Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Winter Tournament
There's a rated tournament on February 16th out here I'll be attending. It will be my first real tournament. It looks like a lot of fun: there will be four rounds and all of my games will be even. So if I land in a game with a 5 dan, it will still be an even game. I find that idea fun, but I'll have to work on my "even skills" to prepare for the tournament.
Last Time at Fiery Rain!
Played 6 games:
Giving 9H to firebee, a beginner who is also in my Tuesday group.
Even against an AGA 1k (entering the next tournament as a half dan).
Giving 2H to a "SDK".
Giving 3H to an AGA 4k (entering the next tournament as a 3k).
Giving 4H to an AGA 6k (entering the next tournament as a 5k).
Taking 2H from an AGA 3d.
I won the first five games, but lost the last game after an intense fight ^_^ It was a lot of fun.
Giving 9H to firebee, a beginner who is also in my Tuesday group.
Even against an AGA 1k (entering the next tournament as a half dan).
Giving 2H to a "SDK".
Giving 3H to an AGA 4k (entering the next tournament as a 3k).
Giving 4H to an AGA 6k (entering the next tournament as a 5k).
Taking 2H from an AGA 3d.
I won the first five games, but lost the last game after an intense fight ^_^ It was a lot of fun.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Self Review
When I used to review my own games--back at 18k--I saw a world of potential in things I could work on. It was clear, obvious, and direct.
It keeps coming progressively harder. I'm not sure if that's because I am out of practice, or if it is because I am strong enough that the self-review requires a more subtle grasp of what to look for.
It keeps coming progressively harder. I'm not sure if that's because I am out of practice, or if it is because I am strong enough that the self-review requires a more subtle grasp of what to look for.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Play by Heuristics
Yesterday I played a game against an unranked player. It was a strange game, where the other person's play depended on trying to incite mistakes. I won by resignation. I played someone else who's play was similarly strange, and lost by resignation.
It occurs to me that, at my level, many of my games are won and lost on what basically comes down to luck. In the first of those games, I made a dangerous cut that paid out because I was running on a rough heuristic involving eyespace and a count of liberties--not because of any deep reading. I read it out far enough to know that it looked promising--and no further.
In the second game I mentioned (it was actually my first of that day) I did something similar and it turned out I was wrong.
A lot of games--particularly more aggressive games--at my level seem to come down to one liberty, one L&D problem, etc. Sometimes this is not enough to swing the game, other times it makes all of the difference if both players bet on the same thing. This is one of the reasons a single game means very little: even a difference in several stones can be erased by just one or two mistakes of this nature.
While in the aggregate this will work out against a weaker/stronger player, against someone of roughly equal strength a heuristic going wrong can make all of the difference in the world.
To conclude this rambling, I think the underlying point is:
Heuristics are good, reading is better.
It occurs to me that, at my level, many of my games are won and lost on what basically comes down to luck. In the first of those games, I made a dangerous cut that paid out because I was running on a rough heuristic involving eyespace and a count of liberties--not because of any deep reading. I read it out far enough to know that it looked promising--and no further.
In the second game I mentioned (it was actually my first of that day) I did something similar and it turned out I was wrong.
A lot of games--particularly more aggressive games--at my level seem to come down to one liberty, one L&D problem, etc. Sometimes this is not enough to swing the game, other times it makes all of the difference if both players bet on the same thing. This is one of the reasons a single game means very little: even a difference in several stones can be erased by just one or two mistakes of this nature.
While in the aggregate this will work out against a weaker/stronger player, against someone of roughly equal strength a heuristic going wrong can make all of the difference in the world.
To conclude this rambling, I think the underlying point is:
Heuristics are good, reading is better.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Benefits and Hazards of Computers
When you first start out--particularly if you are an introvert-computers seem like they are ideal opponents. They do not judge you, are not as intimidating, and they play in an apparently consistent manner without the nerve-wracking insanity that humans seem to carry. You can play a lot of games in a hurry and not feel to bad about losing or wasting someone else's time, and you can easily experiment with different strategies or varied handicaps.
Indeed, at the very start of playing many people will advise to play either IGOWIN or gnugo on a 9x9 until you can beat it consistently when taking black, just to get some of the fundamentals down pat.
The problem is that, as you get stronger, computers can ingrain bad habits. Computers are rarely good at strategy and seem to have--at best--fuzzy notions of attack and defense. They tend not to invade locations that should be invaded, and will get confused by even simple things that do more than one thing at once.
Most critically, they lack variability. In Hapki Do we practice against people of different heights, builds, and genders because what works on one person may not work on another, or may need modification. A technique that brings someone's arm across your body may not work the same way if the person is substantially taller or shorter. Or girl who is shorter and heavier may have an easier time with some techniques than a guy who is tall and lean, and vice-versa.
So its good to play them occasionally--to screw around or to get used to the basics--but after that we need to get to playing real people. Playing people online, playing people in person: just playing people and not becoming dependent on playing against any one individual or computer's "style."
Indeed, at the very start of playing many people will advise to play either IGOWIN or gnugo on a 9x9 until you can beat it consistently when taking black, just to get some of the fundamentals down pat.
