Comment to 7: Important in Go, as in real life, is that taking the most recent change way more into account than reasonable is very easy to happen, and most times a very bad thing to do. (I think this may not be clear for non-players from the description.)
Beginners (that includes me) usually have a model of the game, see the opponent’s move, and concentrate 90% (or more) of their thinking time a few points around the move. It’s similar to the priming problem, and it’s similar to how our emotional state is influenced by things that just happened, whereas everything in the past gets more and more muddled up.
And I’m too lazy to pull out the corresponding links.
Yes, exactly. An example to hopefully resolve any remaining ambiguity
Usually you know what has been the last move of the opponent. On the computer, the last move is usually marked with a circle on the stone, in live play you see it being set, and most (all?) rule-sets require your opponent to point out the last move when asked.
When using something like a play-by-mail server (like DGS), it is easy enough to forget the board position between each move. One could write a script to replace the marked stone with the circle by a standard-stone, without any markings.
To decide on the next move then you have to evaluate the board as a whole. As Go is a full-information game, and the chronological ordering of the moves is irrelevant to the strength and function of any stone on the board, this is at it should be.
However, as like most beginners, when I play there I look for the circle, and place my move in the neighborhood. Bad.
As a player on DGS, I’m pretty sure it does mark your last move and also your opponent’s move.
(I do much the same thing. I sometimes ask Gnu Go for its opinion on a turn, and am routinely surprised by when it suggests playing somewhere far from the last few plays.)
Comment to 7: Important in Go, as in real life, is that taking the most recent change way more into account than reasonable is very easy to happen, and most times a very bad thing to do. (I think this may not be clear for non-players from the description.)
Beginners (that includes me) usually have a model of the game, see the opponent’s move, and concentrate 90% (or more) of their thinking time a few points around the move. It’s similar to the priming problem, and it’s similar to how our emotional state is influenced by things that just happened, whereas everything in the past gets more and more muddled up.
And I’m too lazy to pull out the corresponding links.
Do you mean the idea of “playing away”? eg. focusing on the global rather than the local situation?
Yes, exactly. An example to hopefully resolve any remaining ambiguity
Usually you know what has been the last move of the opponent. On the computer, the last move is usually marked with a circle on the stone, in live play you see it being set, and most (all?) rule-sets require your opponent to point out the last move when asked.
When using something like a play-by-mail server (like DGS), it is easy enough to forget the board position between each move. One could write a script to replace the marked stone with the circle by a standard-stone, without any markings.
To decide on the next move then you have to evaluate the board as a whole. As Go is a full-information game, and the chronological ordering of the moves is irrelevant to the strength and function of any stone on the board, this is at it should be.
However, as like most beginners, when I play there I look for the circle, and place my move in the neighborhood. Bad.
As a player on DGS, I’m pretty sure it does mark your last move and also your opponent’s move.
(I do much the same thing. I sometimes ask Gnu Go for its opinion on a turn, and am routinely surprised by when it suggests playing somewhere far from the last few plays.)