The limit is close.

balmung · #1

I have played seriously since I returned in July and have progressed very far. I currently am on a losing streak which is for the sole facts of my emotions and instinctive plays. I tend to enter a game now and get tunnel vision, and lose my global focus, and then I find my self clicking faster most blitz players click.

When I win a game I feel horrible because I defeated them playing on local instinct which is 3-1 kyu fighting strength, but has no strategic emphasis, and does not focus on the board making my playing in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am. When I lose my arrogance runs rampant and I am pissed at my self and have this unsatisfied desire to crush someone.

The worse part is I have taken a month break with ranked games here, and there to get back on my feet, and I find myself not caring about ranks, and having no desire for ranked games on KGS. I have realized rank is not easy to measure, and so many factors come into play, and I only wish to be ranked over the board.

Is there anyway to learn patience and to overcome my emotions. I really think until I get a teacher I have reached my limit on my path to amatuer dan. Are teachers as hard to find as I hear they are or are they plentiful? I would love to get feed back. Thankyou.

topazg · #2

balmung wrote:

I have played seriously since I returned in July and have progressed very far. I currently am on a losing streak which is for the sole facts of my emotions and instinctive plays. I tend to enter a game now and get tunnel vision, and lose my global focus, and then I find my self clicking faster most blitz players click.

When I win a game I feel horrible because I defeated them playing on local instinct which is 3-1 kyu fighting strength, but has no strategic emphasis, and does not focus on the board making my playing in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am. When I lose my arrogance runs rampant and I am pissed at my self and have this unsatisfied desire to crush someone.

Firstly, I would try to curb the belief that you are stronger in any particularly area of the game but let down by others. This just breeds frustration. High fighting strength has a lot of strategic emphasis for one thing

balmung wrote:

The worse part is I have taken a month break with ranked games here, and there to get back on my feet, and I find myself not caring about ranks, and having no desire for ranked games on KGS. I have realized rank is not easy to measure, and so many factors come into play, and I only wish to be ranked over the board.

That doesn't sound the worst part. That sounds rather positive actually. It's easier to play and want to learn when you care less about your rank. You can be happier about losing a game due to trying something new that may or may not work.

balmung wrote:

Is there anyway to learn patience and to overcome my emotions. I really think until I get a teacher I have reached my limit on my path to amatuer dan. Are teachers as hard to find as I hear they are or are they plentiful? I would love to get feed back. Thankyou.

The first part is outside the scope of Go. There seem to be plenty of ways of learning that work for some people (meditation, volunteer work etc) - find one that works for you if these are important things

Teachers are plentiful. Good free teachers are rare. Ask yourself if you are willing to spend money to break the rank barriers or not

cdybeijing · #3

The first step is to realize you're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Once you've gained the ability to only see your flaws, and see weakness everywhere in your game, then I think you can start improving again.

Laman · #4

you reminded me of one zen koan i've read. this is only first half, the rest doesn't apply to go so well

======================
Matajura wanted to become a great swordsman, but his father said he wasn't quick enough and could never learn. So Matajura went to the famous dueller Banzo, and asked to become his pupil. "How long will it take me to become a master?" he asked. "Suppose I became your servant, to be with you every minute; how long?"

"Ten years," said Banzo.

"My father is getting old. Before ten years have passed I will have to return home to take care of him. Suppose I work twice as hard; how long will it take me?"

"Thirty years," said Banzo.

"How is that?" asked Matajura. "First you say ten years. Then when I offer to work twice as hard, you say it will take three times as long. Let me make myself clear: I will work unceasingly: no hardship will be too much. How long will it take?"

"Seventy years" said Banzo. "A pupil in such a hurry learns slowly."
...
====================

it is very difficult to overcome your emotions and just focus on the game. i also have the same problem from time to time. i can recommend you only pretty obvious things - play with sufficiently long time limits and try to spend some minimal time on each move, say 20 s. funny thing is that even in byoyomi you have 30 s to make a move and in byoyomi you usually use them almost all but in main time one may play a move per 5 s without noticing. try (for now) to play only if you feel really fine and relaxed, avoid starting a game already in stress. maybe some pleasant relaxation music could help, although i can listen a metal and feel no difference

also when i have such a bad period and become too worried about my rank, i create a new account, so i am not so emotionally connected with it and can play more freely

teachers are good but not necessary. there are plenty of them, at least if you don't mind paying

daal · #5

balmung wrote:

Is there anyway to learn patience and to overcome my emotions.

I think that once you realize that emotions and impatience are standing in your way, you need to view them as your opponents: strong adversaries that you will stand up to and fight.

