involved in all the more complicated positions too. The knowledge of
other moves that live in the basic position is pretty much academic and,
I think, only serves to obscure the important part of the picture.
--
Simon
Eric Osman
"how to study" should be tailored to the particular weaknesses
of the individual player, which can be revealed by game records of
that player.
For example, if a stronger player reviews a game record of a weaker
player and spots a place where this sort of thing happens:
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . X . . .
. . . . X . . . .
. . . O O X X . .
. . . . . O . . .
. . . a . O . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
Let's suppose it was X's move and the X player should have made a
shape-ruining move at "a" and failed to do so.
When such a mistake is spotted, it would be great if some
database-assisted software could list out a number of books and page
pointers that give examples of this kind of move, so the player
could practice.
Another example: Suppose a stronger player is reviewing the opening
of a game, in which the criticism is that the player blocked a
3-3 invasion on the "wrong" side. it would be valuable if some
software could assist in pointing to a list of books and page
references that deal with examples of how to determine which side
to "block" on when responding to a 3-3 invasion.
Countless times I've reviewed weaker player's games, and when spotting
an error, I think to myself "gee, I've seen good examples for practicing
what to do in this situation, but I just can't remember what book
and page it was on".
If for each obvious error the reviewer spots in a game, the player
could be directed to some practice problems in books that deal
with that specific error, the player's study would be efficiently
directed towards exactly what s/he needs to concentrate on next.
kuh peesh ? /Eric
Charles Matthews
Eric Osman wrote
>"how to study" should be tailored to the particular weaknesses
>of the individual player, which can be revealed by game records of
>that player.
Yes, game records, when looked at sympathically by a stronger player, can
reveal what you could call root mistakes: those coming from misconceptions
or technical weaknesses or missing patterns.
<snip>
>If for each obvious error the reviewer spots in a game, the player
>could be directed to some practice problems in books that deal
>with that specific error, the player's study would be efficiently
>directed towards exactly what s/he needs to concentrate on next.
I think that's a bit simplistic. If you don't know how to kill the J-group,
fine, read that up. But error is many-headed. Making heavy groups seems to
be a hydra - tell a player not to do it in one kind of position and you can
rely on hir to do it in another way.
A genre of books that needs more contributions is "trade secrets" - where
you do get short treatments of particular areas that one must somehow get
past to become stronger. One difficulty is that the natural way to write
about these is in the form of a magazine article, and simply putting 50 of
these together doesn't necessarily look like a book. (Conversely books on
say, proverbs, can be recommended to improving players just because they
contain many short "studies" on diverse topics.)
Charles
Eric Osman
> I think that's a bit simplistic. If you don't know how to kill the J-group,
> fine, read that up. But error is many-headed. Making heavy groups seems to
> be a hydra - tell a player not to do it in one kind of position and you can
> rely on hir to do it in another way.
>
This is where the skill of the reviewer comes in. Perhaps when
the player is criticised for making the group heavy, the reviewer can
use the database in several ways, even both of the following:
1) The reviewer recognizes that the group became heavy early
in the game when the player should have made a base for the
group rather than merely taking a big move elsewhere, so the
reviewer uses the database to point the player to several
exercises in books (such as "Get Strong at the Opening" !)
that have examples of just this very thing.
2) The reviewer recognizes the kind of heaviness the player
created. For example, perhaps the player should have made
some light contact plays in order to give up a few stones
for the purpose of settling a major portion of their stones.
Use the database to point to examples of that.
The main point I'm making is that when we as reviewers spot errors
in games, we often know just the sort of exercises we think would
help this player "if only we could remember what book and page
they were on" and this is where the proposed database would assist.
/Eric
Charles Matthews
Eric Osman wrote
>This is where the skill of the reviewer comes in. Perhaps when
>the player is criticised for making the group heavy, the reviewer can
>use the database in several ways,
<snip>
But that's where I disagree. Without the will not to make heavy groups -
without the conviction that making heavy groups is for losers - the problem
eludes indexation.
Charles
Ted S.
<3AC2C75F...@mediaone.net>:
>
>
>"how to study" should be tailored to the particular weaknesses
>of the individual player, which can be revealed by game records of
>that player.
>
>For example, if a stronger player reviews a game record of a weaker
>player and spots a place where this sort of thing happens:
>
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . X . . .
> . . . . X . . . .
> . . . O O X X . .
> . . . . . O . . .
