Hey guys, sorry I haven't updated this journal more. I've been busy and whatnot, but I figured I should share stuff here since some go related things have happened in my life.

(It has been way too long since a post here. An internal critic needs to be able to vent every now and then.

Moyo has been neglecting his studies to some extent. Sure, he still reads on occasion, and every now and then he'll do a go problem, but he hasn't been playing games like he should. Even his club visits are lacking in games. I know he's got a life, but I feel I need to give him a push every now and then.

In my own way I do support him. I want him to become a dan level player, too.

The guy's a kyu, he makes lots of mistakes in his games. I like pointing these out because, let's face it, making fun of him is my job. And it's fun. He's made it too easy, though.

So I do want him to become a dan. That way his problems will be harder to see and it will actually give me a challenge. )

For my birthday I received 3 go books. All of them were from Hinoki Press. Up to this point, all of my books are Kiseido, so it is probably good to mix things up a bit. (Because a different publishing company is going to give you that much diversity. All the books are about go, how different can they truly be?) The books are: "The Art of Positional Analysis," "Shuko: The Only Move - Vol. 1," and "The Theory and Practice of Shapes." (You're about a 4 kyu currently... Aren't those books for dan players? )

These books are higher level than anything I've read before. ( ) The only book I've read that comes close to this level is "The Direction of Play," which was quite a challenge for me at 9 kyu. I have the book on extended loan to a friend of mine, but would like to get it back to see if I can take a second stab at it.

"Shapes" seems the easiest of the three, but the first chapter was very introductory. The first problem set was moderately difficult for me, we'll see if it gets harder.

"The Only Move" is an interesting book. I like the author's style so it will probably be a fun read, but it has been difficult for a kyu like me. My favorite problem so far is the third one. The answer is something that would have fit perfectly into "Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go." I remember reading the problem and thinking "Okay, Kageyama would probably say to play this, but the answer is probably this instead." Of course the right answer was exactly what I thought Kageyama would have played. (Is Kageyama your version of Sai or something? )

"The Art of Positional Analysis" is fascinating so far. I feel that I had a breakthrough moment when looking at the first game. (Oh, this ought to be good...)

The following position is one where Kobayashi said he spent about one hour trying to find an alternative to . That astonished me and made me realize just how important good reading is when you get into a tight spot. Don't just settle for letting your opponent do something bad to you, try to find another move even if, in the end, none appears. That, however, was not my breakthrough. I then looked at the board and wondered "Where will black play ?" While "Positional Analysis" is not a problem book, I did want to spend time on that move.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bm47 Kobayashi Koichi 9p (B) vs. Sonoda Yuichi 9p (W) - Oct. 1984
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . X . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . c . . . b . , X . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . 2 1 X X . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O O 3 . |
$$ | . . . O . . a . . . . . O X . O X . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . O . , . . . X . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After about a minute, I figured that the shoulder hit at 'a' would be a good move as it helps the only weak group on the board. It was then that I asked a new question. "Assuming white comes away with sente, where would he play?" The answer seemed obvious to me. White would play at 'b'. If black defends, white will block on the outside facing the center and he will have a massive box. This idea was presented earlier in the chapter. (Of course it was, you'd never be able to see a move like that...)

So I looked at that result and realized that white's move would be too good for white. So I changed my answer to 'c' and that, it turned out on the next page, was the move Kobayashi chose. In fact, he said it was the only move. "If Black allows white to play [the standard moves] then Black's access to the center is blocked, making White's moyo in the center quite large. White's advantage would grow greatly." (I thought you were reading "The Art of Positional Analysis" not "The Only Move" )

Sometimes sente feels like the enemy of every kyu player, because mishandling sente is how a kyu loses the game. I must remember to read beyond my opponent's local responses, because if I suddenly lose sente with an exchange, even if it is a good exchange, I might be giving my opponent a chance to do something even larger. That sounds stupidly obvious when I say it (Because it is stupidly obvious... ), but until reading for my opponent comes naturally to me I must keep reminding myself.

I want to build too much. I prefer to enclose a corner rather than approach. I prefer to defend before attacking. This is not always correct and I need to know when playing defensively is a mistake.

