Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
Go Back - Game 2 http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3099 |
Page 3 of 5 |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
White prevents a double wing. High because I feel like it. |
Author: | cyclops [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
I don't like W's reply to my B13. W's double wing needs to be invaded before he perfects his moyo. But if B invades at c14, W@c15 will make him heavy with too little space to extend comfortably. B will get a weak group. To prevent W's double wing I goback. Next B a & b are miai. |
Author: | EdLee [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:29 am ] |
Post subject: | |
As this is my first Go Back experience, please let me know if I cannot undo. I revert back to R10 -- my reasons are below: (1) at R10 is a good move. It is the correct direction from B's upper right shimari, and it is a big point. cyclops wrote: I don't like W's reply to my B13. (2) Notice "B13" is also a co-ordinate on the board (x), so it is ambiguous. is more clear.(3) at K16 is not a problem for B. It is a big point, a normal opening move. cyclops wrote: W's double wing needs to be invaded before he perfects his moyo. (4) Yes and No -- Yes, it's good if B does something about W's double wing.No, W cannot "perfect" his moyo in 1 move, so it's not as bad as cyclops thinks. cyclops wrote: But if B invades at c14, W@c15 will make him heavy with too little space to extend comfortably. B will get a weak group. (5) I disagree. Here's why: yes, the 2-space jump to is a bit inefficient for B,but this is still reasonable because B is invading (after getting the big point ), and the resulting B group is not very heavy and not very weak; it is OK. This result is reasonable for both B and W: cyclops wrote: To prevent W's double wing I goback. (6) Your approach at F17 is also a big move and is playable. But I prefer the original at R10 for the reasons above. |
Author: | perceval [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
This game seems really interesting, lots of discussion. I doubt it will go very far because design by consensus is terribly slow (i live in Switerland ... ), but i will learn for sure. I will not go back on Ed Lees move but i wondered after trying to play R10 at move 11 if couldnt be high ? (ie @Q10 instead of R10 ?) i like Loons suggestion of a bit of kibitz before an undo to avoid strings of undos in the future. |
Author: | EdLee [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
perceval wrote: if couldnt be high ? (ie @Q10 instead of R10 ?) Yes, is also playable high at Q10, but I prefer low at R10 because of the cash:there's no giant moyo anywhere -- 3/4 of the board is cash: upper right, lower left, bottom, lower right -- so, just take cash. |
Author: | nagano [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
I suggest we continue the game with sgf, it's a lot easier. [sgf-full](;CA[hz-gb-2312]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]MULTIGOGM[1] ;B[qd];W[dd];B[oc];W[qo];B[dp];W[pq];B[kq];W[cn];B[fp];W[bp];B[cq];W[ck];B[qj];W[jd] (;B[cf]LB[cc:A]C[Can we agree to continue with EdLee's move here? The only other option I see here is A, and that doesn't look promising to me.]) (;B[cc];W[cd];B[dc];W[ec];B[eb];W[fc];B[fb];W[gc];B[bd];W[be];B[bc];W[cf] (;B[oj];W[fj]C[This seems unacceptable.]) (;B[dj];W[dk];B[fj];W[ek];B[fh];W[gl]C[To me this seems better for white.])))[/sgf-full] |
Author: | cyclops [ Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
There is a Many Universes theory in physics saying that at every instant every universe splits into every possible future. All these universe then lives next to each other. Well I am not going to be stubborn and split the game into two parallel ones. Ed's reasons now make me feel at ease with R13. |
Author: | cyclops [ Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:48 am ] | ||
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 | ||
nagano wrote: I suggest we continue the game with sgf, it's a lot easier. OK, though I am not a big fan of your preferred method. To speed up I added the 3 "obvious" next moves. I am not sure playing sequences is acceptable in Goback. So if you dislike pls go back. [sgf-full]http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=1020[/sgf-full] As a child I always played chess against myself. Mostly I won.
|
Author: | nagano [ Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
I agree with that sequence, but will leave it for others to object if so desired. Certainly other moves can be considered. |
Author: | topazg [ Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
FWIW, I would have been in favour of this reduction: |
Author: | nagano [ Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
@topazg Interesting move, certainly worth considering. How would you respond after the diagonal contact? |
Author: | perceval [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
it is already super hard to know what is the actual position... Topazg you are proposing an alternative to the game, but not an actual "go back" is that correct ? |
Author: | topazg [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:48 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
These were the moves I'd been considering: The second one is kinda awkward though. @perceval: I guess one of the GoBack's got rejected on the basis of this general sequence being unacceptable - so this _might_ trigger a correction, even though that hadn't really been my intent when I posted. |
Author: | nagano [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
I mostly agree with that sequence, but as white in both cases I would double hane, and in the first diagram I would play black 33 a point closer to the weaker group. I think white solidifies too much territory then. |
Author: | topazg [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
nagano wrote: I mostly agree with that sequence, but as white in both cases I would double hane, and in the first diagram I would play black 33 a point closer to the weaker group. I think white solidifies too much territory then. Hmmm, double hane does look better in the first one. However, I would still rather take Black here: In the second one, there's no double hane: If White's going to have a wall like that, neutralising it with a living group and hopefully some central influence feels fine - Black's position in the top right is very good, the lower left looks fine, and White's lost the majority of his development potential - he's got cash, but it doesn't have huge prospects for becoming a lot more cash - am I mis-evaluating here? |
Author: | nagano [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:50 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
I'm sorry, I should have clarified, and I looked too quickly at your second diagram, assuming it was starting with the same move. What I meant was: For that matter, I don't think the attachment works at all: I think this is too hard to deal with. |
Author: | topazg [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
nagano wrote: I'm sorry, I should have clarified, and I looked too quickly at your second diagram, assuming it was starting with the same move. What I meant was: Ah, yes, no problem, I don't Black can extend in this direction at all. nagano wrote: For that matter, I don't think the attachment works at all: I think this is too hard to deal with. I agree, this does look severe. |
Author: | cyclops [ Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
perceval wrote: it is already super hard to know what is the actual position... Topazg you are proposing an alternative to the game, but not an actual "go back" is that correct ? Time to decide. Do we proceed from here or is there someone (Topasz?) going back? |
Author: | nagano [ Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 |
[sgf-full](;CA[hz-gb-2312]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]MULTIGOGM[1] ;B[qd];W[dd];B[oc];W[qo];B[dp];W[pq];B[kq];W[cn];B[fp];W[bp];B[cq];W[ck];B[qj];W[jd] (;B[cf]LB[cc:A]C[nagano\:Can we agree to continue with EdLee's move here? The only other option I see here is A, and that doesn't look promising to me.] ;W[ce]) (;B[cc];W[cd];B[dc];W[ec];B[eb];W[fc];B[fb];W[gc];B[bd];W[be];B[bc];W[cf] (;B[oj];W[fj]C[nagano\: This seems unacceptable.]) (;B[dj];W[dk];B[fj];W[ek];B[fh];W[gl]C[nagano\: To me this seems better for white.])))[/sgf-full] I believe the other path was intended to be a side note. |
Author: | cyclops [ Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:20 pm ] | ||
Post subject: | Re: Go Back - Game 2 move 17 | ||
[sgf-full]http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=1029[/sgf-full] Otherwise white will play there and have a favourable exchange.
|
Page 3 of 5 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |