Kirby's Study Journal

Bill Spight · **#481**

Magicwand wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

We usually agree about these things, but not here. The keima is more solid, but I think that the high ogeima is appropriate, especially considering that White is behind.

after careful reconsideration, i cannot agree with you because of group on the bottom. Once black attacks the white group on the bottom... spiderweb influence will not hold. For that reason i like solid moves.

remember that i said it is better than previous, it doesnt mean that it is the optimal.
My feeling is that white has to play bottom to secure it's two eyes.

Oh, we agree that the bottom side is urgent.

Bill Spight · **#482**

Kirby wrote:

I was thinking about this a little bit more. Maybe it's not impossible to learn more about the "unknown unknowns" that I have. For example, there some areas of go that I simply don't study much. Endgame is a good example. In fact, probably the only areas that I really study are:

* Go problems (tsumego and tesuji)
* Joseki (sometimes)
* Opening patterns (once in awhile)

If I never study anything else, it probably accounts for some of the "unknown unknowns" that I have. I can try to figure out if I made a reading mistake, for example, but what about all of the areas that I don't study?

I have been wondering about unknown unknowns and how to study on one's own, as well. There are series, like Sakata's Killer of Go series, that are fairly comprehensive. Interestingly, in that series Sakata groups tsumego and yose together, but that is traditional (see the Guanzi Pu). Recently I ran across something by Suzuki, Kitani's teacher, about studying go, in which he emphasizes three areas which are similar to your list. They are 1) life and death, 2) making territory, and 3) shape and tesuji. These areas are fairly broad. For instance, under life and death Suzuki includes ladders and nets. Making territory includes the opening and the endgame. I expect it includes making territory in the middle game, as well.

In a more advanced series Sakata has a whole book on sacrifice. I don't know how Suzuki classifies that.

Here is a link to Suzuki's book on go instruction: http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1117853

He also wrote a multi-volume set on studying go by yourself. The Japanese National Diet online Library has two of those volumes. Here is a link: http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1102567

Kirby · **#483**

Thanks, Bill. Very cool that the books are so accessible. Maybe that kind of study plan could be effective.

Kirby · **#484**

Well, it is Friday night. I play go on Fridays - at least I usually do. But I didn't play a game today. I feel down about losing on Tuesday, and I feel like it might carry on to today.

Instead, I've been feeling a bit introspective tonight... Why does it still bother me today that I lost on Tuesday? Well, maybe I could naively say that it's because I played a poor quality game. My play had several mistakes, and it's embarrassing. But is that really why? If I think a little further back, I posted a game where I played very poorly and basically lost against a 2d on KGS, but he resigned at the end for some odd reason. Did I feel depressed about that game? Maybe briefly, but I also felt happy to "win", and went on to play games after that.

If I am completely honest with myself, the difference between these cases is that I am sad that I passed the 2d mark, then went back down. And now it feels like I will continue to be stuck at KGS 1d - just as always.

---
Motivation
So the sad truth is that my motivation is based on rank. I have "studied" recently, but the main motivation has been to get to 2d on KGS. And my motivation has not been strong. The last time I remember studying hard at go was also due to rank, and it was when I jumped from about 4k to 1d on KGS.

In other words, rank has always been a motivator for me. And after hitting "1d", I suspect that there is some loss of motivation in achieving higher dan levels, since I have crossed the arbitrary kyu/dan line. Perhaps this explains why I have been stuck at my current level for so long. Where is my motivation?

I could set another goal based on rank to get more motivated. But can I convince myself that being 2d on KGS instead of 1d is worthy of the work and dedication needed to purposefully study?

I suspect that, if I am to acquire a higher level in go - if I am to become "unstuck", I need to find a solution to this motivation problem. But will I find such a reason, or such a motivation? :scratch:

xed_over · **#485**

Kirby wrote:

If I am completely honest with myself, the difference between these cases is that I am sad that I passed the 2d mark, then went back down. And now it feels like I will continue to be stuck at KGS 1d - just as always.