There is an idea in the opening: When you have more potential than your opponent, you build. When your opponent has more potential than you, you destroy. This would seem to also apply in the middle game. Black can help his stones, or maybe make a few points on the bottom, but it will not compare to white's result of playing on the top side first. Even though these moves do not build anything for black they are necessary. (So you're saying you like good moyo aji better than bad moyo aji? )

All in all, I look forward to reading each of these books. They are above my level, but if I want to reach above my level then I can't just read books meant for kyus. (You probably should also spend less time with the books and more times at the board. )

Also, speaking of books, my review of The Chinese Opening will be coming soon to the Book Reviews sub-forum. I just need to finish reading the end of the last chapter and then consolidate my final opinions. (Did you just acknowledge me? )

In other news, I updated my signature to a new Kageyama quote from "Lessons." (And now you're back to ignoring me...)

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Fight of My Life: One of My Most Intense Games

My heart is still pounding from this game. My opponent wanted to fight. And so we did.

My reading has never been so sharp or intense as in that fight on the bottom side. I would have crumbled several months ago. Tonight, I triumphed.



I failed on the top right to save my group. I was so frazzled that I played solidly instead of the more obvious R5 move. I paused at that. Looking at the time, it was only about a 20 second pause, but it felt much longer. I think it was the adrenaline. (Playing go like this gives you that much of an adrenaline boost? You need to get out more. )

Following that realization I started to do a bit better. At I paused for a full minute, analyzing all 6 groups hanging in the balance of this conflict. (You sure it's only six? I'd count 9 groups, but I guess you didn't take time to read their fate.)

I'm sure I made a mistake somewhere, but I felt my opponent was asking for way to much and I called him on it. I don't know if is a tesuji or not, but it looked good to me and my opponent had to back off. The bamboo joint formed by this forcing move ended up being game winning for me. (You think you came up with an original tesuji without having it printed in a book for you? Yeah, right. If you came up with a tesuji then I'm the real Batman. )

My sense of shape has improved greatly since I completed the chapter on shapes in "Tesuji" and since I stared to look at shape more seriously with my study of the book "The Theory and Practice of Shapes." The first chapter alone taught me a lot more about shape than I realized. in particular is a move I would not have played without reading those books. And just compare the shapes of both sides after move . Black has no less than 4 empty triangles and 0 eye shape. I, on the other hand, have plenty of shape. (Well, I guess maybe those books are helping you on the board after all... )

Black needed to let me capture at . From on the game was a one-way path to black's resignation. He tried too hard to kill my stones and it cost him the game.

I'm back to 3 kyu with this game, and I feel that I am stronger. I will get in a few more games. I will be able to make my 3 kyu rank official soon. And I will press on toward 1 dan. (Bold words. I can't wait to see you fail to back them up. )

Something is different. My go playing is different. Let's see what happens.

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Congratulations!

Just a quick question. Why do you think that R-05 is obvious for ?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

If my signature could be longer than 255 characters, it would be this:
"The reason so many people never master this elementary skill [of nets and ladders] is that they keep ignoring it as being beneath them. They are the people who cannot be bothered to 'read'; who try to capture the uncapturable group because it just looks as if it can be done or because they can muddle through somehow, and so they rush headlong into disaster. They are also the people who, when they face a slightly stronger opponent, do not try to capture the capturable group because with their fuzzy reading they are afraid of messing it up; who innocently add unnecessary stones to their own already alive groups; who take fright without cause; who tremble when they sit down at the go board; who play through the whole game with a sullen expression; who lose every fight; who eventually come to hate go. Sorry wretches, through choice they have abandoned the most interesting and enjoyable of all games." - Kageyama Toshiro

(I think people posting walls of text like that is why your signature is limited. )

This would not be to show off to others, but instead a reminder to myself. I'm the first person to forget this quote, as I was shown when I found a comment on my review of "The Chinese Opening." gowan said this about my view that the book was beneath the level of dan players:

(Oh boy, he said "fundamentals." I don't think he knew what he was really saying to moyo with that word...)

Fundamentals. That is what the book gives - what it was always supposed to give. It was not meant to be a massively in-depth look at the Chinese opening. It was not supposed to show us how professionals handle hundreds of incredibly specific mid-game situations that arise from the opening. It is supposed to give the amateur reader a solid understanding of what makes the Chinese fuseki work. In the end, that is really what I need. Pro level discussions can wait for another day and another book.