> . . . a . O . . .
> . . b . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
>
>Let's suppose it was X's move and the X player should have made a
>shape-ruining move at "a" and failed to do so.
Stupid question: Why is 'a' a shape-ruining move? What if White responds
somewhere like 'b' in an attempt to capture the stone at 'a'?
Feel free to tell me that this this is the sort of stuff I as a ~27k don't
need to know yet. (However, I have serious difficulties finding the
correct moves for eye shape; this has caused me to lose large groups of
stones due to moves from my opponents which I would never have found.)
Pekka Karjalainen
>>
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . X . . .
>> . . . . X . . . .
>> . . . O O X X . .
>> . . . . . O . . .
>> . . . a . O . . .
>> . . b . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>>
>>Let's suppose it was X's move and the X player should have made a
>>shape-ruining move at "a" and failed to do so.
>
>Stupid question: Why is 'a' a shape-ruining move? What if White responds
>somewhere like 'b' in an attempt to capture the stone at 'a'?
First of all, as long as the stone at a is not captured, O cannot make
an eye in the space diagonally adjacent to it. Having in the first place
invested all those stones in making shape and then getting no eyes from it
should make white somewhat vexed.
If O plays at a, she now has an eye here and a good shape. Why do we
say that the first example is bad shape and this would be good? It is
mostly about the eye (or lack of any) and the possibility of making the
two required for life.
Groups without eyes are heavy and easy to attack. You don't want any of
your own colour on the board. Of course, making eyes in the opening is
too slow, so you have to find a balance between rapid development and
potential eyes for your stones. And a lot of other things besides.
>
>Feel free to tell me that this this is the sort of stuff I as a ~27k don't
>need to know yet. (However, I have serious difficulties finding the
>correct moves for eye shape; this has caused me to lose large groups of
>stones due to moves from my opponents which I would never have found.)
Nope, you should study tesuji and shape at your level. Have you looked
at James Davies's book Tesuji yet? It is has a few chapters on
eye-making and eye-stealing tesuji. A lot of beginners' books shouls also
cover the topic quite well.
Only a ~27k who does not want to improve can afford to miss out on
studying eye shape. It is that important. Only things I can think at the
moment that are more important is understanding 3rd vs 4th line balance,
two points extension on the side and direct capturing tactics such as
ladders and nets.
I think I improved about 4 stones when I started using the two point
extension on the third line to make a base for my groups. At least I
stopped losing one to two every games. Learning about eye shape was worth
at least as much and got me past 20k IGS.
>Ted, Fedya2 on IGS
>To reply by e-mail, change .spam to .net
Pekka K.
Of course, my .sig is somewhat appropriate to what I just wrote. But
you should know to take the advice from us so-called stronger players
with a grain of salt already :-)
--
"To generalise is to be an idiot." -- William Blake
Pekka Karjalainen
>In article <9073EC7B0fe...@207.106.93.76>, Ted S. wrote:
>>>
>>> . . . . . . . . .
>>> . . . . . X . . .
>>> . . . . X . . . .
>>> . . . O O X X . .
>>> . . . . . O . . .
>>> . . . a . O . . .
>>> . . b . . . . . .
>>> . . . . . . . . .
>>>
>>>Let's suppose it was X's move and the X player should have made a
>>>shape-ruining move at "a" and failed to do so.
>>
>>Stupid question: Why is 'a' a shape-ruining move? What if White responds
>>somewhere like 'b' in an attempt to capture the stone at 'a'?
Forgot to add: b does not capture. The stone at a will eventually
threaten to cut so O will have to connect in bad shape to avoid that. A
move like b feels to me like a foolish attempt to patch up a botched
situation...
Black can just crawl out by playing a diagonal move or an extension next
to O's move b.
Pekka K.
Ted S.
in <slrn9c88o4.i...@paju.oulu.fi>:
[...]
> Nope, you should study tesuji and shape at your level. Have you
> looked
>at James Davies's book Tesuji yet? It is has a few chapters on
>eye-making and eye-stealing tesuji. A lot of beginners' books shouls
>also cover the topic quite well.
>
> Only a ~27k who does not want to improve can afford to miss out on
>studying eye shape. It is that important. Only things I can think at
>the moment that are more important is understanding 3rd vs 4th line
>balance, two points extension on the side and direct capturing tactics
>such as ladders and nets.