---
Motivation
So the sad truth is that my motivation is based on rank.
...

I suspect that, if I am to acquire a higher level in go - if I am to become "unstuck", I need to find a solution to this motivation problem. But will I find such a reason, or such a motivation? :scratch:

You need to quit following your rank, and let your rank follow your progress.

consider this... imagine if you only played much stronger players, and you lost every game -- expectedly, right? Then your rank would go down, as its based solely on win/loss records, but I dare say your skill level would go up, as you are likely learning and improving in every game. But for your rising skill level to be reflected in your rank, you have to again play against lower level players again and win.

The point is, stop chasing rank, and just let it track your history. Its a record of where you've been, not who you are or where you're going. Your rank doesn't define you.

Don't look at the rank of your opponents -- you shouldn't "expect" to win or lose based on if their rank when its better or worse than yours. Anyone can play several stones above their current rank in a given game -- it just means making fewer mistakes this time, right? Besides, maybe their ranks have been drifting and aren't accurate either

Otherwise you defeat yourself psychologically before you even start

As a fan of the game, the sport, I love watching the games in the Open sections, where you'll often have players ranked 3 to 4 stones weaker than the top players, all playing even games against each other. And I've seen many, many "unexpected upsets", because they're playing their own best game, not their opponent's rank. (Or maybe their opponent slacked off a bit and made some mistakes because they thought it was going to be an easy game because of the rank difference)

Kirby · **#486**

xed_over wrote:

You need to quit following your rank, and let your rank follow your progress.

consider this... imagine if you only played much stronger players, and you lost every game -- expectedly, right? Then your rank would go down, as its based solely on win/loss records, but I dare say your skill level would go up, as you are likely learning and improving in every game. But for your rising skill level to be reflected in your rank, you have to again play against lower level players again and win.

The point is, stop chasing rank, and just let it track your history. Its a record of where you've been, not who you are or where you're going. Your rank doesn't define you.

Don't look at the rank of your opponents -- you shouldn't "expect" to win or lose based on if their rank when its better or worse than yours. Anyone can play several stones above their current rank in a given game -- it just means making fewer mistakes this time, right? Besides, maybe their ranks have been drifting and aren't accurate either

Otherwise you defeat yourself psychologically before you even start

As a fan of the game, the sport, I love watching the games in the Open sections, where you'll often have players ranked 3 to 4 stones weaker than the top players, all playing even games against each other. And I've seen many, many "unexpected upsets", because they're playing their own best game, not their opponent's rank. (Or maybe their opponent slacked off a bit and made some mistakes because they thought it was going to be an easy game because of the rank difference)

Your point is well taken, and commonly expressed on this forum: don't pay attention to rank - enjoy go for what it is.
In my opinion, however, it's idealistic. Of course rank is just a number, and of course it's not always accurate. And of course, finding your happiness from rank isn't a good way to find lasting happiness (unless you're 9d, perhaps).

But what I'm getting at is a matter of motivation. Rank, albeit sometimes inaccurate, provides a numerical measurement of ability. If the goal is to improve in ability, this metric can be used as a form of motivation.

Perhaps it's possible to be motivated in other ways, but no other metric that I'm aware of provides as clear of an indicator of progress.

So, while it may seem shallow, I think that for now, my motivation will continue to be based on rank.

Kirby · **#487**

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living". For some reason, this quote came to mind the other day. He didn't say that the unexamined life was worse than the examined life. He said that the unexamined life was not worth living.

I thought about this for awhile, and also about the concerns I have had about motivation. In the process, I formulated my own expression: The unexamined game is not worth playing.

These days, I have wondered about my motivation in go. What motivates me? Why am I interested in this game. Why should I spend time studying?

I realized that sometimes, I have been going through the motions. I crack open the tsumego book, whip through some problems. I play out a pro game, without much energy. And during some games, I get to a tricky spot, and don't want to think about it much - "meh, that's kind of confusing what will happen if I play there. I won't bother thinking too far ahead. This feels like an 'ok' move".

