![]() StartingPoints Referenced by
|
Describe Go to Non-Players
Difficulty: Beginner
Dieter's entry on CompareGoToChess triggered this one off. I often meet people who, once they find out that I play (in the largest possible sense :-) Go, want to know what Go is, and I never know what to say. I try to avoid to CompareGoToChess, and often end up to explain Go by similarity/dissimilarity to Chess. Something along the lines of:
Traditionally, this has not managed to create many new Go-players. How do other people explain Go? I don't mean how you teach Go to a beginner, but how do you try to create the initial interest to begin with? -- MortenPahle I tend to say it's the oldest game in the world and that it is easy to learn, fun to play and as complex or simple as you want to make it. -- OneEye Tell us the reasons why you started to play at WhyDidYouStartGo and maybe we can think of how to get more people to try Go. I think the best way to get new people to play go is first to get the rules laid out. Next, find a player around their skill level (you may want to teach two people at once and have them play each other) and get them to play a game to get the hang of it. I've always thought go was the most fun in even games; if you play someone much better than you, it's sometimes overwhelming. --Saesneg (kgs): I have recently started work in a new part of the country (new to me, not recently-put-on-the-map). There is no Go club here so I have been touting Go around the office since week one. It has been an interesting and so far fairly successful operation, to my great surprise. First off, I guess I bided my time as I didn't know anybody. As I met or observed people I made a mental note of who would be likely to be interested. Strange to say, my guesses were almost entirely wrong. Nevertheless, I then raised the subject with one likely looking person. He had never heard of the game but was vaguely interested. My key-phrases tend to be "oldest game in the world", "better than chess", "deeper", "more subtle", "very simple rules", "easy to learn", "50 million players in the world, but not very well known in this country". Anyway this one guy said he was currently too busy after work, but he suggested someone else who might be interested. So I mentioned Go to this other guy. Again, never heard of it but interested. At this stage I didn't push it. Then one evening as we were about to leave I suggested "Do you fancy a pint and a game of Go this evening". My earnest recommendation is that these are the MAGIC WORDS! (Cultural note: by 'pint' I mean a pint of beer in a public drinking house). As it happened he was busy, but we arranged to do so the following week. The pub turned out quite busy, and we had to share a table, but that was no problem. I ended up explaining the game to them too. My approach to teaching Go is: 1. Quick chat about history (3000-4000 years), popularity (50 million players in far east), professionalism (500 pros in Japan alone. Similar status to Golf in the West), programming difficulty compared to chess. 2. There are only three rules. And you don't need to know the third (ko) for a while. 3. Rule 1. When you are surrounded you are off. Demonstrate this with one stone capture, then capturing two or more connected stones. Show how suicide is 'obviously' illegal, unless you can capture stones in the same move (but make sure this demonstration isn't a ko as they may start asking questions) Now it is sometimes recommended that beginners should play the 'capturing game' first. I.e. first capture wins the game. I suspect this a very good idea, especially when beginners are playing each other. But when I am playing a beginner I prefer to skip this step. I explain that with the one rule explained so far we could play the 'capture game' but that you soon learn it usually ends in a draw. Hence rule 2: 4. Rule 2. Captures count one point, but territory also counts one point. I set up a wall in a corner/side, and show how the territory is captured. If I am asked "what if black plays inside the territory?" I say that his stone can easily be captured, giving white extra points. If they persist, I show how this can be done. I don't explain eyes or dead stones. 5. At this point I set up six stones on a 9x9 board and we play a game. I play to the best of my abilities, and invariably win. It is important not to criticise any moves they make. If they play into atari I just take the piece/ group. This is better than pointing out their mistake and letting them take back (their alternate move would probably be just as bad anyway). But if they make a good move I praise them and tell them why. I also encourage them by saying non-specific things like "you are actually still winning".
The more games you can play the better, while you have their time. The first few games are totally bewildering and it takes a while before patterns start appearing. Keep explanations to a minimum, it only confuses further. Four or five games is probably enough for any beginner in one session. They will still be losing, but they will have connected groups of living stones on the board, and an idea about borders, and how the game comes to an end and is scored. This all takes us about two pints! After the first game let them place their six handicap stones wherever they like. I wonder if I should actually give seven or eight stones even. A common feature is that the beginner will play inside my secure territory. I just say pass. Five minutes thought later they play another stone next to it. I pass again quickly. This can continue and cause some amusement, but they eventually learn how pointless that approach is, and at the same time what territory actually means. If they play inside their own territory I point out their error and give them the move again. 6. At some point a ko will appear, and that is when I tell them the third and 'last' rule. Don't overstress ko-fights. Beginners almost never fight them out anyway. Of course this approach can be used to teach more than one beginner at the same time. You can easily play three games concurrently against beginners, as they are doing all the thinking. Every now and then I like to give little five-minute lessons. Two-eyes is an obvious one, but leave it till they have played a few games. A good time to explain it is after a game where you played a nakade. Stress that two-eyes is not a legal requirement for life, as long as you COULD make two eyes if you wanted. Another lesson is 'ways to capture' including schicho? and 1 and 2 stone geta. Another lesson is 'connections'. E.g. it is not obvious to beginners that two diagonal stones are connected. Some of these lessons are not very important (i.e. they probably won't use what you tell them), but they add interest and variety to the occasion. So six weeks down the line we don't yet have a Go 'club'. Each week I arrange the meeting anew. I don't get disappointed if people appear to lose interest, I just keep asking around. I have found that interest is often revived when they hear other people talking about the game. There are usually four or five people who come out for a 'pint and a game' every week, although it can be a different crowd each time. I was pleased to discover that one beginner had taught someone else in the office.
