I don't think that your basic rule should be "no josekis". Almost any sane exchange in the opening is going to be a joseki. Instead, focus on strategy rather than whether or not your moves are joseki. Or, alternatively, choose some basic joseki that you will play at every opportunity so that they can be reinforced over and over again for weaker viewers. Fundamental, consistent strategy (direction of play) is what most kyus need in order to improve. They will still need tactics (reading) to support their strategy, but that can't be learned from a video.
it's funny to see how you deal so well with players like that, unfortunately i never had the patience with players that even having a lot of dead group and the game completely lost they keep making totally useless moves out of sheer tantrum which was making me completely stressed out, that's what made me stop playing a long time ago, now I only watch videos and streams .
Should play more, not less. Opponents are allowed to make the moves they want. The worst thing that can happen is you lose. That shouldn't be so stressful.
@@helxis What's stressful for one person may not be stressful for another. I'm sure there are things that don't stress OP that stress you. Does that mean they should, or shouldn't be stressful?
@@zaksmith1035 How can you be sure of that? If you were sure, we would have a concrete example for us to discuss, yes? Instead of fabricating a reality in which the behavior is acceptable? I've taught Go for over 20 years. I have seen hundreds of players take up the game and subsequently quit. The number of times I have seen people state things like OP are countless. And it always stems from one thing: inability to handle personal failure. It isn't the "opponent making moves" that is the problem, because that is clearly irrational. Go is good for people because it makes them face personal failure over and over again, for as long as they play it. Sadly, in an era where failure can (and will) almost always be blamed on external factors instead of oneself, most people can't cope with Go forcing them to reconcile that the failure comes from within. This is why the solution is always "play more, not less". Through playing more, rather than quitting, we can grow in emotional maturity, as we come to understand that failure is a natural and necessary part of progress. Or, alternatively, we can choose a life where we are paralyzed by the stress of the simple act of an opponent in a game making moves that we don't like. But if we can't handle that, imagine all the other things we can't handle as well. In my opinion, that is a barrier worth overcoming.
@@helxis good grief. the guy's talking about how boring it is to play moves for 15-20 minutes and have to be vigilant against making a mistake when the game is essentially over. everybody who plays go knows exactly what he's talking about. in a huge number of my victories the graph shows me taking 99.9% win probability and it staying that way for 200 pointless moves. and in this game i saw dwryin's opponent get completely killed at the 20 minute mark and thought the video must nearly be over, then i see the opponent continues to play for 15 minutes for no reason. now if i was in a tournament game i would say fine, it's a big occasion and i need to win the game and pay attention no matter what. but for a random online game i think this is bullshit and a waste of both my time and my opponent's since neither of us are learning. if he wins through such a method it's usually because i stopped paying attention. your comment is really arrogant, presumptuous, and completely misses the point. why you need to act so superior i don't know, but you seem like the emotionally immature one here. maybe you're one of these very oafs who play out a 100-point loss to dame, and you just can't accept criticism of your own behaviour. if so, go to hell.
Batts is tremendous. He just beat a 5 kyu with no joseki, no tesuji, and no reading. He makes it look so easy. The difference between him and us mortals is that although we often see the same "best" moves, it's hard to tell if we should play those moves or certain sub-optimal ones that more directly solve immediate issues. So all these micro decisions add up and lead to what looks like an easy win. I'm an SDK and would have only played a few moves differently, but it would have made a huuuuge difference in the result of the game.
I'm not a basics purist; if the game tells you to kill something, then do it. (For who are we to question our natural urges?) But seriously, I don't get the detractors who claim that killing something somehow diminishes the quality of a game's "basic value". That hasn't ever made sense to me--newsflash to the haters: things die all the time in kyu-level games.
I think the idea is more that Dwyrin shouldn’t HUNT groups, especially of weaker players How does it help a 7 kyu to watch a 7-8 dan player use some crazy tesuji and deep reading to kill a group?
@@jacksonfitzsimmons4253 I don't think that happens. Dwyrin usually doesn't play crazy moves to kill things in basic games. He might play a tricky life+death sequence to keep something that's "rightfully dead" dead. At that point, you might ask, "how does he recognize something as dead?" And it's usually just some combination of being surrounded and not having enough space to live. It's usually not some crazy deep reading sequence.
@@alexandersanchez9138 I agree! He doesn’t do that in Basics. I was just trying to explain the principle behind the “no killing in basics” rule. If an opponent offers up their group on a silver platter, even a 12 kyu will grab it. Dwyrin should too
@@alexandersanchez9138 He's also attempting to demonstrate the principles behind attacking, which suggest you don't need to kill something in order to profit off of its life enough to make sure that you win the game. So I think it's more accurately stated as "find every way possible to profit off the life of your opponent's groups" as opposed to "avoid killing if at all possible." Most kyu players try to kill things that should live instead of trying to profit off of their life. That's why they're kyus. So it makes sense that in a basic game, dwyrin would actively put into practice the opposite habit, so we can see what attacking should be all about.