This is not motivating. In fact, if I play go this way, and study this way, the games I play are not worth playing, and the problems I study are not worth studying.

But if I examine moves - think carefully about them. And put effort into them... The more I do that - the more it *is* worth playing. And the more it *is* worth studying.

Truly examined games are truly worth playing. And truly examined problems are worth studying. Carelessness is not worth the "effort".

This is the conclusion I've come to. And this is what motivates me.

---

So, I'm back! I whipped up the game offers on KGS, and started off against another 1d. We played out about 20 moves, and he accidentally died, so he resigned. I won't review the game here, because there is not much to review.

Then, I played against KGS 2d. I lost this game. But I feel happy. I still feel motivated. There are two reasons:
1. I tried harder than I have been recently. I made a very bad reading mistake about the status of his life in the corner, which could have cost me the game. But despite this big mistake, for many moves in the game, I tried hard. Maybe I just tried too hard to kill him.

2. I think I had a good chance of winning, if I had simply cut his group and kept half of it. He would have lived with part of his group, but killing the center part would be enough to win, I think.

Anyway, here is my review.

I will post diagrams later, but for now, I have to spend some time with my wife.

---

It feels good to be motivated once more.

SoDesuNe · **#488**

Just a quick comment about the opening.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Probe $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . a b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

As far as I remember :b1:

is considered a probe (though my terminology here could be off) and there is actually a huge difference between 'a' and 'b'.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Chinese-Kobayashi variant 1 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . 7 . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 5 . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

If White plays low, Black takes the chinese framework because he can answer the pincer with the sequence through :b9:

(exact move order might be off but the shoulder-hit at :b9:

is essential!).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Chinese-Kobayashi variant 2 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . a 3 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

If White plays high, Black "usually" (181/284 games, 'a' 61, 'b' 32, GoGoD Summer 2012) takes the Kobayashi Fuseki because a pincer is much more severe with :w2:

(no shoulder-hit to make shape).

Allowing White F4 is much too painful.

Kirby · **#489**

Allowing F4 was a variation Inseong covered, and the response was to play as in the game - so I think F4 must be possible, at least when white responds low. Not 100% sure if it's still ok when white plays high, as in the game.

Uberdude · **#490**

I think very few professionals would allow f4, and if they did would likely play k4 at l4 to stay away from thickness.

Like sodesune said, the high answer means the fight is much harder so tenuki to chinese is ill advised. But his continuation with the low was wrong, black should counter pincer before running. You can search pro games for common continuations or check Kin Sung Rae's New Openings book vol 3.

Bill Spight · **#491**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm5 Delayed Chinese $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . a . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

I think that go is too wide to say that Black cannot tenuki after :w6:

. After

the tachi at "a" is unappetizing, as it is heavy, inviting a pincer. OTOH, if White plays at "a", the exchange, :b5:

- Wa, is bad for Black. What to do?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm9 A Kikashi before Dying $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 4 . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . c . O B 5 a . 3 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . 2 1 b . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

The kikashi exchange, :b9:

-

, followed by :b11:

(or maybe the star point), presents a dilemma to White. If White allows Black to play at 12, then :b11:

is the ideal extension from the two stones, but if White plays :w12:

,

makes a base for :b11:

, and threatens to make an eye at "b", as well; and then Black threatens to invade at "c". :b9:

has prevented White from making the descent to 9 in this variation. If instead of :w12:

, White invades at "a", Black can sacrifice :bc:

and

. (I picked up the hane, :b9:

, from Go Seigen.)

Kirby · **#492**

Uberdude wrote:

I think very few professionals would allow f4, and if they did would likely play k4 at l4 to stay away from thickness.

I don't know about the books you mention, but this variation was one that In-seong specifically covered:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 7 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 6 . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

He said he felt black was fast, and covering the board, so it works alright. Another example he's used is something like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . 7 . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 1 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

In the sequence above, he said he cannot prove that black is better. White has solid points in the corner, for example, and black has no definite points.