I wanted the book to be a foray into higher level thinking on the Chinese opening, so when I began the book and it discussed responses to common moves in depth, I feared that I had made a mistake. Was this book a waste of my time and money because I already knew this?

So as the book wore on I listened less and less to the author. I would pay attention to things I felt were relevant, but would otherwise just lazily read the book. By the time I got to the last chapter I tried again to read passionately, but I basically just skimmed the last few games, even when the reviews could have been the most exciting part of the book. I should have played each one out on my board and thought through them as I have been doing with "The Art of Positional Analysis" - but instead I just read through them to finish the book. (Wow, you really tried to post an objective review when you only half-read a critical part of the book? )

So I read through this book with "a sullen expression;" I gave up trying to "fight" through it; and I came to hate the book. By failing to see the value in the opening of this book, I failed to see its value in teaching me about my favorite opening; an opening I love. Anything I read on that opening, no matter how basic, should fill me with joy, not indifference. My favorite opening of my favorite game; a game that I love. Anything I read about that game, no matter how basic, should fill me with joy.

I now feel like a fool. This is exactly what happened when I read "The Second Book of Go." I saw most of the topics as simple at best, beneath me at worst. This quote by Kageyama inspired me to read that again; give it another chance and finish it when I had not before. I thought I had learned from that experience. Now all I learn is that I need to keep learning that lesson. (It's alright. Sometimes you do need to keep relearning, but, eventually, you will get the message. )

And so I will be re-reading this book. This time with an understanding that I am working to grasp the fundamentals of the opening; not with some silly idea of "mastering" an opening that is still changing in the eyes of professionals.

So thank you, gowan, for reminding me of how important knowing the fundamentals of the game is. And thank you for giving me insight into my dislike for this book, whether you intended to or not.

@Bill - As for your question that I forgot to answer, at R5 seems like the shape point for black's group. It shows up in many joseki. However, I suppose directly defending the cut leaves less aji on the left in this situation. Thanks to your comment I'm now less sure about that move. Maybe it wasn't a terrible mistake after all... (It was probably a mistake )

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Just wanted to say that I really really really dig reading your stuff, moyoaji.

Thank you, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I am reasonably certain that R-05 would have been a mistake. Yes, it makes a shape that shows up in joseki, but one in which Black responds at R-04 to White R-05. Since Black has already played R-04, why bother to play R-05?

Yes, it threatens to push and cut, but see the SGF file below about that.

Also consider the proverb that my opponent's move is my move. Would Black play at R-05 now? Of course not. It makes bad shape. An immediate cut would be better. Even better, I think, would be the peep at R-08.

I also say this in the SGF file, but it is an important point. Do a tewari on the top right corner. Who came out better in that exchange?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

@Bonobo - Thanks, Tom. Your encouragement on these forums is a great benefit to many of us. I'm glad you appreciate my meanderings here. (Why do you have to be so good, and you make me look so bad...? )

@Bill - Thank you for your comments on my game. That situation in the bottom right was more interesting than I realized. I will try to remember to play a large knight move approach against the iron pillar in the future. Your tewari analysis also clearly shows that O3 would be an overplay in typical joseki.

However, I'm sorry to say that I'm not strong enough to fully understand what happened in the upper right. (No surprise there. ) I looked through the SGF several times and couldn't find a way to do tewari that made sense. I understand that I got a lot of free forcing moves against the corner that forced black to make many small moves in exchange for my wall on the outside, but in the end I count about a 25 point corner for black that is open to the top. I'd hardly see that as a loss for black.

Apparently I need to reassess my view of walls; I've always overvalued territory. So, I will be going back to "Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go" and laying out the joseki failure from page 58 on my go board and telling myself "White's thickness is superior" until it sinks in. (Do you mention that book in every post?) Just like how I learned ladders by reading them out over and over again, hopefully I can learn to appreciate thickness.

I did look up joseki variations on DailyJoseki, finding that I apparently played an uncommon variation by extending to Q14. More common is a move that I forgot from the joseki chapter of "Lessons" - the attachment at N16 following the cut. (You forgot a single thing from "Lessons," eh? Guess you need to study that book harder. ) That variation looks like it would turn out well for me, especially considering how black would be loathe to play R13 to kill my stone off when he has R10 so that stone would not die immediately, giving it more aji. All that said, if my result in the upper right is actually good for white then I shouldn't want to change it.