9:50 Extending up at K15 is the only move that really surprised and confused me. I would have played, instinctively, the hane at J17. Which I'm guessing would be considerably less good. Can anyone give a bit of insight here?
I have a question regarding pandanet I've been playing on for years now... I'm 8k+ atm thanks to Dwyrin's "basics" with over 200 games on my only current main account, I've been playing just very occasionally but for over 10 years now. But what really puzzles me is I'm almost always facing people my level but with over 20.000 games or even 50.000... Are these real people? They seem to play like humans, but why are they stuck at say 9-8k with over 50.000 games? I seriously can't understand this... Isn't that over 30 thousand hours of GO?... If I had anywhere near that amount of games played I'd be way over 3k probably over 1d... Ofcourse I can't be sure but I steadily improve... That I know as a fact. Anyways, I think you understand my question... ^^;?
I'm interested to see how easy it is to surround without killing in today's meta, when players will send in a lone stone against an army like Rambo at the drop of a hat. Eventually you have to just call them on the absurdity, right? But I've seen you declare "No, I'm not killing this stone, it was already dead when my opponent played it" before, so I guess that works.
A fundamental part of Go is the life and death of groups. If we cannot threaten to (or successfully) kill groups, then the game becomes degenerate. That being said, in many cases, one can win this game by simply threatening to kill a group, rather than actually killing it. At kyu levels, it is very often enough to even just ignore slow moves and simply claim points. Of course, this requires the ability to understand what is "slow" and why.
I really appreciate when you explicitly said, “you don’t panic here”. I usually panic there.
I really appreciated the "slow" moves, this is exactly what the basics series should be imo.
He started here, but the basics evolved with the combined education he has given; especially at the higher levels.
Definitely happy for a fundamentals review!
I don't think that your basic rule should be "no josekis". Almost any sane exchange in the opening is going to be a joseki. Instead, focus on strategy rather than whether or not your moves are joseki. Or, alternatively, choose some basic joseki that you will play at every opportunity so that they can be reinforced over and over again for weaker viewers.
Fundamental, consistent strategy (direction of play) is what most kyus need in order to improve. They will still need tactics (reading) to support their strategy, but that can't be learned from a video.
Yeah, so "overly complicated joseki" are to be avoided, but basic joseki are still joseki.
@@zaksmith1035 Yes. In fact, I think the focus should be on selecting easy joseki that avoid complications and sticking with them.
@@helxis long sorry short KISS - keep is simple stupid
His point with avoiding joseki is simply so you can play for basic shape/defending group instead of memorizing moves.
One group can live but the other one won't. Nice and simple, very 88.
it's funny to see how you deal so well with players like that, unfortunately i never had the patience with players that even having a lot of dead group and the game completely lost they keep making totally useless moves out of sheer tantrum which was making me completely stressed out, that's what made me stop playing a long time ago, now I only watch videos and streams .
Should play more, not less. Opponents are allowed to make the moves they want. The worst thing that can happen is you lose. That shouldn't be so stressful.
@@helxis What's stressful for one person may not be stressful for another. I'm sure there are things that don't stress OP that stress you. Does that mean they should, or shouldn't be stressful?
@@zaksmith1035 How can you be sure of that? If you were sure, we would have a concrete example for us to discuss, yes? Instead of fabricating a reality in which the behavior is acceptable?
I've taught Go for over 20 years. I have seen hundreds of players take up the game and subsequently quit. The number of times I have seen people state things like OP are countless. And it always stems from one thing: inability to handle personal failure. It isn't the "opponent making moves" that is the problem, because that is clearly irrational. Go is good for people because it makes them face personal failure over and over again, for as long as they play it. Sadly, in an era where failure can (and will) almost always be blamed on external factors instead of oneself, most people can't cope with Go forcing them to reconcile that the failure comes from within. This is why the solution is always "play more, not less". Through playing more, rather than quitting, we can grow in emotional maturity, as we come to understand that failure is a natural and necessary part of progress.
Or, alternatively, we can choose a life where we are paralyzed by the stress of the simple act of an opponent in a game making moves that we don't like. But if we can't handle that, imagine all the other things we can't handle as well. In my opinion, that is a barrier worth overcoming.
@@helxis If the game isn't fun for someone any more, then why should they play?