What I've been doing lately to overcome my blitz habits is to consciously stop every time I think I have sente, and take a nice long look at the whole board. What does my opponent want to do? How can I meddle with his plans while enacting my own. These are the moments when you can change the flow of the game, and by just playing the move your instinct tell you to, you might be letting a chance slip by.

Tommie · #6

balmung wrote:

Are teachers as hard to find as I hear (...)

This seems to be a misconception.
Anyone better than oneself can be a teacher.

Quote:

(...) or are they plentiful?

Visiting a local club and losing to stronger players is learning.

Yes, plentiful.

No club nearby? Only internet? Many teachers starting from 4 US$/hour or 20 USD/h for some professionals.
Check out in senseis.xmp.net.

SinK · #7

When playing poker online I've heard some people overcome this auto-piloting by placing the mouse under something after each move so you have to lift the something before each move slowing you down and allowing you to catch yourself if you start to fall into old unthinking habits. The longer it takes to make an action the more likely you are to notice if you are doing it without conscious thought.

daniel_the_smith · #8

balmung wrote:

When I win a game I feel horrible because I defeated them playing on local instinct which is 3-1 kyu fighting strength, but has no strategic emphasis, and does not focus on the board making my playing in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am.

Others have commented on how to lay off the blitzcrack. I want to comment on this statement. It makes no sense to me.

A) There's no such thing as 3-1 kyu fighting strength. Some 3-1 kyus fight great. Some are terrible.
B) Fighting strength IS strategic (otherwise it's reading strength).
C) "...in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am": There is no platonic ideal of your level that you must play up to. There is only the game you are playing right now.

Just focus on making individual moves you can be proud of.

balmung · #9

daniel_the_smith wrote:

balmung wrote:

When I win a game I feel horrible because I defeated them playing on local instinct which is 3-1 kyu fighting strength, but has no strategic emphasis, and does not focus on the board making my playing in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am.

Others have commented on how to lay off the blitzcrack. I want to comment on this statement. It makes no sense to me.

A) There's no such thing as 3-1 kyu fighting strength. Some 3-1 kyus fight great. Some are terrible.
B) Fighting strength IS strategic (otherwise it's reading strength).
C) "...in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am": There is no platonic ideal of your level that you must play up to. There is only the game you are playing right now.

Just focus on making individual moves you can be proud of.

I would argue B) is invalid in most cases, and so would many others. Strategy is far far different from tactics, and reading out situations, and fighting done by sdk's is primarily done locally and almost every strategic teacher will tell you most every strategic move is done globally and using does not require reading ability. The fighting strength is what my programs and other players rank me at not what I believe myself to be. I was not clear in my opinion about the blitz statement. I have been playing 10+ mins playing as fast as blitz players do.

Tommie wrote:

This seems to be a misconception.
Anyone better than oneself can be a teacher.

In some cases yes, but as most college students and been shown is that You can be a genius in your field with no ability to teach.

topazg wrote:

High fighting strength has a lot of strategic emphasis for one thing

It does if used in that way, but fighting does have a more local emphasis than global, and when one has tunnel vision, and can't focus on the entire board that is when it comes in as strictly local play.

topazg wrote:

Teachers are plentiful. Good free teachers are rare. Ask yourself if you are willing to spend money to break the rank barriers or not

I agree with you completely. I think I'm just flustered that thanks to school I lost an AGA 5 dan teacher on IGS.

amnal · **#10**

balmung wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:

balmung wrote:

When I win a game I feel horrible because I defeated them playing on local instinct which is 3-1 kyu fighting strength, but has no strategic emphasis, and does not focus on the board making my playing in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am.

Others have commented on how to lay off the blitzcrack. I want to comment on this statement. It makes no sense to me.

A) There's no such thing as 3-1 kyu fighting strength. Some 3-1 kyus fight great. Some are terrible.
B) Fighting strength IS strategic (otherwise it's reading strength).
C) "...in those games 5-6 stones weaker than I am": There is no platonic ideal of your level that you must play up to. There is only the game you are playing right now.

Just focus on making individual moves you can be proud of.

I would argue B) is invalid in most cases, and so would many others. Strategy is far far different from tactics, and reading out situations, and fighting done by sdk's is primarily done locally and almost every strategic teacher will tell you most every strategic move is done globally and using does not require reading ability. The fighting strength is what my programs and other players rank me at not what I believe myself to be. I was not clear in my opinion about the blitz statement. I have been playing 10+ mins playing as fast as blitz players do.

And another many others would argue that B is entirely valid. It seems I wasn't alone in wincing at your comment about your fighting strength - whenever I've thought anything like that, I've looked back a couple of stones later and realised I was completely wrong. Because of this, I've come to consider that thinking this way is of very little use, and is potentially harmful.

