This isn't a particularly active journal, but I've been active in other ways. A few weeks ago, I started a thread called
"too many go books sinking the game boat". In it I lamented about my game falling apart while taking in new information, and a number of people responded that this was part of the learning experience, and that it takes some time for new ideas to sink in, and this seems to be the case.
The book that captivated my interest most has been
Vital Points and Skillful Finesse for Sabaki by Yoda Norimota. In it, he presents a situation in which a tesuji for sabaki is called for, and usually offers a choice between two moves. the central idea of the book is that one's judgement of what sort of move is called for is dependent on the strength of the surrounding positions. Although my finesses are still anything but skillful, I have been paying more attention to how early decisions affect the relative strength of groups. I am noticing how my interest is shifting from getting a big chunk of territory somewhere to taking care of my groups and looking for opportunities for keeping an opponent's group off balance.
I'm a bit tentative about trying to put my new knowledge into words, because go concepts are rarely as simple and clear cut as they might seem when verbalized, but I am feeling confident because a number of tidbits are starting to gel. In another thread, I talked about
what sort of mistakes cause me to lose and I've latched onto two passing comments that have helped me get a temporary handle on two of these problems.
The first is something that
Michael Redmond said when he was visiting the UK, which was that "a group on the edge or in the corner enclosing about 6 points is often unsettled, and should be given priority when looking for potential targets for attack or defense." Not considering this - particularly with regard to defense - had been the cause of at least 3/16 of my losses. I've started considering this, and a few disasters have been averted.
The other was a comment by EdLee made during a review of one of my games. It referred to a corner exchange, and Ed said" "You want the outside." Now this is really too simple to be applied generally, and indeed, one of my painful observations in the thread about the books was that in good go, judgments about results are based on comparing potential sequences. Nonetheless, despite it being just one criterion for judgement, one is better than none, and I have been asking myself if a sequence leads to getting the outside or not, and whether or not my conclusion is right or wrong, at least I am trying to make a judgement.
Recently, I chimed in on a thread about
getting over one's wall and said that I was identifying mistakes, but not eliminating them. My goodness, what if this isn't the case. Suddenly, 4ks are no longer looking like unbeatable go gods.