One other point: I did install Many of these ideas are not my own. I will try to add references some time.
[1] One Sunday afternoon when I was a college sophomore I saw a guy with a go board out on the lawn. I asked him about it. He explained the game quickly and asked if I wanted to play. I took Black. After a few moves he began to criticize my play. Well, that was no fun. I excused myself. I didn't take up the game until I was living in Japan three years later. --Ellegon: When I started playing, I played for about two months then I lost interest for about 6-8 months afterwards. The mental effort to start a game seemed too great (the empty goban seemed to give me a kind of writer's block). After a while, the game kept creeping into my thoughts so I started playing again. I lost interest again about two months afterwards. Again it kept running around in my head. When I started again that time I never looked back:) Any similar stories ? jesusin: I will tell you my story: I was given a plastic go set and a sheet with the rules when I was 10 years old. It was the kind of game I could fall in love with. Having nobody to play with, I tried to play against myself. It was boring and I did not know where to start, so at the beginning of each game I threw a bunch of stones over the board and put them on the nearest spots (by now you must be thinking I am insane). This way I discovered ladders and thought it was not fair that the stones should die just because the ladder reached the border of the board, so I invented a rule forbidding ladders to work. Soon after I got bored and I forgot the game. At University I went once to a go club, but they wanted me to pay the exorbitant sum of half an Euro each day I went there. Too much for my student allowance... At 28 I gave go another opportunity. I read a book on my summertime vacations, it was "The Chinese Opening" by Kato Masao (I do not recommend it as your first go book ;-)). It gave me a glimpse on the deepness of the game, so I went back to the go club and I got caught there. By now I am an addict and I do not regret it (by the way, I am still studying on my deteriorated plastic set). When I introduce someone to Go, I refer to it as "the Asian strategy game." I usually mention that "it's thousands of years old" and if they seem totally lost, I might say "it's kind of like chess." I usually don't get too specific on the rules, until they have some idea of how the game feels. I try to get across two main ideas before we start playing:
I hint that a lot of complexity emerges from these two simple ideas, but the best way to understand that is to play. (I might whip out my PalmPilot and play a quick 9x9 against AIGO to show them what a game looks like from beginning to end.) I deal with things like ko and seki as they arise. I try to adjust my approach based on who the person is and how they are responding to everything. I try to explain just how deep the game of Go is and how easy it is for players with a wide range in skill level to enjoy a challenging game with the handicap system. starline: Initially I tell the 'victim' that it is an ancient game of skill - like chess. The following is what I tell someone who seems to be interested (although this has happened to me only very rarely) -- I tell them that each player has lots of black or white stones (I may describe what a stone looks like at some point) - which are really 'markers', and that there is a large grid of 19x19 intersections, which represents an area of land. I explain that each player takes it in turns to place a marker onto an intersection of the grid -- the idea being to try to 'fence off' empty areas of the grid, so that these surrounded areas become that player's territory. I tell them that each player is trying to have more territory fenced off than the opponent by the end of the game. I also mention that once a player has placed a marker on the grid, that it cannot be moved, unless it is captured. I will explain that markers can be captured individually, or as groups if they have been linked together, and that it is possible to form groups of one's own stones that are safe from capture. I may go into more detail explaining the method of capturing and forming chains. Dieter: I would like to assemble a page like TeachingGoToNewcomers. Many discussions about the subject have been held at rec.games.go. This page here also contains some material. We can probably copy and paste a lot. I'll fire off at Teaching go to newcomers / Discussion. ilan: In terms of actual play, the most similar well known game is not Chess but Dots and Boxes. I'm not sure whether people would be motivated by this comparison, since almost no casual Dots players understand anything about that game. However, Chess is the most similar game, from the sociological standpoint: tournaments, professionals, books, obsessive nerds. This is a copy of the living page "Describe Go to Non-Players" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |