Alternative Strategies

Make immediate territory
This is the obvious strategy of establishing corner, then side, then centre territory, combined with disputing your opponent's attempts to do the same. The size of each candidate move largely dictates selection. Play is dominated by third line moves which are generally best for making definite territory along the edge as opposed to the centre of the board. The problem is that against strategies that use influence aimed at gaining territory in the long-term, it often leads to a middle-game where the opponent has established considerably more potential territory, thus necessitating a somewhat desperate invasion. GCS is particularly robust against invasion and thus gives reliable results against this standard strategy.

Super-moyo
This is almost the opposite of the previous strategy. A very large but inevitably not a very secure territory (moyo) is mapped out. At some point the opponent has to attack either by breaking through the boundary or by deep invasion. Because all one's eggs are in a single basket, if the opponent breaks through the boundary this is often unrecoverable. In a proportion of games the opponent will attempt a deep invasion where in theory he should not be able to live. The pressure is then very much on the proponent to kill. If the invasion is legitimate, because the super-moyo is so large, there should be a significant amount of territory left plus an opportunity to counterattack, but the large scale fighting is still at least as risky for the proponent as it is for the opponent. Consequently a number of games will be won or lost according to the biggest blunder. In contrast GCS is a more flexible, more forgiving strategy because the commitment to specific territory comes relatively late in the game and the emphasis on maintaining framework links limits the scope for boundary blunders. By following GCS, a player automatically avoids setting up a super-moyo and automatically prevents his opponent from doing the same.

Avoid early trouble and concentrate on the endgame
This strategy is useful for strong amateur players, especially in tournament games with tight time limits. With all its imponderables and limitless possibilities, most players prefer to agonise over the beginning of a game. However, endgame mistakes can be more significant and are certainly less recoverable than earlier errors. It is also true that, perhaps due to more interest in other facets of the game, below amateur 5 dan level, the standard of endgame play is relatively poor, and thus ripe for exploitation. On the other hand, by ceding too much potential territory early on, the proponent can effectively lose before reaching the endgame. Against this strategy, by the onset of the endgame the GCS adherent can anticipate both a superior position on the board and a solid platform from which to resist endgame ploys. However, no strategy can fully protect against shortcomings in a player's skill at endgame play.

Always play the best move!
If you are infallible this is the strategy for you! Assuming you are not, then the problem is that the best move, being "on the edge", often requires your next move to also be the very best in order to make any sense. Actually, even professional players select each move from a set of possibilities severely limited by the demands of continuity. By careful design of a set of sub-goals, GCS helps an amateur player to be consistent even if the moves selected are slightly suboptimal. However, the GCS directives are not so artificially constrained so as to routinely preclude the best play, and set in the context of framework connectivity, an optimal move can be more easily understood and followed up. Compared to other strategies, GCS gives more reliable results in handicap games against stronger players i.e. players playing better moves. However, although GCS does well against opposition trying too hard to play the best move (and thus playing inconsistently), in this particular circumstance some other strategies, that aim to create complicated positions, do even better. But the problem with these other strategies is that they are much weaker against the stronger more consistent player.

Follow joseki
An in-depth thorough study of joseki (optimum sequences normally played in the corner) is a prerequisite for this strategy. By playing very complicated joseki, players can mutually choose to pit their knowledge against one another in the hope that their opponent will make a crucial mistake that can then be exploited. The weakness in this strategy is that a much lesser degree of knowledge is needed to avoid the more tricky lines. And if a player has a good understanding of the large-scale relationship between stones, it is relatively easy for him or her to deviate from the standard lines which by their very nature can take only a very limited context into account. GCS makes it much easier, both to avoid complications and create valid plays regardless of whether they are "in the book".

Maintain balance (Japanese style)
A good aesthetic perception of the board allows a powerful way of playing. This strategy depends on a deep intuitive perception of the truth of the stones on the board rather than seek to exploit the weaknesses of the opponent. The main principle is to maintain an aesthetic balance of such attributes as definite territory versus potential. However, the many concepts involved are quite subtle and not easily encapsulated. Far Eastern originated literature is heavily based on example rather than on accessible but potentially simplistic paradigms. Accordingly it is a somewhat lengthy process to acquire the knowledge and sound judgement necessary to do full justice to this elegant way of playing. Because it is essentially reactive, the strategy is also vulnerable to novel disruptive tactics, at least until a matching aesthetic understanding can be developed to combat them. The GCS paradigms, although accessible, are based on true fundamentals, and yet allow the adherent to dictate or at least limit the type of game played. In essence, GCS can be seen as a small subset of full aesthetic play. Consequently GCS can match the aesthetic style but does not attempt to disrupt it. Learning GCS can be regarded as a stepping stone to aesthetic play, partly because it makes apparent many of the subtleties that until now have remained unexplained.

Play fighting shape / Test! (Chinese style)
In some ways this strategy is the antithesis of Japanese style. The strategy has two main aims. The first is, as early as possible, to occupy sufficient territory to win, that is assuming you can hold on to it. To this end, stones must be played in positions that are consistent with independent fighting prospects for life, thus a comprehensive knowledge of local efficiency is required. The second aim is to make it as difficult for your opponent as humanly possible! A player that uses this strategy must be prepared to complicate the play at every twist and turn and thus expect to work very hard indeed! Instead of playing harder, GCS combats such a strategy by simplifying and playing smarter, in particular by playing on a larger scale.

Minimise risk / Win by one point! (Korean style)
Whereas Japanese style is to concentrate on your own game and Chinese style is more concerned with upsetting your opponent's, Korean style is a synthesis of both. At each move, the emphasis is put on taking the minimum relative risk necessary to win. This becomes more obvious when a player is well ahead. It seems only logical that it is easier to win by a small rather than a large margin. Combined with a degree of modesty as to your strength when deciding on the handicap, this strategy is the best when there is money on the game! However, in order to accurately estimate the score and vary the degree of risk of a move, additional knowledge and skills are required. This strategy also demands greater discipline, because it is an inherent human trait to play to a level of perceived risk set according to one's temperament. GCS copes well with the variable pressure applied by a wily opponent. But there is no substitute for getting the handicap right!

Multiple weak group strategy (British club style)
This is awful but nevertheless quite successful at kyu level in tournaments. The idea is to invade early and often, thus creating a huge messy fight. Since you will probably be more experienced at coping with the mess than your opponent, this advantage might outweigh your inferior position on the board. There is also a "lottery effect" as to who will make the last decisive blunder! Plus this strategy often results in eliminating the endgame and hence protects against lack of skill in this department! GCS is particularly good at avoiding chaos and identifying the right moment to punish overplays and so is much the superior strategy.

Play flexible shape (Dutch style)
This strategy is perfect for playing lightning go. Stones are played for their local flexibility, particularly in terms of their options to connect, rather than to fit into a grand plan. To learn this style it is necessary to play lots of lightning go against stronger opposition also playing to the same strategy. This can be achieved by moving to Amsterdam and playing all night in certain cafes. Given adequate time on the clock, GCS performs well against this strategy because its large-scale impact is better and thus provides a territorial advantage in the latter stage of a game.

Play rolling boundary (Russian style)
This economical strategy expands from a secure base playing on the chaotic region of the notional boundary between opposing forces. It relies on an in-depth knowledge of a small set of boundary extending moves. It works well against territorial and moyo strategies but less so against others. It is ineffective against GCS because GCS does not commit to territory early on.