![]() RecentChanges Referenced by
|
Go And Ethics
Keywords: Culture & History
This is a bit off-topic but I think it is an intersting subject, so here goes. Go is often (See e.g. AncientChineseRulesAndPhilosophy) seen as more than an intellectual contest, but also as an expression of ethical standards or even religious ones. Words like balance, respect, humility etc. are all used at regular intervals. I (MortenPahle) once stated elsewhere (DiscussionOfTheValueOfSenteAndGotePlays) that I didn't think that it was 'in the spirit' of Go to play moves which counted on a bad response from your opponent, and that I didn't think that it was in the spirits of the GoProverbs either. Ofcourse, I don't mean that for that reason we shouldn't play Go or resign after the first move :-))) But what I have found is that, when I play a move which I know doesn't 'work' or is suboptimal, trying to get my opponent to respond badly, either, he answers correctly and probably thinks I'm insulting him, or he makes the wrong move and I am then greatly embarrased to take advantage, because it is a shame that what was a good game, becomes a silly game after such an error. (This doesn't really apply to games against players of different levels - there overplays are often necessary to catch up the handicap.) I always enjoy games more when I feel that I have played my best moves, expecting my opponent to do likewise. Just my 2eurocents :-) DieterVerhofstadt (1k): I have a Jekill-and-Hydish attitude in this matter:
Depending on the player, the same thought can be insulting or righteous. Go HAS a fair amount of psychological battle. And oh, there are some BadHabits ! SifuEric: Also, as a side note, it (hoping your opponent plays poor move) is also bad with respect to game theory, which is very valuable (to me, at least) when learning go. It is always interesting to me to see that this issue has become part of the strategy and ethics of go (probably long ago) while game theory is so new. But game theory also states that if you are behind (ie, you are white and black had handicap), you lose nothing to play a bit more risky because you have to catch up; if you play conservatively (assuming you both play best moves), you lose. (However, you are not technically playing a bad move, only one where you have weighed the risks/gains). It is probably a better idea to put the opponent into a position where he must choose the best of 2 options out of which you gain the same amount. Or better yet, remove the opponent's best option. Anyway, this is getting more and more off-topic. Check for more on the game theory page. TakeNGive 11k: I have to respectfully disagree with some opinion here -- But what I have found is that, when I play a move which I know doesn't 'work' or is suboptimal, trying to get my opponent to respond badly, ... (This doesn't really apply to games against players of different levels - there overplays are often necessary to catch up the handicap.) Bangneki gambling strategy aside, i think RelyingOnTrickPlays is generally a subtle Bad Habit that players fall into when playing against weaker opponents frequently. (Actually, the more i think about this, the less sure i am. If players want to amuse themselves by making overplays they think their opponents won't notice, what's so wrong with that? But it's probably not the way to get stronger.) OK, folks, here is another one. Last weekend I played a game against CF. In the late middle game he started making some awkward moves. I suddenly understand that he has forgotten about an atari which connects my group to another one. He is clearly making safety-first moves that assure victory but which in fact are very close to dame. There is still a lot to be gained in the endgame. I really don't know what to do. Should I point out the fact that my group is connected? It could be insulting (he's 2 Dan). Also, if he wins that way, he won't feel entirely satisfied. And yet, I'm not completely sure - there could be another sense to his moves. So I decide to slow down a bit, so that he has time to look around. He doesn't seem to realize. I continue playing with the group so as to force him to force me to take the stones. At the sight of me capturing two stones, he's taken aback. At the end, I win the game with 6 points. He's not angry at all. He's glad I didn't tell. Me too, but other people may think differently. What would you have done in my place, and how would you react in his ? --Dieter ArnoHollosi: I guess everyone of us was in this situation. I think that there is no general rule. At least for me. Depending on my opponent, my opponents mood, and my mood I decide what to do. Sometimes I point it out, sometimes I play a very defensive move that says "I can afford to play this, because you just played dame", sometimes (when I'm behind and I'm eager to win) I grab the next big point hoping my opponent makes another error. TakeNGive (11k): Nice anecdote. I think you had the right approach, Dieter. When i've been in similar situations, i've been less graceful, saying something regrettable like "Dude, i'm connected because you're in atari" -- very much not in the proper spirit of the game. When i've lost in this way, i too have been glad when my opponent politely kept his mouth shut. This hasn't come up for me in tournament play, but there i'd be more likely to adopt Arno's approach of grabbing a big point and hoping my opponent doesn't notice the error. This is a copy of the living page "Go And Ethics" at Sensei's Library. (C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0. |