But he said black is better in his opinion, because he is faster, playing the whole board.

I think he means the same thing with this variation:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 7 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 6 . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

That being said, if I were white, I guess I do like it a little better if white is high, as here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 7 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 6 . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

---

But at least with the diagram given, it's something In-seong specifically covered. Maybe you don't agree, since white is so thick in the bottom left, and since you didn't see it in pro games.

But at least I felt OK about the opening in my game (in my opinion, things fell apart a bit later, as I noted in the variation).

Kirby · **#493**

Uberdude wrote:

...check Kin Sung Rae's New Openings book vol 3.

By the way, do you think these type of books have been helpful to you in your game?

Uberdude · **#494**

Kirby wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

I think very few professionals would allow f4, and if they did would likely play k4 at l4 to stay away from thickness.

I don't know about the books you mention, but this variation was one that In-seong specifically covered:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 7 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 6 . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 1 . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

He said he felt black was fast, and covering the board, so it works alright. Another example he's used is something like this:
<snip>

But at least with the diagram given, it's something In-seong specifically covered. Maybe you don't agree, since white is so thick in the bottom left, and since you didn't see it in pro games.

But at least I felt OK about the opening in my game (in my opinion, things fell apart a bit later, as I noted in the variation).

That variation with k4 and the lower answer bottom left has been played once professionally (in ps.waltheri.net database) by Cao Dayuan 9p in 2000. He lost. L4 has been played 14 times with 46 % win (including Cao Dayuan again in 1999, 2000 and 2001, and other esteemed players like Ma Xiaochun several times). I think there is a big difference between Inseong saying some move is okay for a bunch of kyu or low dan players in a lesson, and actually him engaging his full 8d power and analysing a position deeply and studying professional games. Did any students question k4 and suggest L4 might actually be better? If this happened and he thought about it and said "No, k4 is better than L4" then that would be significant, but my guess is it wasn't mentioned. I could even believe Inseong might play k4 against me with not much thought and for a brief moment I would have a tiny advantage against him, but if he played a stronger opponent maybe he would give it more thought.

Kirby wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

...check Kin Sung Rae's New Openings book vol 3.

By the way, do you think these type of books have been helpful to you in your game?

Yes, even though it's in Korean which I can't read! (but you can I think?) Vols 1/2 are translated to English. This approach then Chinese (I call it the fighting Chinese) has been my black fuseki of choice the last few years.

Kirby · **#495**

From my perspective, there are two ways of convincing myself that a particular line of play is right or wrong:

1. Appeal to authority - Personally, I am more convinced by a high level player that can explain his/her reasoning to me than by a game database. Even if a game database has thousands of games, there are many more positions in the game of go, so the room for error in drawing statistical conclusions is usually high, especially for less common positions.
The fact that you found an example of the "bad" play, even if he lost, is evidence to me that it's playable. In general, I'll take advice from a high level teacher over a game database, until the sample size in game databases is much higher.

2. Thinking for myself - Aside from advice for anybody, my own feeling from thinking for myself is:
* It is locally painful to tenuki after white's kick. White is very thick, and it makes invasion around the bottom left more difficult. White has a lot of potential on the left.
* If black tenukis and plays around the board, black has made a good position on the top and right sides. Black needs to benefit from the framework enough to compensate the profit white has gotten in the bottom left.

Uberdude wrote:

I think there is a big difference between Inseong saying some move is okay for a bunch of kyu or low dan players in a lesson, and actually him engaging his full 8d power and analysing a position deeply and studying professional games.

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. I have no reason to believe it is, except for what you've told me. But he is my teacher, so until I am strong enough to have reason to doubt, I will trust his advice. For me personally, a database analysis isn't enough to provide such reason. If anything, it'd have to come from category #2, above.

