You must be logged in to post a reply. If you don't have an account, you can register.
|Guo Juan||If one stone is doing nothing, our game would not be that good. If two stones do nothing, our game looks bad. If more stones do nothing, we lose the game, or pray for our opponent to kill himself.
So it is better to put each of them in the perfect places. No stone may take a coffee break!
|chris||what efficient means really is the interesting question to me. Here is a list I am employing more or less in order of importance and I wonder if there is anything wrong with it or even missing.
1.) Take control of a corner
2.) Stabilise my own group(defense)
3.) Destabilise my opponents group(attack)
4.) Maintain terretorial balance by taking a big point or invasion/reduction
5.) Take control of the centre
A.) Good shape
I numbered A separately because imho it takes a special position as whenever acomplishing 1-5 a move that also acomplishes this, but in good shape is even better.
An efficient move is a move that accomplishes as many points as possible from this list.
So for example making a base for myself while taking away my opponents is 2&3; according to my list, this would be bigger than for example taking the last big point of the opening(4). The reason for this in my eyes would be that since the opponent now has a weak group, I would get a lot of moves where the opponent is more or less forced to answer and we direct the game in such a way that would make the big point he took less attractive(for example by enabling an invasion).
|jergarmar||I like your list, sockenbert. For me as a beginner, efficiency really reveals itself in comparison: when you can see that your opponent needed 5 stones to do what you did in 3.|
|goTree||just an idea, put point one inside point 4, taking the corner is a way of mking territory, of course if it also stabilizes a group or weakens the opponent all the better, by itself taking a corner is just taking territory, usually big territory but still territory|
Post a reply