Refining Revelations

One thing that comes up frequently with my own blog and with that of others is the process of refining revelations. Often a revelation will seem to occur multiple times, seemingly making the blog repetitive, when in actually the person has simply gained a slightly deeper understanding than what they had before.

This phenomena happens everywhere, from Janice Kim's "Key principle #1: Go is a big game of chicken" to the meaning behind the moves in any particular jeongseok. This leads to a layering effect.

So, if you asked me at 18k why a particular move is jeongseok, I would have given an answer based on my current understanding. My understanding today is not so much different as it is more nuanced.

The Theory of Mutual Destruction

Something Janice Kim talks about a lot is that "Go is a Big Game of Chicken."

Any discussion of my play these days is not complete without giving a headnod towards that, because it is a style that I am trying to play more and more.

Don't just respond, return the favor with an attack.

Now just to try and make it through a few games without responding at all... ^_^

Group Safety

One of the key consequences to rust, in my case, is that I start to lose sight of L&D. Large groups will die or I will make invasions that are unreasonable, simply because I will leave saving them for too long.

As I study and knock that rust off, it happens less frequently, but it seems to be a common trend every time I take some time off from playing.

Shygost (6d AGA) advises one to ask "am I okay", but (no offense to shy), I feel that this misses a fundamental problem with kyu-level players. My answer of "am I okay" is often based on a combination of some reading and a gut instinct. It often isn't easy to tell if a group is "weak" or "attackable." So, for many players, they look at a group and say "oh, I'm not fine" and start adding stones needlessly or will say "I'm fine," when in truth they are incredibly weak.

I recognize that shy's goal is to get people to think about their groups, and that this is a Good Thing™, but I also tend to think that the advice needs to be suffixed with a piece of advice I have been frequently given:

Can I see a specific sequence of attack that I dislike the end result of?

If the answer is "yes" then I should seriously consider playing in the area (barring the possibility of something bigger or more urgent). If the answer is "no," but I am wrong and lose the group or get chased around the board, then afterwards I can see what happened and thus, learn. If I play defensively and I am wrong, then it is far more difficult for me to learn from my mistakes.

The most common piece of criticism I have when reviewing a DDK game is "what were you afraid of?" The answers come back:

* "I was afraid W would cut me in half."
* "I was afraid that W, being stronger than me, could somehow kill that corner"

"Fear is white's strongest ally." -- Jeong Soo-hyun, 9p and Janice Kim, 3p

I guess that if I lose, then I learn. If I play out of fear, then I might as well not be thinking.

Getting things started :)

Just starting things up here.