Well, I've been studying life and death, which from what I can tell has a
lot to do with figuring out where to play so as to destroy your opponent's
eye-shape, or to make the two eyes for your own group. Of course, at this
point, the two big problems I'm having are:
a) I can't even solve half the problems that are marked "easy";
b) The positions that come up when I'm playing on IGS are positions that I
don't recognise from the problems that I've done.
> I think I improved about 4 stones when I started using the two point
>extension on the third line to make a base for my groups.
I understand this too, but I still have difficulty figuring out when to try
to use the base to get more territory on the side and when to jump out into
the middle. My stones still get cramped on the side of the board.
Also, is there any good way of estimating whether one is ahead or behind?
I have a tendency either to be shocked when I find that I've won by 15 when
I thought I was going to lose by about 20, or to think that I'm winning
comfortably only to lose a whole bunch of territory to an unforseen attack
from my opponent.
--
Pekka Karjalainen
>a) I can't even solve half the problems that are marked "easy";
>b) The positions that come up when I'm playing on IGS are positions that I
>don't recognise from the problems that I've done.
a) What book(s) are you using? It might be that there are easier
problem collections out there than the ones you have. Other than that,
just keep working on the hard ones and they will start to make sense. For
some this is easier than for others, but I don't think it is impossible
for anyone who is dedicated to reach at least a fairly good level in
problem solving. (Milton Bradley has that theory of brain wiring, but you
don't know whether your brains are wired for go or not yet, so please
don't worry about that.)
b) That is always the case. But more problem you have solved the
easier it will be to cope with these never-before-seen ones.
>I understand this too, but I still have difficulty figuring out when to try
>to use the base to get more territory on the side and when to jump out into
>the middle. My stones still get cramped on the side of the board.
I could say the same myself. Maybe the idea I was after was that when I
was at your level I had trouble with my groups dying horribly all too
often. So I played solidly, even too solidly, and they didn't die
anymore. And that helped me to improve, even though I later had to come
to terms with the fact that sometimes I just have to leave weaknesses and
play lightly.
If you tend to stay low on the third line or get cramped, play more
higher moves on the 4th line. See what comes out of it. Think of it as a
test.
>Also, is there any good way of estimating whether one is ahead or behind?
>I have a tendency either to be shocked when I find that I've won by 15 when
>I thought I was going to lose by about 20, or to think that I'm winning
>comfortably only to lose a whole bunch of territory to an unforseen attack
>from my opponent.
There are some hints for fast counting in the group FAQ. Other than
that, it is all a matter of practice. Note that counting a finished game
in various points can show where the balance of territories shifts or
seems to shifts. But it is a lot of work to do this.
The latter problem you mention is not a problem with counting. As long
as you make those (and I do so sometimes as well) counting accurately is
not always possible. Do your best, but if you get surprised by something
unforseen, take it as a learning experience and go on :-)
Pekka K.
Dan Schmidt
| Well, I've been studying life and death, which from what I can tell has a
| lot to do with figuring out where to play so as to destroy your opponent's
| eye-shape, or to make the two eyes for your own group. Of course, at this
| point, the two big problems I'm having are:
|
| a) I can't even solve half the problems that are marked "easy";
| b) The positions that come up when I'm playing on IGS are positions that I
| don't recognise from the problems that I've done.
What problems are you attempting to solve? I recommend Graded Go
Problems volumes 1 and 2.
Jackie & Barry
"Ted S." wrote:
> Well, I've been studying life and death, which from what I can tell has a
> lot to do with figuring out where to play so as to destroy your opponent's
> eye-shape, or to make the two eyes for your own group. Of course, at this
> point, the two big problems I'm having are:
> a) I can't even solve half the problems that are marked "easy";
> b) The positions that come up when I'm playing on IGS are positions that I
> don't recognise from the problems that I've done.
I'm not a strong player, but the following might help.
"Easy" is a relative term. Keep working the problems and eventually the
most probable solutions will become intuitively obvious. It takes time,
it's like learning a language. If you could learn English, you can learn
Go.
You may never write a best selling novel or turn pro at Go, but you can
certainly get better with practice.
> I understand this too, but I still have difficulty figuring out when to try
> to use the base to get more territory on the side and when to jump out into
> the middle. My stones still get cramped on the side of the board.
Beginners often place too much emphasis on territory.
Play along the sides to get a base for your stones, jump to the centre
to escape, and/or offer help to your other weaker stones. Focus on
connections and eye shape, rather than on territory.
> Also, is there any good way of estimating whether one is ahead or behind?
> I have a tendency either to be shocked when I find that I've won by 15 when
> I thought I was going to lose by about 20, or to think that I'm winning
> comfortably only to lose a whole bunch of territory to an unforseen attack
> from my opponent.
In Go, it's very difficult to keep "a whole bunch of territory" -
because it's usually not really yours in the first place, it's just an
area in which your stones are strong.
Forget the territory for now, concentrate on living and connecting
efficiently.
Barry
RiceGorice
study tesuji, then life and death, then harder life and death. The stratagy
aspect
is one in the same things as the tactics of the game....
Thats from my own experince and is biased towards it. I dont read go-books but
i have some, must of which are just for fun.
The best book I have is james davis tesuji
If i had more money id buy life and death problem-books.
David Godinger
in Japan with Go professional students. I found it very helpful, both for
the beginner and the advanced player. Might be interesting to hear comments
in this thread about Mechner's ideas.
http://cns.nyu.edu/~mechner/go/improve.html
"Jakub Zeilinski" <jmzi...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>I'm a beginner considering coming back to Go after a very long interruption
....
>I was wondering what the most effective method for quickly gaining stength is
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
< Please delete "ANTI-SPAM" from email address: de...@ANTI-SPAMbigfoot.com >
< David Godinger, Go player, student of Mahatma Gandhi, the Buddha, >
< and Dr. Martin King >
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Charles Matthews
>Try the following site that was put together by David Mechner, who studied
>in Japan with Go professional students. I found it very helpful, both for
>the beginner and the advanced player. Might be interesting to hear comments
>in this thread about Mechner's ideas.
>
> http://cns.nyu.edu/~mechner/go/improve.html
Well, you asked for it :). Snipped but even so ...
>Playing
Playing is the most important element of an improvement regimen. Unless
you're a genius on the order of Go Seigen, you just can't improve without
playing. If you want to improve a lot, you're going to have to play a lot.
No way around it.
Disagree. Playing just enough to absorb what you study can work too.
>Applying the concepts you read about to your games is the hard part. This
is where attitude is crucial. You have to constantly be striving to do what
you think is right rather than what you feel comfortable doing. Complacency,
fear, and greed will try to get in the way.
Agree.
>To improve, it's crucial that you analyze your games afterward. Have a
critical attitude; try to figure out what your mistakes were, even when you
won.
Only agree with some of this. Yes, be critical. It's a counsel of
perfection to get benefit from winning - doesn't work with the grain of
human nature.
>Record at least two serious games per week, and go over them with a strong
player.
Probably too much input unless go is the only thing in your life.
>Life & Death
Reading ability is the single most important element of go strength. I once
wrote an article for The American Go Journal saying that studying life and
death was like exercising - if you don't work up a sweat, it doesn't do you
any good. I'm no longer sure that's true. Though visualization skills and
mental discipline are crucial for reading ability, there are other elements
too, mainly intuition for the vital point and knowledge of common shapes.
The first two you can only get from hard practice, but the second two I
think you can get from sort of flipping thought problems - giving each one
just a minute of thought, then looking at the answer. It's easy to get into
bad habits doing this though. It may be that both are useful, but for a
serious student I think it's important to practice doing problems
"perfectly" - read it out until you're certain that you have the answer.
Since if you try this with a problem above your level it can be very
frustrating, it's best to use problems that are challenging for you, but not
impossible. There are many excellent books with tesuji problems and life and
death problems in them:
Graded Go Problems for Beginners
Basic Techniques of Go
Tesuji
Strategic Concepts of Go
Life & Death
Maeda's Tsume Go Vols. 1-3 (in japanese)
Plenty to disagree with here. I probably win 20 nine stone games a year
with White in which reading isn't the issue. Shape and direction are such a
large part of "knowing what you are doing", even in the middlegame. There
are far too few tesuji books in English.
>Just memorizing joseki makes it easy to get into trouble by getting into
complicated positions without understanding the meaning of the moves that
got you there.
It's such a long time since I consciously memorised a joseki that my
agreement might not be worth much. If joseki knowledge overrides the
instinct to play the simplest good choice, the knowledge is at fault.
>As for books, I would strongly recommend skipping 38 basic joseki. Reading
"in the beginning" (Ishigure), and "opening theory made easy" (Otake) will
do a lot more for your opening and strength in general. If you're ready for
the headache of serious joseki study, Ishida's dictionary is great.
