Forward

While short, I think Lee's foreward is quite a poetic reflection on the
nature of the game. Go on the surface (ahem) may appear to be primarily
an adverserial enterprise, but when regarded as an art form it emerges as
a form of deep collaboration. I think avid Go players know this quite
well and as Lee points out, it should come as no surprise life long
friendships are often made across the board.

Preface

David & An describe the style of the book. To my ears it's clear that
Relentless strives to emulate and surpass Invincible. For
example, it's hard not to see a strong historical connection between
the Li / Sedol jubango and the famous Shusaku / Yuzo
sanjubango. Of course, Fairbairn's books on Go Seigen's ten game matches
also come to mind.

The section "Why Are We Fighting?" seems like a nod towards the
growing popularity of Eurogames,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogame which demphasize conflict. Go
terminology is infused with the language of conflict, even two
thousand years ago Huan Tan said "There is the popular game of
go. Some say it's a kind of warfare" (from Fairbairn's translation of
Go Classic in 13 Chapters). Board games are more popular now then
they've ever been and I think Go has a great opportunity to draw upon
that vast population so this section makes sense to me in this light.

Now having incorporated the study of commented professional games
available in English into my regimen, all the bits about how to study
and improve ring true to me. Life and death, playing slow games, getting
a teacher - check, check, check

Introduction

Finally the Introduction gives us some context around the 10 game
match. To be honest I'm a bit of history nerd so I could always use
more of this kind of stuff. I relish all the historical details found
in Power's and Fairbairn's writings. That said, I know it's not
everyone's cup of tea so I'm not surprised they kept those bits short
and to the point.

I'm looking forward to digging in!

This looks like a VERY interesting project, reading the book at the same time step by step and discussing it here. Only recently I started playing again and I wondered what to study - everything seems to be urgent and lacking. I decided to buy the book and join you here because what I read now about the book sounds like this is exactly what I might need right now, a roundhouse punch with emphasize on fighting (which I recently came to FINALLY enjoy ). My copy is already on its way and I can't wait to start and join the discussion!

_________________

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 1-29
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . O X X . O . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O . . . . . O . X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . X . O . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Here are my notes after reading the assigned sections of the book for this week:

Observations

• I've memorized the first 29 moves of the game, partly by accident, just by working to understand the moves.
  
• My instinct is to play "narrow" as black, in contrast to the commentary's comments that modern go is wide. In general, I'm eager to start fights against weaker players and hesitant to do so against stronger players. If I'm going to get better at go, I'm going to have to develop my fighting skills until I can hold my own against stronger players. (In the kyu levels, and perhaps higher, fighting strength basically correlates directly with rank.)
  
• If you have miai to settle some stones (as in moves white 18/ black 19), you can use that to play elsewhere. But make sure your reading proves you *really* have miai!
  
• Sometimes my instincts are right. When I played through without commentary, I noted that I would have played the descent for 28. The commentary backs this decision, though I obviously hadn't read out everything that would happen. The four diagonal stones in the lower left just look wrong; there are far too many cutting points.
  
• I was often wrong about when players would tenuki versus continuing a local fight. This is a constant challenge for me when looking at professional games. This directly relates to my calculation strength: not just reading out local life and death, but deciding who is favored by the results.
  
• One move can make a huge difference in my assessment of the situation. When black plays 27, suddenly it is white that looks to be under attack. I've got to see moves like this in advance and include them in my decision about where to play.

Questions

• My biggest question was about move 14. When replaying the game 14 seemed dubious to me, because after 15 black threatens to swallow up white on one side or the other. When I've looked up the micro chinese opening, most of the comments mention that 7 is in an ideal place to attack a high approach to the lower right corner. I understand that 10 changes the strategic considerations, but was this really a good move at this point? There wasn't a lot of commentary on this move in Relentless. Is there history for this attacking combination in the micro chinese?

Things to try in my games

• Play more slow games, and when I'm reading variations try to honestly assess who gains profit from the results. This seems obvious, but slowly working through a game like this reminds me that reading isn't just about what I *can* do, but what I *should* do.
  
• Try to decide what my strengths are relative to my level, and move games in that direction. This leaves me with a dilemma, though. I'm probably better at fighting than 80-90% of KGS players 5k and below (my current rank), but I feel like there is a significant gap when I face opponents who are just one or two stones stronger than me. My strength feels like a weakness when I face a different opponent.
  
• Try out a "wide" opening as black. I don't think the first few moves determine whether I win or lose the game, but my current strategy as black isn't working very well. I think I'll learn more from the rest of this book if I adopt some of the stylistic tendencies of the players involved so that I can compare my (poor) implementation with those of Gu and Lee.
  
• I particularly liked the following quote: "If you make a habit of choosing straightforward, reasonable sequences that are within the horizon of your reading ability whenever possible, your game will become more stable and you'll win more often."
  
• Also, "Even when you're defending, you should look for the move that offers you the best followup."

My copy arrived today. If I don't learn anything from it, at least I can use it to knock out burglars.

