What works best in Go is controlled aggression; consistent aggression; concealed aggression if need be.
There is a learning curve:
- Simply trying to fill in your opponent's liberties fails.
- Simply cutting at every available cutting point fails.
- Simply stealing the eyes from every group that might be short of two often fails.
By the time one has grasped the third of these points, probably a fair while after the first two, the amarigatachi concept may ring true. Aggression for its own sake has no particular value. It doesn't seem to have made it into the Go-based business book(s) that 'aggressive' and dynamic aren't to be simple-mindedly equated.
One of the more interesting features of Go is that consistently aggressive behaviour in the way of invading leads one into the position of defender of weak groups. The aggressor and the attacker are likely to be on opposite sides of the board, in middle game positions of a quite ordinary kind.
Andy Pierce: I find that while playing, the distinction between aggression, fighting spirit, and unreasonableness is subtle and easily confused.