I think fighting strength and tactics are two very different things. It isn't clear what you're good at, but it seems hard to argue that fighting strength is exactly the same as tactics - you cannot fight without a healthy appreciation for strategy. By this definition, perhaps you meant something else that is more justifiable. It is reasonable to say 'I am very good at tactical fighting'.

Oh, and I don't believe any program's assessment of 'fighting strength'

balmung · **#11**

amnal wrote:

And another many others would argue that B is entirely valid. It seems I wasn't alone in wincing at your comment about your fighting strength - whenever I've thought anything like that, I've looked back a couple of stones later and realised I was completely wrong. Because of this, I've come to consider that thinking this way is of very little use, and is potentially harmful.

I think fighting strength and tactics are two very different things. It isn't clear what you're good at, but it seems hard to argue that fighting strength is exactly the same as tactics - you cannot fight without a healthy appreciation for strategy. By this definition, perhaps you meant something else that is more justifiable. It is reasonable to say 'I am very good at tactical fighting'.

Oh, and I don't believe any program's assessment of 'fighting strength'

No by fighting I refer to local fights which require a lot of calculation, and if used right it can have strategic importance, but when kyus fight this way it has only local importance, and yes true fighting involves strategy, and not all fighting is tactical I agree with this, but in the instances of these game I was talking about my fighting in those games is purely tactical, and against what I have been taught.

I was taught by stronger players that my fighting is the best of my Go ability(which I personally never wanted). People have rated me amatuer dan in fighting alone (which is not true at all), and people have said I'm 5-1kyu in my fighting ability (which does not make sense). The reason for these assertions is that when I play people of equal strength or stronger I tend to out play them in fighting (this is done by strategic exploitations of bad shapes usually I will start a fight that has no results immediately, but later causes big issues on the board).

I have been built up to believe that if I showcase my "fighting strength" in my games I will zoom to amateur dan, and this has not been the case. I could personally care less about what people estimate my fighting strength to be, all I care is to play the best game I can against my opponent which I have not been doing recently.

daniel_the_smith · **#12**

balmung wrote:

I would argue B) is invalid in most cases, and so would many others. Strategy is far far different from tactics, and reading out situations, and fighting done by sdk's is primarily done locally and almost every strategic teacher will tell you most every strategic move is done globally and using does not require reading ability. The fighting strength is what my programs and other players rank me at not what I believe myself to be. I was not clear in my opinion about the blitz statement. I have been playing 10+ mins playing as fast as blitz players do.

If all or most of your fighting is local then you're doin' it wrong or we're using the term to mean different things... Or... well, I guess you could have a fight with no strategic element, but that would be like (random metaphor alert) eating raw steaks: it gets the job done, but it won't taste very good and you might get sick later. (Well, I had a lot of real life interruptions writing this, and you've partially responded already anyway, but I will still post it)

balmung wrote:

Tommie wrote:

This seems to be a misconception.
Anyone better than oneself can be a teacher.

In some cases yes, but as most college students and been shown is that You can be a genius in your field with no ability to teach.

I don't understand what you said.

EDIT: 1000th post!

balmung · **#13**

daniel_the_smith wrote:

If all or most of your fighting is local then you're doin' it wrong or we're using the term to mean different things... Or... well, I guess you could have a fight with no strategic element, but that would be like (random metaphor alert) eating raw steaks: it gets the job done, but it won't taste very good and you might get sick later. (Well, I had a lot of real life interruptions writing this, and you've partially responded already anyway, but I will still post it)

balmung wrote:

In some cases yes, but as most college students and been shown is that You can be a genius in your field with no ability to teach.

I don't understand what you said.
EDIT: 1000th post!

1)The fighting I have been doing lately in horrible games has been local due to tunnel vision and instinct. A local fight is a fight in which it focuses on two or more groups in a specific area, and has no specific influence on the global position on the board. Fights primarily have more of an influence in the specific area they are played rather than the entire board. That is all I'm saying.

2)Teaching is not for anyone. Many college professors who have doc-trites have not teaching ability. Just because you are good at something does not mean you are able to effectively pass your knowledge on to other people. This can be said about Go, and many other arts.

3) congratulations on your 1000th post :-)

Solomon · **#14**

balmung wrote:

I was taught by stronger players that my fighting is the best of my Go ability(which I personally never wanted). People have rated me amatuer dan in fighting alone (which is not true at all), and people have said I'm 5-1kyu in my fighting ability (which does not make sense).