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Tewari on the upper right corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B After move 35
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O O X . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . X . O X . O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . X X X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X O O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Pairing stones in the corner:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Paired stones
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . B W W W B . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . X . W B . W . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . X X B W X X B . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X O O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Removing paired stones:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Paired stones removed
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . X X . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X O O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Removing the paired stones simply clarifies the situation, like removing paired stones from territory does. The top right corner is pretty much territory, anyway.

Marking inefficiencies:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Inefficiencies marked
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . B . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . X X . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X O W B . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . B . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W W . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , B . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The - exchange on the 15th rank makes bad shape for White, but is relatively minor. OTOH, Black's empty triangle and extra stone at N-17 is a major inefficiency. As against that, Black has a large corner, bordered on the 4th and 5th lines instead of the 3d and 4th lines. But Black's stones on the S file are inefficient. Also, Black has a broken shape on the right side.

Quick and dirty evaluation:

White's left side is worth about as much as Black's top right corner. Black has made one more move than White, for which we count the stone in the bottom right corner. That leaves the White thickness versus the Black orphan at R-10. By a conservative estimate White has gained more than half a stone.

Edit: This kind of analysis can easily be done during a game.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

They have a joseki for the situation with a Black stone at R-10? Given that stone, I would not start with the kake, which invites the push and cut in a region where I am two moves behind. Maybe the shoulder blow at Q-11, to create some strength on the side, or the elephant jump at N-15, as a light play. The kosumi at O-16 is a thought, but then I do not like P-15.



You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din. I would not leave myself with two weak, separated groups inside my opponent's sphere of influence, where he outnumbers me. Besides, the Black extension to O-15 has a good relation to the pincer stone. I hate to give my opponent good shape.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Thank you again for your comments, Bill. I am continuing to try to understand outside thickness' value. I'm planning to look at "Attack and Defense" some more today. (Glad you're back to the books. Do you know he actually put the position from "Lessons" on his board? He actually has been looking at it regularly as if that is some form of studying thickness... )

I also need to study "Attack and Defense" because I failed epically in a game yesterday at the West Michigan Go Club. (Oh boy! Another loss! )



This game was embarrassing. My opponent mentioned that he was going to resign after losing his four stones, but that he just wanted to see what would happen. I was clearly ahead and shouldn't have lost. I also neglected to count, a habit that I need to get back into if I want to reach the dan level. (I just want to say that I second his comments on - his gameplay was horrifically bad. )

To say that my attacking backfired in the center is an understatement. I helped black by attacking his groups. So I'm going to take a break from "The Chinese Opening" again to look at "Attack and Defense." (How many people can say that they actively helped their opponent by attacking their opponent's groups? )

Any comments are appreciated.

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

You were not clearly ahead. Do tewari on the lower left corner.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

(Bill, I'm afraid you think too highly of moyo. Unlike some players, he can't analyze positions that aren't straight out of a textbook that 20 kyus can read.)

I'm guessing you are referring to the board at ?

I count 20 points of solid profit in the left corner for white, with access to the left - both because I can undercut his 4th line stone and because the ladder works for me, so I can cut off the knight's move that connects black's lone stone he played. I played only 11 stones to black's 12, got sente, and it started with me approaching black's corner, not with it being my corner to start.

I don't feel like any of my stones are misplaced. That being said, none of black's are either. I don't see any other way I could have played to get a result better than this and I already showed how I thought black should have played. (See what I mean? Clearly the analysis of a 9 dan pro... )

Black is only thick on the bottom. His stones on the left are thin and able to be cut off from the stones on the bottom as I did later. (Yeah, but that snake of stones does nothing for you. A 9 dan pro would never play that way.)

I fail to see how that result was not good for white. Is it that it could have been better somehow?

Or are you referring to the whole board position? Are you saying that even with my superior result I was not ahead after my blunder of the net-able stone? (True, a 9 dan pro wouldn't have pulled out the stone on the right like you did to make black even better off on that half of the board...)

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Tewari on bottom left corner after
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . O O . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . W C C O O X . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . W C C O X X . X , . . . O . , X . . |
$$ | . . W W O O X . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White has captured four stones in the bottom left corner (marked points). We may pair them with four White stones in that corner. Removing them for clarity, we get this diagram.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Paired stones removed
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . O O . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . W W X . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , O X X . X , . . . O . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

A couple of things to note. First, if Black puts the stones in atari, it is gote. (If it were sente, then White would have a poorly placed stone on D-06.) Second, if Black captures the stones, it would not be sente in the actual game position, although it would here. So White is slightly better off in the actual game.

