|
|
Go is a difficult game to master, but to some the challenge to do so, using only their own resources, is irresistible. With the advent of the internet, this has become a more practical proposition because the beginner has 24 hour access to games in which he can progress by a process of trial and error. There is here an assumption that a player actually wants to make progress. Some may not be motivated in this way, but go is such a deep game that the aesthetic insights afforded at the higher levels of skill are well worth the effort. Some feel that to truly acquire such insights, they must discover them for themselves. Others regard play as a primary form of self-expression and are driven by a wish to test their way of thinking against the reality represented by the go board.
There are two main drawbacks to the individualistic approach. Firstly, it takes a very long time to improve. As a beginner there is usually a lengthy period of bafflement and, depending on temperament, even frustration. Having glimpsed the depth to the game and been rewarded by one or two victories, the long journey of discovery can begin. But sooner or later, dependent on personal characteristics, the individual will encounter the second drawback - a plateau.
The problem is that a player can, by using over-simplistic ideas, improve rapidly and inexorably towards a cul-de-sac. Then in order to make any significant progress, the player must ditch some of his or her most treasured notions. But when players make such an attempt, their competitive games initially suffer until they learn to better implement the new improved principles of play. For example a long-standing 5 kyu player invariably plays lots of forcing moves. This allows the player, at least in the short term, to seemingly control and dominate play. The longer the player is stuck at around the 5 kyu level, the better he or she becomes at perfecting this style. But playing this way removes options for later on in the game. For example, playing forcing exchanges when they are not urgent tends to use up liberties which are crucial if the relevant stones are later required to fight for life. But when the 5 kyu player tries to refrain from such unnecessary exchanges, this leads to unfamiliar positions where all manner of options are left hanging. Coping with these situations requires new skills and a less controlling attitude, so the temptation to revert to the old style in order to simplify the game and "keep control" is often too strong to resist.
The drawbacks to the self-teaching approach can be ameliorated by employing a number of techniques. First, individuals should try to play a wide variety of stronger opponents and only rarely play weaker players (even though this is antisocial!). This way, their ideas will be tested to the full, and some of the more simplistic ones will be weeded out before getting too entrenched. Second, by recording and analysing their own games, individuals can better identify where they go wrong bearing in mind that the fundamental errors usually occurred long before the effects became obvious in the actual game. Third, players can expand their perceptions via tsume-go (life and death) exercises. Fourth, without subscribing to the paradigms proffered, the individual can use go literature for reference. For example, trying to work out why joseki are deemed optimal is one useful technique and playing through professional games (preferably ignoring the commentary) can lead to unconscious assimilation of good form. Fifth, in general, it is best to avoid playing computer algorithms because these are invariably weak at answering bad plays and so lead to unconscious reliance on bad form.
The twelfth century French philosopher, Bernard of Chartres said "We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size." If we are of a mind to investigate, should we not pick up a book on strategy and proceed from there?
The go literature from the Far East, and from Japan in particular, is extensive, even in translated form. However, beginners from the West discover that it is not so easy to put the good advice into practice. The problem is largely one caused by a difference of culture. The Japanese thinking is based on empiricism. The principles are understood and described in the context of many cross-refining examples. This is in marked contrast to the Western scientific method of reducing any system to a small set of precisely defined, totally correct statements, applicable in all relevant contexts. Unfortunately, at least for the beginner, go has so far resisted such treatment - which is one reason why it is such a fascinating game!
GCS is designed to bridge the two cultures. At one level it is a Western style, concise set of instructions. In simple contexts the perceptions needed to identify and build GCS frameworks are readily accessible to the beginner. However, in more complex situations, for optimal play, GCS relies on the adherent to exercise a more sophisticated perception and judgement, albeit much restricted in scope compared with alternative strategies. For example, the prime directive "Efficiently connect the original framework stones!" can be applied simply where there are very few ways of connecting, but relies on the player's holistic judgement of what is efficient when there are many alternatives. The clever part is that, for such complex situations, even when a beginner plays suboptimal moves, the strategy does not break down. And by simplifying the context to one where connectivity is the major focus, it also helps the beginner to develop a sense of what is efficient and what is not. On the other hand, the experienced players can use the strategy to the full by relying on their more sophisticated understanding of efficiency, with the anticipation that the strategy is valid at the highest level of amateur play.
|
|
|