@@helxis good grief. the guy's talking about how boring it is to play moves for 15-20 minutes and have to be vigilant against making a mistake when the game is essentially over. everybody who plays go knows exactly what he's talking about. in a huge number of my victories the graph shows me taking 99.9% win probability and it staying that way for 200 pointless moves. and in this game i saw dwryin's opponent get completely killed at the 20 minute mark and thought the video must nearly be over, then i see the opponent continues to play for 15 minutes for no reason.
now if i was in a tournament game i would say fine, it's a big occasion and i need to win the game and pay attention no matter what. but for a random online game i think this is bullshit and a waste of both my time and my opponent's since neither of us are learning. if he wins through such a method it's usually because i stopped paying attention.
your comment is really arrogant, presumptuous, and completely misses the point. why you need to act so superior i don't know, but you seem like the emotionally immature one here. maybe you're one of these very oafs who play out a 100-point loss to dame, and you just can't accept criticism of your own behaviour. if so, go to hell.
Shoulder hits, attachments, caps. Is the fourth thing pokes?
Peeps
Batts is tremendous. He just beat a 5 kyu with no joseki, no tesuji, and no reading. He makes it look so easy. The difference between him and us mortals is that although we often see the same "best" moves, it's hard to tell if we should play those moves or certain sub-optimal ones that more directly solve immediate issues. So all these micro decisions add up and lead to what looks like an easy win. I'm an SDK and would have only played a few moves differently, but it would have made a huuuuge difference in the result of the game.
ig we just gotta look for shape. I'll try it out
I'm not a basics purist; if the game tells you to kill something, then do it. (For who are we to question our natural urges?) But seriously, I don't get the detractors who claim that killing something somehow diminishes the quality of a game's "basic value". That hasn't ever made sense to me--newsflash to the haters: things die all the time in kyu-level games.
I think the idea is more that Dwyrin shouldn’t HUNT groups, especially of weaker players
How does it help a 7 kyu to watch a 7-8 dan player use some crazy tesuji and deep reading to kill a group?
@@jacksonfitzsimmons4253 I don't think that happens. Dwyrin usually doesn't play crazy moves to kill things in basic games. He might play a tricky life+death sequence to keep something that's "rightfully dead" dead. At that point, you might ask, "how does he recognize something as dead?" And it's usually just some combination of being surrounded and not having enough space to live. It's usually not some crazy deep reading sequence.
@@alexandersanchez9138 I agree! He doesn’t do that in Basics. I was just trying to explain the principle behind the “no killing in basics” rule.
If an opponent offers up their group on a silver platter, even a 12 kyu will grab it. Dwyrin should too
@@jacksonfitzsimmons4253 Ah, I see. That makes sense.
@@alexandersanchez9138 He's also attempting to demonstrate the principles behind attacking, which suggest you don't need to kill something in order to profit off of its life enough to make sure that you win the game.
So I think it's more accurately stated as "find every way possible to profit off the life of your opponent's groups" as opposed to "avoid killing if at all possible."
Most kyu players try to kill things that should live instead of trying to profit off of their life. That's why they're kyus. So it makes sense that in a basic game, dwyrin would actively put into practice the opposite habit, so we can see what attacking should be all about.
9:50 Extending up at K15 is the only move that really surprised and confused me. I would have played, instinctively, the hane at J17. Which I'm guessing would be considerably less good. Can anyone give a bit of insight here?
+
I have a question regarding pandanet I've been playing on for years now... I'm 8k+ atm thanks to Dwyrin's "basics" with over 200 games on my only current main account, I've been playing just very occasionally but for over 10 years now. But what really puzzles me is I'm almost always facing people my level but with over 20.000 games or even 50.000... Are these real people? They seem to play like humans, but why are they stuck at say 9-8k with over 50.000 games? I seriously can't understand this... Isn't that over 30 thousand hours of GO?... If I had anywhere near that amount of games played I'd be way over 3k probably over 1d... Ofcourse I can't be sure but I steadily improve... That I know as a fact. Anyways, I think you understand my question... ^^;?
In every game there are players who have played an insane number of games but never improve.
I guess russian hackers are the guys who moved Dwyrin's camera. Aren't they?
🐙
I'm interested to see how easy it is to surround without killing in today's meta, when players will send in a lone stone against an army like Rambo at the drop of a hat.
Eventually you have to just call them on the absurdity, right? But I've seen you declare "No, I'm not killing this stone, it was already dead when my opponent played it" before, so I guess that works.
A fundamental part of Go is the life and death of groups. If we cannot threaten to (or successfully) kill groups, then the game becomes degenerate. That being said, in many cases, one can win this game by simply threatening to kill a group, rather than actually killing it. At kyu levels, it is very often enough to even just ignore slow moves and simply claim points. Of course, this requires the ability to understand what is "slow" and why.