From: olounela@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Olli Lounela)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go,rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Real world analogies to Go (& some comparison
Keywords: go analogy life power chess
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:26:00 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <Bt4t1v.4Jy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> dabrowsa@ute.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew Dabrowski) writes:
>In article <#=9mj6j@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>> Giving or recieving stones also has the
>>advantage that it doesn't change the game a whole lot- the basic strategies
>>are still the same.
>
>I've heard this many times but I don't think I believe it. Doesn't it change
>the basic strategies a lot if you start from a position which is
>theoretically lost?  It means that rather than playing the objectively
>best moves you must play over-ambitiously in the hope that your opponent
>will make a mistake.

Theis is rather a tedious matter.  Whereas it is true that the situation
is originally lost, it is not true this would _force_ one to play
unreasonably.  I've been surprised to find just how effective it is to
play normal moves and catch the mistaeks of my opponent and punish him
for them.  This is how (I think :-) I play, and what I find most
surprising is the astonished attitude of some of the opponents: "Nobody
has played that way with me before...". 

Be that as it may, I believe the pro's play this way, and if the amateur
plays well enough, they let him win.  I have heard, and do share, the
opinion that a pro of some rank (discount the fledgling low dans :-) can
win an amateur if given strong enough motive. 

>>That and its more difficult [in chess] to establish an even balance,
>>even if ratings are known.
>
>The main difference here may be simply that the handicap system is much
>more commonly used in go and thus much better understood.  Admittedly,
>the system in go is much simpler than it could be in chess, but this
>just reflects the difference in complexity between the rules of the games.

I beg to disagree.  Very often in an even game of go one has to invade
opponent's moyo, kill the invader, or perhaps just make use of an attack
-- all of which are normal to handicap games and may sometimes seem
unreasonable whatever the handicap.

There is some point to this, however.  The introduction of handicap
stones immediately shuts out some aspects of the game, most notably the
fuseki on 9 stones, but less conclusively with fewer handicaps.  But, in
a marked contrast to chess, this in no way cripples the game, or changes
the other aspects.  The strategy changes, which is natural once one
considers that in the very start white is invading a black moyo (or, as
some seem to think of it, black is invading a white moyo...  :^). 
However, the tactics are exactly the same; living/dying/killing,
fighting, shape, tesuji, surrounding territories, etc. 

	Olli Lounela, 3 dan

PS.  I'd like to know what happened to most peoples' ranks, as most of
     the posts don't contain one, and I find it hard to credit people
     would be so crude as to omit them.  Is there some hideous entity
     eating them?
     (Uhh! gotta be carefull; are my hard-earned dans in *DANGER*??)
-- 

--
E-mail: olounela@cc.helsinki.fi           ! .sig still under construction.
Blame me only for any opinions expressed. !  Never you mind, I don't either.