Edit: The yose situation is also better for Black. So White is more than slightly better off.

As you point out, White has done well in the corner. It is as though White has been forced to crawl on the fifth line. And Black's position is still not solid. However, any thickness Black gets on the left will work with his thickness on the right.

Black gained by shutting White in on the right side. The question is whether White has caught up, or even pulled ahead. My sense is that the game is close. Maybe White has the edge, but I do not think that either player is clearly ahead.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

BTW:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm62
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . X . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X . . . , . . O O . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 2 X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X O O . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . 8 5 B O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . 4 3 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X O . . . . . . X 6 . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O O X . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . , O X X . X , . X . O . , X . . |
$$ | . . O O O O X . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

at

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

@Bill:I'm probably making a fool of my self, but... this seems like a false tewari to me. The difference between your diagram and the actual position is far greater than just the atari of the two stones. In the actual game white's position is about as solid as it's possible to be to the extent that he can completely ignore absolutely any threat black makes against it. Black has no forcing moves, no ko threats, no nothing and much less leeway to leave weaknesses in the area as a result. Those stones are definitely not ideally placed and it would be woefully inefficient to simply play that way without capturing black, but to say that they are equivalent to the black stones which are doing literally nothing* seems to me to be patently false.

I know you're much stronger than me but that's how I see it...

*Actually they cost black a point each.

Sorry I was not clear. I also did not take the yose on the second line properly into account. (See edit.) That was worth a couple of points.

But I also did not claim that the stones were equivalent. Let me try to be more clear. If they were equivalent, then White would have an inefficient stone at D-06, making bad shape. Then White would have made a small gain in the corner. Instead, White made a substantial gain in the corner. My guess is around 10 pts.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think I understand now. You weren't taking off valuable white stones and then saying "look, white's group isn't as good as it appears", you were turning white's group in to a wall so we could more easily see the direction it influences and compare that to black's wall. So in your diagram we see more clearly that white has been successful locally, gaining influence over a large amount of territory, but that black's position is more strategically useful. I'm still not sure this is strictly proper tewari, but at the very least I can see that it's a useful way of analyzing a position.

As everyone says, applying tewari requires judgement. Maybe I am carrying the idea a bit far, but when a number of stones are captured, either in the game or in a variation, pairing the captured stones helps me to clarify the situation. In this case doing so revealed the possible bad shape for White at D-06, E-06, and E-05. That was not obvious when you just saw a bunch of stones. If the atari on the F-05 and G-05 stones had been sente, then the bad shape would have been a feature that the tewari had revealed. That's why I made such a big deal about the atari not being sente.

It may seem like going around Robin's barn to reach a similar conclusion to saying, "Black made a mistake and I captured four stones. Yay!" But I think that it enabled a more precise evaluation to compare with the advantage of the Black wall on the right side.

BTW, I started the habit of pairing captured stones when I first learned about tewari as an SDK. I think that it is particularly valuable at that level because the capture of a number of stones is not uncommon, because it is easy to think that the capture is a good thing, or better than it actually is, and because there are often inefficiencies that pairing stones will reveal. In this case Black was certainly right to play on instead of losing heart.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I find tewari analysis occasionally useful in limited circumstances. I have to say that I think Bill is going overboard with the concept here. The original full position appears much easier to analyze than the "tewari" position, which was stripped down so much that it lost important functionality.

The times I have seen tewari analysis applied and found it useful were much more limited in scope. I am thinking specifically of board positions which were reached through one sequence of moves, but tewari analysis showed the same positon reached through a different sequence of moves, and in the tewari version one side played an obviously bad move. In this case tewari analysis reveals which side came out better, without having to count territory or estimate influence. Maybe though my understanding of tewari is too limited.

Your analysis of the bottom left corner is fine. The question is how your substantial gain there tallies with Black's huge wall on the right.

----

BTW, I did not mean to hijack your thread. It is not a place for me to expound my ideas. I will be quite happy to remove my latest tewari discussion (notes #173, 176, 178), if you wish.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.