Last weekend I played a beginner who frequently added moves that he thought were wrong but he was afraid something terrible might happen if he didn't. I said this was the first thing he should stop doing.

I feel like I do that all the time and then convince myself it is "honte".

http://eidogo.com/#CkLOmlGI


Miai, eyes on target, calm but strong, the potential of stones, profit from attacking. Especially to me the second and third of those. I'm too obedient in my games, responding as a default, letting myself become distracted even when I'm attacking severely - after all, why would they play away if they didn't think it would be okay? So it boils down to a competition in reading (such insight!) - and then in the fighting, except at last moment do they settle their shapes, and make the crude forcing exchanges that me and my typical opponents do the second they become available - then cut and hane at every turn more in the hopes that one will miss the obvious response once and then collapse as opposed to having read out in advance that it works or not.

I've read in Kirby's study journal about his aji-keshi analysis - and that's something I think I should look for in my own games, that and trying to tenuki as a more "default" option - my opponent isn't infallible and always right, otherwise they'd not be 5k like myself.

I hope to be more thorough in the next game - I haven't gone over it previously as much as I have this one - and despite it being rather less of a full board fight I recall finding it harder to follow, but not why exactly that was.

My copy arrived yesterday and I, too, am blown away by merely looking at the book. I think that already carrying it home from the pickup store made me stronger - physically, not Go-wise but it's a good thing anyway.

For now I only finished reading the intro (again, I downloaded the sample and already read it on Friday) and replayed the game on a board once from start to finish. I'm used to replaying games from books (or from SGFs), but for me having all the moves in only 1 diagramm is quite tiresome and makes me think less and search more.. I still have to get used to it. But I guess I'll have enough time for that working through this tree in the shape of a book.

From the first milestone I especially like the parts "Why are we fighting?" and "Learning to love fighting". Fighting in Go has been something I've been struggling with for a long time. I preferred my more "peaceful" way of playing (if you're more direct you might say submissive) and I've only started enjoying it more since I hit a plateau a few years ago. It has improved in the last year and a half and I hope that this book will help me to take the next step in this journey and to belance my moves more finely so that I may not sway as violently between submission and self-destruction as before.

The Introduction was very useful for a reader like me who (of course) is familiar with the names of the players but lacks knowledge of their background. Although somewhat shorter than Shusaku's introduction in Invincible, the introduction gives some information on the mindset of the players, too, which I liked - especially Gu Li's remark

rings with me. It's what I've done for the better part of the last 12 months and I can enjoy Go much better now than before. Attitude is so important since our journey for improvement never ends no matter how much time and devotion we put into it. In fact, overdoing it can make it so much harder, that's one lessin I (think I) learned (we'll see). I cannot yet express all the thoughts this quote triggers within me but I hope that through the study here it'll be easier to express them. Oh, and the anecdote on how Gu Li skipped classes in his youth was quite funny, too.

I won't have read all the assigned pages by tomorrow because I want to study the game and the book thoroughly and want to catch up in the next two weeks. For now, I only read the first page of the commentary on the first four moves and I'm already impressed - I never really put very much thought into them, especially in the direction, mainly because I had (and have) my preferred opening pattern. I guess at my level (I've been a 4kyu before my break and it seems I still am) it only really starts to get important. From now on I'll start to put more thought into them. And I also might try this Micro-Chinese Opening for a change - but first I want to read the comments about it in Relentless.

I'm looking forward to reading the discussion here and I hope to contribute a few thoughts soon. I'd definitely like to see jeromie's question answered since I'm not familiar with this shape as of yet.

_________________

It's approaching the "due date" for the first chapter of actual go content. What do people think about the pace? Was there too much material to cover in a week? Too little?

_________________
be immersed

I think it's ok in terms of pace. I still wonder exactly how we will conduct the collective study but I found the first week's organic results quite promising already and will oppress my thirst for structure.

I read your analysis and it seems like you will benefit a lot from this exercise.

The first week's load seemed easy because I was eager to begin, but I probably spent 2-3 hours on it overall. Realistically, I think that's about right for a weekly study group.

I'm looking forward to the next week! I'd still appreciate if any one else has thoughts about 14, though.

Here are mine:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Moves 14 to 16
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 4 . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O , . . . . 2 , X . . |
$$ | . . a . O X . . . 3 . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Suppose White attacks at right away. Then Black would logically play . Next if White enlarges the capture at Black can develop nicely to ? Also, Black's two stones have aji, at A or B.

I'm guessing after the facts.

Since white played with the intention to cut, it seems is the only response to .

And yes, the shape topic will be addressed later, for example see "Don't Obsess Over Shape" on page 40.

I was similarly dubious of when I first replayed the game. My first thought upon seeing it was "Why is White creating two weak groups?" and seems a natural splitting attack. Upon looking at it more though, I think it's a fascinating choice. The key for me was realizing that, even though White is creating two weak groups (P4 and J4), he is also forcing Black to have two weak groups (F3 and M3). Moreover, White can say "Both my weak groups are high (fourth-line) and light," but Black's weak groups are alternatively (1) heavy (F3) and (2) low (M3).

