Seven Deadly Sins
Path: PhilosophyAndGo · Prev: LaoTse · Next: TheGlassBeadGame
In Christian tradition, the Seven Deadly Sins[1] are
- Pride or vanity or counting territory before it is solid or Stubborn Play or being inflexible
- Avarice or Greed
- Lechery or Following the Opponent Around
- Anger as in Throwing the board against the wall denting the wall and the board prior to uppercutting your opponent or Get angry
- Gluttony or Too much thinking or Defending territory open on two sides or Creating Two Weak Groups or Blitz Games or Being Penny Wise and Pound Foolish (Trading a Dollar for a Penny)
- Envy or Wasting Time in a Lost Game or Your Opponents Good Move Is Your Good Move (ie, make it first, don't envy it later)
- Sloth or lazyness or avoiding Reading or Not enough thinking or Relying on Trick Plays
There is a nice article on the net (please replace with the link) about the application of these deadly sins on Go.
However, I think the most deadly sin in Go is fear. --Dieter
Tamsin notes that it's very weird to apply Christian thinking to a game developed in a decidedly non-Christian milieu. What next? Should we love our enemies over the Go board and turn the other cheek when they play kikashi? :-) More seriously, though, Janice Kim describes seven deadly sins in Go in one of her Learn To Play Go Series. There are bad habits and frames of mind that need to be avoided, namely greed (trying to get too much out of a situation), anger (losing one's cool when faced with an unexpected move), envy (my territory is my territory, and so is your territory), laziness (i.e., not reading things out properly), fear, carelessness and something else (I forget what). Please note, however, that the deadly sins of Go do not correspond to the seven deadly sins of theology. Like all analogies, this one shouldn't be stretched too far...
Tirian In her own words (from Volume III), they are fear, agitation, greed, thoughtlessness, irrationality, anger, and envy. And she (wisely) calls them "seven dangers" rather than trying to shoehorn them into the Seven Deadly Sins.
Confused: Luxury isn't a sin on its own, it usually falls into Pride and Gluttony. Lechery is the last one. Interesting how that one could apply to Go: Is it the temptation, that you want to fondle your opponent's stones?
Continuing the lighter vein, lechery might be like Dangling a stone above the board while thinking or Sliding stones on the board or Watch the game on the table next to yours.
What next? Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Pagan theology? I fear we have started down a slippery slope. Philosophically there is the Tao Go variant. On a positive note, studying Ancient Chinese rules and philosophy or Philosophy of Go or Go and Ethics can be useful. -- Hu of KGS
I thought this was an interesting concept. Maybe "invading when you are ahead" or something similar might work for envy?
Obviously, invading when you are ahead might be a mistake if you only need to solidify territory to win. It's along the lines of "A rich man should not pick quarrels." You don't win by eliminating all your opponent's territory; you win by having more than he does.
Alex Weldon: My sin is definitely Pride, but not as described above, as counting territory before it's solid. Rather, I'm just an overconfident jerk who is probably about 10-12k, but plays like a 20k if he's playing vs. a 20k, because, upon seeing his opponent's bad moves, doesn't feel it necessary to think very hard about his own, makes a stupid mistake, and loses the game.
Actually, I have no idea what my real rank is, because of this effect. On IGS, I'm 17k*, because I tend to win games vs. 15-16k*, but have my rank dragged down by losing against 19-20k* due to lack of attention. In real life, I've been to the local Badouk club a couple times. I've won 2 out of 4 games against a guy who claims to be 5k. I don't believe him though, because there's no way I'm that good after just a few months of playing seriously.
Anyway, the point is: I should have more respect for my opponents and take the time to think and play the best moves I can, and not play carelessly just because I'm 40 points ahead and every move my opponent makes seems terrible to me. Man... how many 40 points victories I've turned into 5 point losses at the last moment by failing to protect an obvious cutting point in the endgame, or even simply not seeing an atari.
Learn from my mistakes. Don't be a jerk like me. ;-)
Neil: I think stubbornness and inflexibility, going ahead with one course of action regardless of the opponent's action, are more prideful than anything.
[1] tderz: Has the initiating author of this article read the book Seven Deadly Sins of Chess by Chess grandmaster Rowson http://www.iecg.info/reviews/pugh/2001_3.htm#sins,
http://www.bsad.org/matt/wolv98.html? I am reading this book, while not being a chess player, just because it covers the psychology of game play.
The seven deadly sins that Rowson identifies are:
- 1.Thinking (confusion,lack of faith in intuition).
- 2.Blinking(Missing key moments,lack of trend sensitivity and moment sensitivity)
- 3.Wanting(Attachment to results,carelessness,”chalking it up”)
- 4.Materialism(Misevaluating,lack of dynamism,oversights)
- 5.Egoism(Forgetting the opponent,fear , impracticality)
- 6.Perfectionism(Time trouble)
- 7.Looseness(losing the plot,drifting,lack of concentration).
I bought the book mainly for my time problem (no. 6). I have an account on KGS, where I did not dare to give my login name here, because I find it too embarrassingly low-rated. However, as I state there, Time Management is a relevant part of overall playing strength.
Rowson (re-)uses a word totally new to me "gumption" in one of the chapters. Some parts are only relevant for chess: everything what covers the "Remisbreite" and the problem of suspended games.
Another, even better book I am reading is "Schachpsychologie" from Munzert, being much more methodical and complete than the famous Krogius.
Afterwards I hope to find time and restructure an overcoupling psychology page on Senseis.
chrise tderz - isn't your embarassment a sin in itself?
tderz: Most probably yes: vanity would fall into which of the categories above??
chrise Doesn't vanity stem from the ego?
Path: PhilosophyAndGo · Prev: LaoTse · Next: TheGlassBeadGame