There are no "good" joseki books in print - I agree with Robert Jasiek on
this, but my reasons are different. Looking round the British Championship
earlier in the month, I was (as usual) horrified by the plethora of
shape-fixing joseki played very early in the game.
>The "proper" way to study joseki is to try to convince yourself of why each
move in the sequence is the best move. Unfortunately, this is really hard,
even for strong amateurs, but the exercise is very instructive. Since all
joseki are even results, it gives you a lot of positions to calibrate your
judgment against.
I can agree with this, but if you bring strong amateurs (say 5+ dan) into
it, the whole board position is factored in so much that joseki ceases to be
a separate subject.
>Traditionally, a staple in the aspiring professional go player's course of
study is to study the games of the old masters, and to follow current top
tournaments for advances in opening theory. I've met a lot of amateurs that
figure if it's good enough for the pros, it's good enough for them. But in
my opinion, at least until the upper amateur dan levels, this is probably
one of the least efficient ways to spend your study time.
Disagree. If you're improving rapidly, yes. If you're not, you have to try
to move in the direction of pro play - it's a more sound foundation of
permanent improvement than anything else.
>The positions in regular "instructional" books, which are hand-pick for
their pedagogical value in the context of the principle the author is
illustrating, will typically be of more benefit than a random pro game.
Sadly, they can also be cliched. And also interpreted far too dogmatically.
Can't say whether this is correct or not independent of the pedagogic theory
in operation - some go teachers seem not to have got beyond the "learn your
French irregular verbs" insistence on the devil in the details.
>Before every move (even in the middle of a fight), figure out what the
biggest area of the board is, and then try to figure out what the best move
in that area is.
Interesting heuristic (especially as classified under Attitude). Yes, if
you have the skills, this is perhaps even enjoyable as a discipline.
Charles
Eric Osman
My response to:
> b) The positions that come up when I'm playing on IGS are positions that I
> don't recognise from the problems that I've done.
>
>
> I understand this too, but I still have difficulty figuring out when to try
> to use the base to get more territory on the side and when to jump out into
> the middle. My stones still get cramped on the side of the board.
Please post an actual game (the .sgf file) and some of us will be glad
to review it.
I have the same response to the above comment that I have in dance
classes.
These students ask the teachers questions about difficulties the
students
are having with certain dance steps. The teachers attempt to give
some technical answer.
But that's so inefficient. I wish the teacher would just say "please
show me. do the step". Then the teacher could immediately see what
needs fixing the most.
Same with go games. Just show us a recent game, and we can show you
exactly some of the major problems with the moves. That is the most
efficient way to study that I know.
/Eric
Robert Jasiek
> There are far too few tesuji books in English.
All those tesuji books that are just diagram collections
can be in any language. In fact, strange languages help
their readers because one can concentrate on the shapes
more easily. (OC, this applies to such collections only.)
> If joseki knowledge overrides the
> instinct to play the simplest good choice, the knowledge is at fault.
Quite the contrary. Overriding _understanding_ justifies
an instinct about the quality of the simplest choice.
> If you're ready for
> the headache of serious joseki study, Ishida's dictionary is great.
Headache? I used to say that the Ishida reads like a crime
story about who kills whom;)
> There are no "good" joseki books in print [...] my reasons are different.
> [...] I was [...] horrified by the plethora of
> shape-fixing joseki played very early in the game.
Why? Would you agree that joseki books do not suggest tenukis
frequently enough? Strictly, playing elsewhere is always
worth a consideration.
--
robert jasiek
Ted S.
Since I'm actually the one who posted the comments to which you replied,
I'll post a game.
Well, I've got two good candidates. This one was about two weeks ago, but
I still can't figure out how I got so far behind.
