I just realized this game is about making as many threats as possible, and only continuing the most valuable one, once there’s no more to be made.
I also learned I shouldn’t seek to capture, but just build moyo. I swear this game should be mandated in school. It teaches you so much critical thinking.
9 Likes
There is the opposite side too, to give as few chances to your opponent to make threats.
Good thinking, but not always true.
I’m afraid that this could lead some students to not enjoy the game if it becomes a compulsory scholar activity.
5 Likes
But if your opponent is also building a moyo you have to decide whether to continue building your own or to reduce or invade your opponent’s moyo.
When your opponent invades you have to decide whether you try to kill, or chase your opponent from the side, or let him live small inside while building outside strength.
These are not easy questions and involve evaluating the life and death status of groups. So even if the goal of the game is not to capture stones, I’d say that life and death is the essence of the game.
4 Likes
I like to say that life and death is the engine that you have to keep running. Thanks to it you can elaborate strategies to fulfill the goal, strategies much higher as just trying to capture stones.
Building moyo is a part of them, an invitation by the OP to enlarge strategic views on the game.
1 Like
Learning how to build a moyo is a good entry to SDK level. It got me to about 8 kyu.
2 Likes
If you can complete one threat and end in sente, then you do not have to run out of threats first.
You play there, complete the sequence and use sente to move to the next threat.
A good example is this:
I do not get sente until White defends with move 68 (the game is ongoing, but I have already found my mistake - those pincers I was trying are too greedy and were actually costing me sente).
This is a good first change of mentality, but it should be added that sometimes you have to fight or invade the opposing moyo.
It would have been nice indeed.
True, but games and sports are rarely compulsory in schools. It would have been nice if it was presented as an option. As it stands most kids don’t even know that Go exists, let alone have a chance to be bored by it.
1 Like
I suppose that at some point newer players realise that capturing stones is just about impossible without cooperation or mistakes from your opponent. But threatening to capture stones can be a means toward the actual objective of the game: control a bigger part of the board than your opponent.does.
Not all moves can be forcing moves though, nor should you exhaust all your forcing moves as soon as possible. Many forcing moves are in fact Thank You Moves that should be avoided.
It’s sort of inevitable to also play some calm “building” moves (such as building a moyo) which don’t pose an immediate threat to your opponent’s stones or areas.
I see go as a building contest. At higher levels of play, both players start out by loosely claiming some areas and expanding/consolidating those as the game progresses, while keeping in mind that at any moment either player can try to thwart the building efforts of their opponent.
I have taught go to groups of youth players in different settings, and I much prefer to teach youth that comes voluntarily than youth that is largely forced to come (by their parents or otherwise). So I wouldn’t be in favor of go being mandatory in schools.
It would be great though if it were more common for schools to have a go club, like many schools have a chess club.
3 Likes
Nah. It’s a game. Everyone likes art and sports.
Coach B says “oh really?” 
Christmas context
His name starts with B, but in this case B is for Blasphemy. That’s the channel’s Christmas “Carol” special. As it is obvious, they are atheists 