Yeah, pros told me my endgame is Lee Changho level (which I never wanted) but unfortunately my mid game is low dan so that's why I'm stuck. My fuseki is 5k, joseki knowledge 1d, midgame fighting 5d, endgame 9p, so in reality I am about mid-dan level...but I'm really 9p, just in my endgame ability.

balmung · **#15**

Araban wrote:

balmung wrote:

I was taught by stronger players that my fighting is the best of my Go ability(which I personally never wanted). People have rated me amatuer dan in fighting alone (which is not true at all), and people have said I'm 5-1kyu in my fighting ability (which does not make sense).

Yeah, pros told me my endgame is Lee Changho level (which I never wanted) but unfortunately my mid game is low dan so that's why I'm stuck. My fuseki is 5k, joseki knowledge 1d, midgame fighting 5d, endgame 9p, so in reality I am about mid-dan level...but I'm really 9p, just in my endgame ability.

that was not very tactful. Tact is a great thing when your in discussions, and not making assumptions. Everything I told you is accurate of what people have said of me, and of course I would not want them to say that of me if I did not feel it was true. In no way was I referring to what has been said with pride, and yet you assume that I am not knowing the intentions of the post or the tone of voice. I was merely referring to peoples misconceptions of my Go, and if they were true I would be a lot stronger of a player, but they are not true, and tend to build up my arrogance when playing.

judicata · **#16**

Araban wrote:

so in reality I am about mid-dan level...but I'm really 9p, just in my endgame ability.

I'm a 9p in the opening....insofar as the opening ends at W4.

To the OP: As I suggested to someoen else recently, close your eyes and breathe for 40 seconds or so when you feel yourself getting rushed or frenzied. Another thing that helps me: someone once told me to consider at least two moves every turn (I believe this was attributed to Yang Yilun). Even when playing out basic joseki or connected against an atari of a 25 stone group.

EDIT: corrected misattribution.

balmung · **#17**

judicata wrote:

Araban wrote:

balmung wrote:

so in reality I am about mid-dan level...but I'm really 9p, just in my endgame ability.

I'm a 9p in the opening....insofar as the opening ends at W4.

To the OP: As I suggested to someoen else recently, close your eyes and breathe for 40 seconds or so when you feel yourself getting rushed or frenzied. Another thing that helps me: someone once told me to consider at least two moves every turn (I believe this was attributed to Yang Yilun). Even when playing out basic joseki or connected against an atari of a 25 stone group.

you miss quoted but thanks for advice.

daniel_the_smith · **#18**

balmung wrote:

1)The fighting I have been doing lately in horrible games has been local due to tunnel vision and instinct. A local fight is a fight in which it focuses on two or more groups in a specific area, and has no specific influence on the global position on the board. Fights primarily have more of an influence in the specific area they are played rather than the entire board. That is all I'm saying.

2)Teaching is not for anyone. Many college professors who have doc-trites have not teaching ability. Just because you are good at something does not mean you are able to effectively pass your knowledge on to other people. This can be said about Go, and many other arts.

3) congratulations on your 1000th post :-)

1) "How will this fight I'm about to start affect the rest of the board?" "If he/she starts a fight there how will it affect the rest of the board?" Ask yourself these questions before playing.
2) gotcha.
3) thanks

And finally: Araban is just pointing out the absurdity of overly specifically grading one's play in different areas. Don't be mad at him. I think when stronger players say things like "your fighting ability is at level x", they generally mean it as a compliment, and not as a technical assessment of your abilities. From the few simul games I've had vs. pros, they tend to compliment you ("So strong! But what about this?") while completely crushing you. I think if you take such statements as meaning you "fought well in that game" and not that "you are xxx level at fighting" it will be healthier for your game and set more realistic expectations for you.

There is no such thing as being xxx level at one thing and yyy at another. Levels cannot be measured without a bunch of reference games, and every game combines all of your knowledge together. If you go through your games and label one group "fighting" and another group "peaceful" (if you can even do that, mine would be 95% in the fighting category), and calculate your winning percentage in each group, then you could begin to have some sort of meaningful statement about being stronger at fighting. But even that would be a big guesstimate.

Also, go players are not good in general at assessing rating based on play. I think we've proved that over and over here with the "guess the level" threads. So even if a stronger player does mean a statement like "you are xxx level at fighting" literally, they are probably wrong. At the very minimum you should treat that as xxx +/- 5 stones. Which is enough to make it pretty useless.

Joaz Banbeck · **#19**

The easiest way to improve on this forum is to post a few of your games in the 'game analysis' forum.

daal · **#20**

balmung wrote:

A local fight is a fight in which it focuses on two or more groups in a specific area, and has no specific influence on the global position on the board. Fights primarily have more of an influence in the specific area they are played rather than the entire board. That is all I'm saying.

Are you sure about this?

The limit is close.

Who is online