( ; FF[4] AP[Jago:Version 3.64] GM[1] US[Brought to you by IGS] CP[
Copyright (c) NKB, Inc. 1998 Permission to reproduce this game is given,
provided proper credit is given. No warrantee, implied or explicit, is
understood. Use of this game is an understanding and agreement of this
notice.] GN[Fedya2-Raskolnik(B) IGS] RE[B+Resign] PW[Fedya2] WR[25k*] NW[
7] PB[Raskolnik] BR[23k*] NB[ 9] PDT[2001-03-19] SZ[19] TM[60] KM[0.5]
LT[] C[Fedya 25k: I've been trying to play more "strategically", that is,
looking for bigger moves, moves that attack my opponent while allowing me
to claim territory, and the like. When I've done this against players
ranked about where I am, I do fairly well. So I decided to challenge a 23k
to a game. I don't feel as though I made tactical blunders, yet the game
ended disastrously for me: Black clearly ends up with vastly more
territory.]; B[pp]; W[dc]; B[dp]; W[qd]; B[oc]; W[pc]; B[md]; W[jc] C[Fedya
25k: Here I wanted to try to restrict Black's territory on the top. I
thought that squeezing him from the left would be a good idea. Either
Black will be forced into the center, or I can get both territory along the
top *and* influence toward the center.]; B[pb]; W[qb]; B[ob]; W[od] C[Fedya
25k: Is this a bad move? I felt I needed to protect my stones in the
corner, but perhaps I should have been doing something to limit what Black
would be able to do with the group. Would L15 have been better?]; B[nd];
W[lc] C[Fedya 25k: Is this move too small? Perhaps I should have done
something to let Black have more territory there while trying to claim
territory in another part of the board. Right now, P15 springs to mind,
since I need to defend against that. I'm also thinking of L15.]; B[mc];
W[mb] C[Fedya 25k: Is this move a mistake too? I don't think I've been
handling the past few moves correctly.]; B[oe]; W[pd]; B[ld]; W[kc] C[Fedya
25k: This is why I think I should have played L15 earlier. Black appears
to have more central influence now, and I think L15 would have prevented
that.]; B[lj]; W[cj] C[Fedya 25k: I figured that since Black jumped out
into the center, I ought to do something to try to claim territory along
the left side.]; B[cm]; W[cf] C[Fedya 25k: This looks like a good move to
me.]; B[gd] C[Fedya25k: I don't think that Black should be able to do well
here, but I'm not sure how to punish this move.]; W[fc] C[Fedya 25k: Should
I have played a touching move here, like G17? I know that in general,
touching moves are considered defensive, but that there are times when
they're the right thing to do. Looking at the board now, I should be able
to connect G17 either to the group at K17 or to D17. G17 should also make
it tougher for Black to get territory.]; B[gc]; W[fb] C[Fedya 25k: This
doesn't look very good now, but I can't think of anything better, which is
why I probably should have played G17 earlier.]; B[fd]; W[gb]; B[dd];
W[cd]; B[ec]; W[eb]; B[ed]; W[cb] C[Fedya 25k: I really mishandled the play
in the top left, didn't I? I should have come out of it with more
territory *and* influence.]; B[kd]; W[jd]; B[je] C[Fedya 25k: This may seem
like a silly question, but in general, how should one go about limiting
what one's opponent can do with central influence? In looking at several
of the games I've played recently, I've come to realise that one of my
problems is not being able to do much to stop my opponents from using their
central influence to gain lots of territory, while if I'm the one with the
central influence, my opponents are usually able to take away much of the
territory I would have been hoping to control.]; W[qj] C[Fedya 25k: It
looks to me as though the two biggest areas of the board remaining are
around R10 and K3/K4. I thought this would be better to play since I've
already got stones in the top right-hand corner. Based on what actually
happened in the game, though, I wonder if K3 might have been better. As
played, R10 only served to strengthen Black in the center while I got very
little territory out of it.]; B[pj]; W[pi] C[Fedya 25k: I was under the
impression that this is one of the times when a touching move is too
defensive. But I don't know if I handled it correctly. I should have been
able to get more territory on the right side. Would R6 be better?]; B[qi];
W[qh]; B[qk]; W[rj]; B[rk]; W[ri]; B[oj]; W[jp] C[Fedya 25k: I don't look
to have gotten very much on the right side. Now I *have* to attack down
here.]; B[mq]; W[fp]; B[eq]; W[fq]; B[cq] C[Fedya 25k: I think this move
