Forrest Curo wrote (quoting David Fotland):
for example, go books make a big deal about where to extend along the
side, or when to play in one corner or another, but the difference between
these various moves is usually only a few points.
The difference between similar-appearing various moves may well be one
of efficiency--and that translates into sente or control of the game.
A typical technique of human analysis is to consider the shape of a
position: If the same moves had been made in a different order, would
all of them be necessary or even justifiable? "Good shape" normally
gives you a stable, highly defensible position with the minimal number
of moves and hence the best chance of keeping-or-recovering sente.
I think David means in the fuseki. And that sounds right to me, because
fuseki moves can be used for so many different purposes that they are
seldom really bad. When a move is bad according to tewari analysis it
sometimes happens that ten moves later another move makes the bad move
very good. This is related with the remarks 9 dan Tei Meikou commented
on final Katsunari vs. Crazy Stone (see Hiroshi Yamashita's recent post).
He states "White first 3 moves are 10kyu player's move."
According to orthodox fuseki theory we must agree. MC programs show no
respect for the rule: "First the corners, then the sides and only then,
the center." But the truth is they play the strongest computer go nowadays.
Many human players also start at tengen at high dan level and win their games.
Really bad fuseki moves do exist. There are: too low, too concentrated,
creating weak groups for no reason at all, reinforcing the opponent.
(This list probably represents a high percentage of really bad fuseki
moves.) But MC programs don't play any of these really bad moves.
The other moves are not really bad and they serve some purposes
that may not be as obvious as: "First the corners, then the sides and
only then, the center." but they are justifiable and later, they may
even become good moves.
Of course, I would welcome the opinion of stronger players on this. But
the impression I have after replaying Katsunari vs. Crazy Stone is:
Neither Crazy Stone weak moves are so weak, nor its pro moves are a
surprise. I guess a pro would have found a *moment* to play that sequence
that does not turn it into a compensation for ignoring a reduction threat
at D11, but makes both objectives compatible: defending against D11 and
killing at bottom right. I know Crazy Stone doesn't care about winning big,
but I like it. ;-)
Jacques.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
