3 kind of play-styles

The power-type, the option-type and the allrounder-type The allrounder type (probably) player 8 dan Inseong

The Power type player Jonas Welticke 4dan On the left the optional type and allrounder Volkmar Liebscher 3dan These 3 types have advantages as well as disadvantages inside their prospectiv rankings. In the long run playing go, normally many go players become the allrounder style, but there are many who never change their style, even after becoming real strong. For example the calm style of Yi Changho, which depends on calculating and calm observing, as well as waiting for a possible mistake of the opponent, which can be said to be an allrounder type. For example Lee Sedol can be said to be a power type among the pro players. That is because his opening seems to be lacking in strength against the other players, but with creativity and reading power, he can change most of his games to his favour. At last but not least, there is Hayashi Kozo, who is really famous among amateur players. He is a pro which  belongs to the option type class player. He has a wide range of knowledge to choose from and is using that against his opponents. He uses a simple but effectiv step by step play, which containts almost no risks for playing, when he is winning. These are the 3 types and many of you will aready  have the question:" why do I say something so obvious ?" For answering this question I have to say first, that many didn´t notice their own style or try to change it. There are many as well which say it is not like i said but it´s divided into aggressive playing, calm(flexible) playing and safe playing. But if you just go with that, there is bound to be trouble. Because what is a power type player to do without using his power because he is playing safe or a flexible player who isn´t playing flexibel or a aggressive player who can play solide but isn´t doing it, just because it isn´t his playing style. There is also the case of knowing your own weakness to overcome with this type of analyses which is better than the emotional analyses. That is because if one says during a review don´t be greedy or this was too aggressiv (which can al be true  of course), it doesn´t give you very much after the review for the next game. It will help you understand why you played the mistake in your game, but it will not necessary help you with your next game the information about the emotional analyses. I think it´s more important to see the mistake itself (not in personality or style) but in the situation analyses itself (for example thhe focus was globaly on the board and still the answer was wrong). Then it will almost for sure mean that the analyses was wrong during the game or that the player didn´t knew that something could happen. If the player knows one has to play there to protect the group to safely win the game, but didn´t see it, then it´s different from beiing greedy. As well if one didn´t count then the chance is high that one didn´t knew that the points are not enough as one defended his territory (maybe even did one move more to protect even though there was nothing). That´s why instead of the generaly known emotional type analyses i want to suggest the capability analyses to be used more often. That´s of course only how I see it and doesn´t mean that i don´t see usefullness in the first meant analyses but for me the one (not sure if it existed before) but myself invented analyses is at least for me more usefull. Please try it our yourself and give feedback on this blog with kind regards Yunyuki Kirigaya