leaves me sente. I'm not certain what the biggest move to play here is,
however. Should I do something to shore up the group on the bottom, should
I try to restrict the territory of Black's stones in the bottom left, or
should I try to jump out into the center from the left?]; W[lq] C[Fedya
25k: I realised that here I definitely *could* play the touching move, in
that I can respond to M4 with L3, connecting to K4.]; B[lp]; W[kq]; B[kp];
W[ho] C[Fedya 25k: I think here I should have played K5 instead. Would
this have given me more territory toward the center and restricted Black in
the bottom right? I don't think I'm doing very well as is.]; B[oi]; W[oh];
B[nh]; W[og]; B[ng]; W[of]; B[nf]; W[pe] C[Fedya 25k: Here I've had to play
defensively along the top right, and Black makes me pay for it. Not only
does Black have a lot of central influence, along with the territory to
make up for it, Black is sente, as well. The game is probably lost
already.]; B[gj] C[Fedya 25k: And Black uses the sente to full advantage.];
W[ff] C[Fedya 25k: Now I'd better try to do something to isolate the Black
group in the top left. Of course, I'm probably lost already. It looks to
me as though Black has a *huge* advantage.]; B[gf]; W[gg]; B[hg]; W[gh]
C[Fedya 25k: Should I have played at H14 here to try to attack the two
Black stones?] TR[gf] [hg]; B[hh]; W[ef]; B[jo] C[Fedya 25k: I really
*should* have played here instead of H5 all those moves ago. This really
helps Black.]; W[ip]; B[im]; W[em] C[Fedya 25k: I thought the best thing to
do would be to try to restrict the territory of the Black stones in the
bottom left.]; B[bk]; W[bj]; B[aj]; W[ai]; B[ak]; W[bi]; B[ck]; W[dk];
B[lr]; W[kr]; B[mr]; W[cl]; B[bl]; W[dl]; B[bn]; W[ge] C[Fedya 25k: I still
thought I could do something to keep the Black stones from connecting.]
TR[dd] [ed] [fd] [gd] [gc] [ec]; B[he] C[Fedya 25k: I hadn't considered
this response. I expected Black to play at H14.]; W[hf]; B[if] ( ; W[gf]
C[Fedya 25k: I think this was the mistake. I should have played H16
instead. A white stone at H16 can clearly connect either to G18 or K17.
I don't know if I would have gotten enough out of it to win the game,
however.]; B[id]; W[ic]; B[hc]; W[hb]; B[nb]; W[ma]; B[ir] C[Fedya 25k:
This is a very subtle move that I didn't know how to respond to, and never
would have found. I was extremely worried about the cut at K3.] ( ; W[jq]
C[Fedya 25k: Should I have played at J3 instead? This would have prevented
the cut at K3, but White is still in trouble if Black plays K2. See the
variation.]; B[fs] C[Fedya 25k: Another subtle move that I never would have
found if I had been Black.]; W[hr]; B[gr]; W[hq]; B[hs]; W[fr]; B[er];
W[ep]; B[eo]; W[fo]; B[en]; W[fn]; B[dm]; W[fi]; B[gi]; W[fj]; B[gl];
W[fl]; B[gm]; W[fm]; B[gn]; W[go]; B[qa] C[Fedya 25k: Realising just how
far behind I was, I decided to resign.]; ) ( ; W[iq]; B[jr] C[Fedya 25k:
White still has to play at K3.]; W[jq] C[Fedya 25k: Now Black can't play at
F1 because Black can respond at H2, killing the two Black stones. I'm not
sure how play would continue in the variation. At any rate, it's clear
that I need to learn more about eye shape.] TR[ir] [jr]; ) ) ( ; W[hd];
B[gf] ( ; W[fe] ) ( ; W[hf] ) ) )
--
Ted, Fedya2 on IGS.
Bill Spight
> > There are no "good" joseki books in print [...] my reasons are different.
> > [...] I was [...] horrified by the plethora of
> > shape-fixing joseki played very early in the game.
>
> Why? Would you agree that joseki books do not suggest tenukis
> frequently enough? Strictly, playing elsewhere is always
> worth a consideration.
I agree. :-)
Best,
Bill
Charles Matthews
Robert Jasiek wrote
>Charles Matthews wrote:
>> There are far too few tesuji books in English.
>
>All those tesuji books that are just diagram collections
>can be in any language. In fact, strange languages help
>their readers because one can concentrate on the shapes
>more easily. (OC, this applies to such collections only.)
It is a factor holding back the level of play in the West that no tesuji
dictionary, ie collection of 500-1000 tesuji arranged on a rational scheme
of some sort, is available in English (or other European language).
>> If joseki knowledge overrides the
>> instinct to play the simplest good choice, the knowledge is at fault.
>
>Quite the contrary. Overriding _understanding_ justifies
>an instinct about the quality of the simplest choice.
Not sure I understand the comment.
>> There are no "good" joseki books in print [...] my reas