For what it's worth, In-seong also provided some variations where black responded to the kick :-)

Uberdude wrote:

Yes, even though it's in Korean which I can't read! (but you can I think?) Vols 1/2 are translated to English. This approach then Chinese (I call it the fighting Chinese) has been my black fuseki of choice the last few years.

Thanks for the tip. Maybe I should consider reading these books. I'll see if I can find out where to buy them.

Uberdude · **#496**

I'm not saying that k4 is unplayable. It's perfectly playable. If it is bad, which I believe so, it probably is less than half a point (for whatever scant meaning such metrics can be assigned to uncountable positions). When I say L4 is better I am striving to find the totally optimal moves, better than the mistakes pros sometimes makes. Yes those stats don't prove L4 is better, but 14 hits to 1 certainly says to me you should think about L4 seriously.

Uberdude · **#497**

Kirby wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

I think there is a big difference between Inseong saying some move is okay for a bunch of kyu or low dan players in a lesson, and actually him engaging his full 8d power and analysing a position deeply and studying professional games.

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. I have no reason to believe it is, except for what you've told me.

I remember when I was in BIBA and getting On Sojin 7p to review some of my OGS games he could usually go through them quickly going "ok, ok, ok, ok, oh wait that direction looks dodgy or that shape is wrong" with little thought on his part, just relying on his intuition and experience. However there were a few times when we got to a position and he felt I was in a bad position but had been going "ok, ok, ok" before. He then put on his thinking cap and actually started reading like he would in a real game of his and would find some little mistake he'd skimmed over before or come up with some very clever long tactical sequence that wasn't just the 90% good enough moves that are usually ok for amateur reviews where the big mistakes throw away the game, but actually trying to find the 100% moves.

Kirby · **#498**

Uberdude wrote:

I remember when I was in BIBA and getting On Sojin 7p to review some of my OGS games he could usually go through them quickly going "ok, ok, ok, ok, oh wait that direction looks dodgy or that shape is wrong" with little thought on his part, just relying on his intuition and experience. However there were a few times when we got to a position and he felt I was in a bad position but had been going "ok, ok, ok" before. He then put on his thinking cap and actually started reading like he would in a real game of his and would find some little mistake he'd skimmed over before or come up with some very clever long tactical sequence that wasn't just the 90% good enough moves that are usually ok for amateur reviews where the big mistakes throw away the game, but actually trying to find the 100% moves.

Sure. But this seems a bit different than a variation in a prepared lecture. I doubt that a teacher would add bad variations to explain an opening, just to water it down for kyu players.

It's possible that In-seong, or other teachers, might give variations that are simple, give a pretty good result, but maybe aren't optimal. I recall a few lectures from Kim Seongryong where he'd give refutations to trick plays. He'd often give a simple response, that would give you a decent result, and then give the "best" response, which was more complicated.

As In-seong gave multiple variations in the lecture, that could be the case here, too. I'll have to watch the video again.

For what it's worth, 14 hits to 1 in a game database *could* be indicative of a problem in the "1" pro's strategy, but it could also simply be that that "1" pro had a unique strategy.

Imagine, for example, the first time that the micro-Chinese opening was played. Take a snapshot of the database at that time, and there would be only 1 hit for that opening. Of course, that opening got fashionable, and now pros play it all the time. But if it hadn't - let's say the first guy to play it lost - then, we'd have to assume it is a bad opening, given the database stats.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I can see that it is a bit of a burden for black when white gets so strong in the bottom left - I felt this during my game. Is it worth the fact that black got to play quickly around the board, and get a pretty good position on the top and on the right? I don't know for sure. But the DB stats alone don't make me feel bad about it.

Uberdude · **#499**

Kirby wrote:

Sure. But this seems a bit different than a variation in a prepared lecture. I doubt that a teacher would add bad variations to explain an opening, just to water it down for kyu players.

When I said bad I meant in comparison to L4. K4 is a good move, but L4 is better. If I played every move in a game as 'badly' as K4 I would be stronger than 4d.

