Tenuki is one of the most difficult thing to put in your way of playing for any level, and AIs do confirm this as we are often surprised by how wildly they use it. But anyway whatever is your level, it’s fun, necessary and a fundamental part of the game.
There is an endless debate about simplifying the game by using a 9x9 instead of a 19x19. Myself I am aware that you can finish a game quicker, watch the result of your choices quicker and so on… But what about the pleasure to test the “real” game? I mean if you ask the beginner, many times he will prefer the big picture and to me, by seeing what he understands yet, playing on different sizes doesn’t make that much difference. I think the length of the game is a real one but here again, it’s kind of a fundamental of the game, to be able to sustain through all the different stages to reach the end.
So I do appreciate all the efforts that could be made to make the game easier to start exploring it but to some limits, it’s not always easy to offer some shoes when someone wants to ride a bicycle.
More examples on how chosing the 9x9 format is not a so obvious choice.
The opposition between the 3-3 and the 4-4, which was so crucial in the new development brought by the AI.
Can you test a 5-5 or a 2-2 as a “let’s put one more layer to the thing” when using a 9x9 board? I mean that’s something still a bit too conceptual for discovery time but very soon enough something not so surprising to try even if not in the books.
The “snail shell” shape, a shape that you encounter sometimes in the DDK games. That happens when in the lowest levels of puppy go research, trying to surround stones with successive direct contact moves. A fruitful experience to understand that defending is much easier as attacking when talking about liberties. You know, when after running around, attacking relentlessly, you finish by being the one under attack…
Well in any case, things IMHO that will be more likely to be enjoyed on a big board.
Kind of multilayer position with a 2-2 a 3-3 a 4-4 and a 5-5 with alternating colors ofc. Beginners experimenting, who takes who, what will we get from this?
are you trolling me or is my English so poor? A unique game, a unique corner on a 19x19
You play a sansan, I “Shoulder hit” it with a hoshi, you top the whole with a 5-5 and I decide to submarine on the 2-2. All in the same corner on a 19x19. Next we can start to see how we handle that monstrosity.
It’s probably an interesting position to explore, but I’d hesitate to analyze it with beginners.
Now I think what you’re aiming at is to discuss the implications of playing on different lines. Third line is for territory, fourth line is for influence. And you add the second and fifth line as additional examples.
On the 9x9 board that’s totally different than on the 19x19 board, so it makes sense to discuss it on the 19x19 board (or maybe on 13x13). Where influence and strategy overall comes really into play. 9x9 is lacking that depth and it feels like a different game.
I can agree with you, that starting with the 9x9 board has not only advantages, but drawbacks too. If done well, teaching on either board can be valuable to beginners, I’d say.
You don’t have to analyse it at all, this is something that may come with some logic when testing the fundamentals in the minds of 2 ddks Let them explore!
Making sure they studied Tesuji and opening problems seemed to work best.
Tesuji: Elementary Go Volume 3 Tesuji. Fairly straightforward. Tesuji come up a lot in games and a single good tesuji often swings the game in your favour and frustrates the opponent. (Life and Death is good to practice reading but I want to avoid getting in that situation in the first place)
Opening Problems: Use https://ps.waltheri.net/ and replay your game. Find out where you deviate. (Weak players deviate earlier than stronger ones. They also tend to assume they don’t need to follow joseki or common patterns for some reason.) Do your best to come up with why the pros don’t play your move and then internalize it.
IMHO it’s bit like pruning a tree with a nail clipper. Far too many branches, not to mention that the choices sometimes are about a very small difference (one more ko threat, 1 point…), essential for a pro but neglectible for any Kyu player.
Besides waltheri, why not using more modern tool like… An AI?
I have no idea about books/videos of the last decade. A lecture about the fundamentals in the opening stage taking in account what AI brought seems a good start, followed by multiple choices problems to train yourself being more reasonable to me (if this exists)
Tell me why pros play 1, and not the move white played? Is it a half point move not worthy of studying? Is there no fundamental way of thinking that the white player is getting wrong?
You think this is an easy guess by white himself? L17 and the sansan being miai, I have seen much worse. I would mostly be annoyed by a kick which would leave me a bit over concentrated. Anyway I would prefer to play on the bigger side (lower edge) approaching the other hoshi myself. That white move has a bit of jealousy smelling. But today’s AI loves 3-3 invasions so one should tell me why these popular invasions are not jealousy. As I (and you) said what are the fundamentals at first?
Most of the games in walteri seems to be pre-AI. Today we don’t make those extensions on the middle of the edge, we leave some approaching stones even without extending for a living base, AI loves kicking, no more seen as a vulgar move and I’d say that the game you put is looking a bit old already with this joseki in the upper left corner.
For opening I used to say be careful with old books (although I loved the “in the beginning” Elementary Go vol 1) better go read what you could find on modern post AI opening, there are a few articles in this forum.
If it’s the biggest mistake you made in the game you’d be happy.
It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that a disproportionate amount of effort is spent correcting a move like that than fixing reading and decision mistakes later.
One could spend 10 minutes explaining why this is the wrong direction of play, or focus on reading mistakes instead in joseki middle and endgame that lost the game.
Realistically though let’s say you like AI variations and you play like this, you’re signing up for a harder game than you could otherwise get.
If you go further to a position like this for example, you’ve a two stone group that you either need to save or sacrifice efficiently, while also reducing the side.
While if you imagine a kick or pincer or some joseki, you’ve sorted at least one of those two problems, breaking one of the sides, or you’ve taken the corner.
That and there’s some third line stones to shoulder hit and gap is quite wide.
Conceptually it’s an easier game to play, and why would you as a player, particularly if your livelihood depends on it like a pro, want to sign up for a harder game?
So instead we can come up with concepts like direction of play to heuristically favour certain situations, though sometimes it matters much more for points than it does here.
Because the AI is inscrutable at many of its suggestions. From another topic, if we follow the game while watching out for AI assistance here is a gem that comes up:
Undoubtedly cool, but who plays like that (especially Black creating two disconnected group within the span of five moves on the top right is something that, at least theoretically, every Go teacher would advice against) and what is the reason behind all those moves? Good luck finding it.
Oh yes. Even the most basic of direction of play ideas are against O17 being played at that moment since there are far larger approaches on the board (not incidentally, the ones the pros choose).
It should be though. The idea of “expanding/playing towards the most empty part of the board” is a very early staple on any teaching process.
Yes, but they are still “pro moves”.
e.g. “You play moves as good as Cho Chikun did pre-AI” is a high and rare praise, not an insult.
Go explain your student that to be inspired by the style of playing of the end of last century stars is as valuable as of today. Especially when players don’t use it anymore in their games.
As not being interested by football I can’t follow you there. No need to switch anyway.
Back on topic, we are talking about opening. Let’s look at josekis for being a part of it. Are you proposing your student to favorize pincers, to rely on your opponent not coming to invade your 3-3 so early, to build frameworks with middle edge extensions?
Well that doesn’t deter players (including pros) to be studying or at least imitate it nowadays. Including what you mention in your example. That makes classic recommendations doubtful too when AI diverge from them.
I dunno myself how much we were lazy when we were building those recommendations. That’s my feeling we didn’t push far enough, happy with a state of the art until AI came in. It’s hard to go against progress even if the cliff looks very inclined.
The opening theories have been deeply affected, we talk about a kind of revolution, that’s the word used. That may affect more as a few sidenotes.
Here I got a question as teacher: would you recommend focusing on influence style fusekis like sanrensai or "Chinese"for higher kyus players? That was a way to help build analysis and consistency through an easier to grasp and apply opening.
Let them explore!