The problem is that, as you get stronger, computers can ingrain bad habits. Computers are rarely good at strategy and seem to have--at best--fuzzy notions of attack and defense. They tend not to invade locations that should be invaded, and will get confused by even simple things that do more than one thing at once.
Most critically, they lack variability. In Hapki Do we practice against people of different heights, builds, and genders because what works on one person may not work on another, or may need modification. A technique that brings someone's arm across your body may not work the same way if the person is substantially taller or shorter. Or girl who is shorter and heavier may have an easier time with some techniques than a guy who is tall and lean, and vice-versa.
So its good to play them occasionally--to screw around or to get used to the basics--but after that we need to get to playing real people. Playing people online, playing people in person: just playing people and not becoming dependent on playing against any one individual or computer's "style."
Monday, January 07, 2008
Tactical and Strategic Bubbles
A long time ago back on SL I blogged about the concept of tactical and strategic bubbles. This, to me, is a useful set of terminology for modeling how players of various strengths see the board.
When a brand new player starts out, the board is huge and intimidating. So the player begins to try and break it down, isolating the various components into a series of smaller "tactical bubbles." This gives her a tunnel-like focus, frequently following wherever the opponent has played last. At the very beginning, this focus is extremely narrow to the point where things that have a tremendous influence on the fight and are right next door to that bubble are ignored.
As the player gets stronger three things happen:
Eventually the player realizes that she is kicking ass tactically but still losing games to stronger players. She begins to focus on strategy. This "strategic bubble" operates in the exact reverse of the tactical bubbles: the initial strategic bubble encompasses the entire board. Issues such as broad direction of play, ala Otake Hideo's Opening Theory Made Easy, start to become important. The emphasis at the beginning is on picking the correct side and on what can be considered "big plays."
As the player gets stronger the tactical bubbles get larger. "Will the ladder work" is considered more moves in advance, for example. Meanwhile the strategic bubbles get smaller and more refined: will developing this group end up hurting that group, etc.
Eventually these concepts also start to blur and blend together.
Just random musings from a long time ago that I've been revisiting.
When a brand new player starts out, the board is huge and intimidating. So the player begins to try and break it down, isolating the various components into a series of smaller "tactical bubbles." This gives her a tunnel-like focus, frequently following wherever the opponent has played last. At the very beginning, this focus is extremely narrow to the point where things that have a tremendous influence on the fight and are right next door to that bubble are ignored.
As the player gets stronger three things happen:
The player begins to be able to track multiple tactical bubbles at the same time.
These bubbles can overlap and move around, but do not jump as much with where the opponent has last moved.
The tactical bubbles grow larger. They begin to encompass adjacent stones, adjacent groups, surrounding groups, and groups that affect ladders.
Eventually the player realizes that she is kicking ass tactically but still losing games to stronger players. She begins to focus on strategy. This "strategic bubble" operates in the exact reverse of the tactical bubbles: the initial strategic bubble encompasses the entire board. Issues such as broad direction of play, ala Otake Hideo's Opening Theory Made Easy, start to become important. The emphasis at the beginning is on picking the correct side and on what can be considered "big plays."
As the player gets stronger the tactical bubbles get larger. "Will the ladder work" is considered more moves in advance, for example. Meanwhile the strategic bubbles get smaller and more refined: will developing this group end up hurting that group, etc.
Eventually these concepts also start to blur and blend together.
Just random musings from a long time ago that I've been revisiting.
Fiery Rain of Stones
Attended a new go club yesterday. It was my first time at the Fiery Rain of Stones go club and I had a great time. I played four people: giving 2H to two of them, playing one of them (a 1k?) even, and taking 3 stones from a 3 dan. I won all of the games, and they estimate my strength at around 1d in local terms. The 3 dan commented that my tactics were "very strong" and that the biggest thing to work on was being a little more willing to sacrifice stones--just a few moves sooner. I also gave up too much influence.
On the plus side, I managed two major kills (well, one major kill and keeping something from living).
It helps that I was playing at what I felt like was my best. I've always been a few stones stronger in person, and KGS rankings are evidently slightly stronger than local rankings.
I think I especially need to work on my endgame and my attack and defense, especially the uses and prevention of influence, and start working on my strategic view of the board again.
Experiments in L&D show that my L&D is not great, but is suitable to someone at my level. I'll need to work on it 'soon' though. My grip on maek is coming back to me, but isn't where I want it to be. Other parts of my game can wait until my endgame, attack/defense, and global strategy improve.
On the plus side, I managed two major kills (well, one major kill and keeping something from living).
It helps that I was playing at what I felt like was my best. I've always been a few stones stronger in person, and KGS rankings are evidently slightly stronger than local rankings.
I think I especially need to work on my endgame and my attack and defense, especially the uses and prevention of influence, and start working on my strategic view of the board again.
Experiments in L&D show that my L&D is not great, but is suitable to someone at my level. I'll need to work on it 'soon' though. My grip on maek is coming back to me, but isn't where I want it to be. Other parts of my game can wait until my endgame, attack/defense, and global strategy improve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)