Kirby wrote:

For what it's worth, 14 hits to 1 in a game database *could* be indicative of a problem in the "1" pro's strategy, but it could also simply be that that "1" pro had a unique strategy.

Imagine, for example, the first time that the micro-Chinese opening was played. Take a snapshot of the database at that time, and there would be only 1 hit for that opening. Of course, that opening got fashionable, and now pros play it all the time. But if it hadn't - let's say the first guy to play it lost - then, we'd have to assume it is a bad opening, given the database stats.

Yes one has to think critically when interpreting database results, just as one should when listening to a lecture. That the 1 game with K4 lost doesn't mean K4 was bad. Maybe it led to a nice result and he screwed up later. But I do think it is significant that the pro who played it did L4 first, then tried K4, and then went back to L4. And that most of those other pros playing L4 were in 2000 and 2001 AFTER the one try of K4.

Kirby wrote:

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I can see that it is a bit of a burden for black when white gets so strong in the bottom left - I felt this during my game. Is it worth the fact that black got to play quickly around the board, and get a pretty good position on the top and on the right? I don't know for sure. But the DB stats alone don't make me feel bad about it.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. This would make sense if I was saying don't tenuki the kick but extend and fight (which personally I prefer, as do most pros). But I am saying if you want to tenuki and play a fast-paced development, it is better to play L4. Then you still get that fast development you want, but because L4 is closer to the lower right corner it is harder for white to separate it and use the thickness of the lower left effectively.

In case it is not clear, here is an example of how white can use that extra distance later. The 5th line move of 1 here poses black a difficult question, if he answers below it is rather passive and that exchange is helpful for white when approaching the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O X . . . . . 2 . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

But if black refuses to be meek and ignores to defend the corner, when white splits the K4 stone is rather weak, and white's group has some breathing space (a for eyes if needed for example) in front of the shimari.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O X . . . . 4 3 . a . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

If we compare this to the situation with L4, that fight is now rather less appealing for white as white's group is weaker and black's L4 is stronger.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . , X . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O X . . . . . 4 3 . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Bill Spight · **#500**

Kirby wrote:

Thinking for myself - Aside from advice for anybody, my own feeling from thinking for myself is:
* It is locally painful to tenuki after white's kick. White is very thick, and it makes invasion around the bottom left more difficult. White has a lot of potential on the left.
* If black tenukis and plays around the board, black has made a good position on the top and right sides. Black needs to benefit from the framework enough to compensate the profit white has gotten in the bottom left.

If I understand you correctly, here is where you might improve your way of thinking. You start with the feeling that tenuki would be painful. Your feelings are what they are, no problem with that, and they do and should guide your thinking. Go is not tictactoe.

FWIW, my feelings are somewhat different. Playing tachi would make me uneasy, because it is heavy. OTOH, allowing White to play F-04 is not attractive, either, because the exchange, B F-03 - W F-04, looks bad for Black. That is why I like the underneath hane, because it forestalls F-04 with sente.

In my view, then, White's thickness is not a reason to play in the bottom left, it is instead a reason not to play in the bottom left. Again, if I read you right, it seems like you want to butt heads with your opponent, to match strength with strength, to deny him profit if you can. There is a time for that, but I don't think that it is at move 7, as a rule. If your opponent makes profit, you can still win if you make more profit than he does. If you play where your opponent is strong, you are likely to make less profit that he does.

Your second point about having to gain more from your position elsewhere than your opponent has already gained is a truism. But the fact that you state it makes me think that you are casting doubt upon a good play, not because of the play itself, but because of the profit your opponent has already made. Pardon me if I am misreading you.

But if I am reading you correctly, the you would do better to regard your opponent's profit as water under the bridge (or blood under the bridge, in Edward Albee's phrase

). Has Black made a mistake up to :w8:

? Of course not. Then if White has profited from his plays, Black has profited at least as much. It may not be as obvious as White's profit, but that does not matter. Dismiss White's profit from your mind. Don't let it cloud your thinking.

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online