This type of move, creating two weak groups for both players but declaring "Your groups are weaker than mine," to me, typifies professional fighting and is something I think we should aspire to. The toughest part about it is that it requires constantly viewing and evaluating the board from *both* players' perspective. In my own play, I usually view one player as the attacker, and one player as the defender (although these roles switch throughout the game). In professional play, both players are playing so efficiently and finding so many dual purpose moves that they are attacking and defending at the same time. Really, almost the entirety of Game 1 seems to be a battle of wills, with each player trying to convince the other that their weaknesses are more urgent.

In the US, we have a phrase, "playing chicken," that I think encompasses this type of play nicely. I believe it comes from a game that reckless drivers would play where they both drive directly at one another at high speed, waiting to see who is the first one to turn away from the oncoming crash. Obviously, it is a high risk endeavor, but so I think is modern professional Go.

One additional thought: After , I think is fairly forced (it is just too good for White to get to play here), so before playing , I expect Gu Li mostly focused on whether he felt he could better settle his first weak group while attacking Black's stones (and of course tried to determine which player would end in sente).

This was a helpful way to look at things, thanks. It's funny, but I've been trying to eliminate this type of thinking from my current play. I'm so bad at judging which groups will become weak that it usually end up turning my games into a toss up. Being able to judge how groups will develop is a necessary precedent to this style of play, so it may not be appropriate for kyu players.



This is a great assessment of the game, too.

Do we have an assignment for week 2?

Let's aim to cover the following sections by next Monday.

September 26, 2016

1. Create Something From Nothing
2. Power Promises Territory
3. Know When to Fight... And When Not To
4. Running Is More Fun with a Friend
5. Don't Obsess Over Shape
6. Seize Fleeting Opportunities
7. Deform Your Opponent's Shape
8. Determination Is Power
9. The Beauty of Omission
10. A Rish Man Shouldn't Pick Quarrels

_________________
be immersed

Indeed. Did you have any particular thoughts in mind (e.g. meeting up on KGS at a particular time to chat, for those interested)?

_________________
be immersed

My thoughts on move 14...

I feel Gu Li and Lee Sedol are fighting for initiative here. Gu Li kicks black's stone to make it heavy, and then pincers to attack. Instead of helping the stones out, black splits the left side. An interesting aspect of this split is that, if white encloses the top left corner as in the variation given in the book, black's extension indirectly helps the stones white is attacking, while taking profit on the side. So white didn't allow that, so black got the initiative in playing in the top left corner.

If white just answers, black seems to have gotten the initiative. So I feel that white felt that he should profit from black's tenuki on the bottom. White threatened to attack the two white stones and black ignored. So white amped up the pressure. The commentary mentions that white can be flexible in settling his stone in the corner. So move 14 doesn't really become a weak group. The result was that white put a lot of pressure on attacking the two black stones after his tenuki.

_________________
be immersed

I didn't post notes earlier, so here are a few thoughts on the first assignment, which was due today...

Interesting Thoughts
* Enclosing a 4-4 stone too early reduces flexibility by "slanting the corner in a particular direction". I'm often not sure about the best timing for enclosing a 4-4 stone. It's interesting to note that the choice should be made once you've decided on a direction. Obvious, maybe. But it hadn't occurred to me.

* I was fascinated by this point:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . b W . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . # , . . . . . , X O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The commentary noted that if the marked white stone were at "b", the marked black stone would be played at "c". It makes sense in an abstract way to me, I suppose. Because the marked white stone is high, perhaps it's riskier to play a move like "c" to threaten a shape on the bottom - white has an easier time to invade, I suppose - though I don't know an exact sequence. In contrast, if it's at "b", perhaps the invasion isn't as powerful?

* I also found this fascinating:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . B W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After the exchange of the marked stones, black can *tenuki* (!!) from . It's true that the exchange that white makes allows white aji for living in the corner later. And it's true that the exchange gives black some strength in the area. But it seems so painful to me for white to hane:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Maybe black has enough here. Or perhaps black can't expect a large shape in this area since white has aji to live in the corner? I'm not really sure. But I'd find it very hard to tenuki in my own game.

* When I skimmed through the game for myself, I was inclined to play at 'a', below:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I feel that black's marked move, having miai, is a "wider" type of move than "a". Maybe "a" is too limited in strategy.

* I found this variation to be a cool followup to white's invasion:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O 2 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 6 , 1 3 . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . 7 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It's somewhat obvious, but it gives fewer points than my instinct (another variation):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The variation above is natural to me, but seems to give more points on top. Both variations have pros and cons, probably, but I wouldn't even consider the first one, since this second one is so ingrained into my head.

* Some quotes I liked:
"When you’re attacking, quiet moves like this are often the strongest way of playing, because they don’t help your opponent to make shape, trade or move out."

"If you make a habit of choosing straightforward, reasonable sequences that are within the horizon of your reading ability whenever possible, your game will become more stable and you’ll win more often." <-- This is really a quote for me, I think. I often make the game needlessly complex. I should stick to simple variations that I can read out clearly. I think it's a really good idea.

_________________
be immersed