Pippen vs. whomever danplayer comes first here

leichtloeslich · **#121**

Pippen wrote:

no wait-and-see or butterfly's anymore

Aww, and I was hoping for the butterfly effect to tear black to pieces.

And btw Pippen, there's hardly an easier way to piss people off than to take their diagrams from hide-tags and post them as official game moves. (I speak from experience.)
So either you agree to some ground rules (like, for instance, not playing as black), or I'm afraid this thread will very soon die.

Pippen · **#122**

Ok, let's go back to this position where I thought I made quite a mistake in playing at a anyway. From now on I will wait till someone posts a marked black move, not hidden (of course I will also not take back moves again, that's an unique thing to get things rolling again). Is that ok as a basic rule?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X W . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . a O O . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . O . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X O O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X X X O . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O X O X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

drmwc · **#123**

Doesn't seem to help white much.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O B X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X W . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . a O O . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . O . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X O O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X X X O . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O X O X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

White's mistake was earlier. Giving up the three stones is quite expensive in terms of territory and influence.

By the way, I think the original splitting move is a fine idea.

Bill Spight · **#124**

May I suggest that hide tags not be used to consult about which plays to make? If you are thinking of making a play, don't look at current hidden comments?

Bill Spight · **#125**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm14 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Whatever you may say about White's earlier play, :w14:

is joseki, I suppose. But :w20:

seems like an overplay to me. White is just stretched too thin, IMO.

Violence · **#126**

I think this game is a good example of how "light" can easily become "thin."

Pippen · **#127**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O W . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . O . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X O O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X X X O . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O X O X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

W tries to attack the upper right corner to get some benefit from.

Joaz Banbeck · **#128**

Violence wrote:

I think this game is a good example of how "light" can easily become "thin."

This game is an example of how 'light' can become 'bad'.

You can't play lightly everyplace. Lightness is a strategy for a region of the board, not for the whole game.

EdLee · **#129**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

You can't play lightly everyplace.

I get the impression Go Seigen did. And not just for one or two games, but quite often,
especially when he took White, before there was komi. Of course, he is a very exceptional case.

Loons · **#130**

I think we're abusing the word light.

'Light' means 'open to sacrifice'.

In the game stones tried to live in black's moyo and then died.

This doesn't impugn light play.

Pippen · **#131**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

You can't play lightly everyplace.

I'd challenge that. Even this game I think is still wide open and god knows how many mistakes I did already compared to a high-dan^^. When you play light, you are less predictable and more flexible. Of course at some point you gotta commit....

shapenaji · **#132**

Pippen wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

You can't play lightly everyplace.

I'd challenge that. Even this game I think is still wide open and god knows how many mistakes I did already compared to a high-dan^^. When you play light, you are less predictable and more flexible. Of course at some point you gotta commit....

What we took advantage of, though, was not tactical mistakes, but rather that you allowed us to keep building thickness and territory.

You play light so that you can check a region, while still having sente to play somewhere important. If you never play anywhere important with your sente, your opponent will simply get too much profit.

Bill Spight · **#133**

We have thick and thin, heavy and light. Thick and light are good, heavy and thin are bad. Nearly everybody gets the metaphors, few players understand the concepts. Most dan players can fairly reliably tell the difference between heavy and thick, between thin and light, but we all get it wrong at times. If it were easy to explain these terms verbally, virtually every SDK could get it right.

Most amateur play, IMO, is heavy. And often it is heavy without trying to be thick, which is a real shame. I think that in part it is a question of attitude. To consistently play lightly requires a flexible attitude. It is possible to make thick plays and to treat those thick stones lightly.

Loons · **#134**

Bill I think you're being a trifle nihilistic.

Saying amateurs get the metaphors but don't get the concept is an oxymoron.

I think amateurs are trying to play thick and light but lack the technique, ie reading to do so at a high level.

Further, skillful attack involves making your opponent heavy; it's a two player affair. When Shapenaji struck white's cap it was revealed to be heavy, though it looked like a common light technique.

gowan · **#135**

Bill Spight wrote:

We have thick and thin, heavy and light. Thick and light are good, heavy and thin are bad. Nearly everybody gets the metaphors, few players understand the concepts. Most dan players can fairly reliably tell the difference between heavy and thick, between thin and light, but we all get it wrong at times. If it were easy to explain these terms verbally, virtually every SDK could get it right.

Most amateur play, IMO, is heavy. And often it is heavy without trying to be thick, which is a real shame. I think that in part it is a question of attitude. To consistently play lightly requires a flexible attitude. It is possible to make thick plays and to treat those thick stones lightly.

I've noticed on KGS that players make heavy groups and call them thick. All of this stuff is high level for sure. One relatively test for thick vs. heavy is that thick stones are strong whereas heavy stones are usually vulnerable and difficult to sacrifice. Of course a group that is thick at one time in the game could become heavy later. Another dichotomy that has some relevance here is fast vs. slow. Kobayashi Koichi used to be criticised occasionally for making slow moves which he said he considered thick. Fast development is often thin. Takemiya Masaki is well-known for his moyo-oriented play. Less well-known is that he loves thickness and considers the success of his moyos as based on thickness.

Bill Spight · **#136**

Loons wrote:

Saying amateurs get the metaphors but don't get the concept is an oxymoron.

Oxymorons are the best kind of morons.

Quote:

I think amateurs are trying to play thick and light but lack the technique, ie reading to do so at a high level.

Technique is important, but there is lack of understanding, as well.

When I was a 2 dan a visiting Japanese dan commented that I had a thick style of play. Once he pointed that out, I realized that it was so, but I had had no particular thought of playing thickly. It is something that just gradually developed.

Quote:

Further, skillful attack involves making your opponent heavy; it's a two player affair. When Shapenaji struck white's cap it was revealed to be heavy, though it looked like a common light technique.

You are referring to the butsukari at Q-06? I don't think that the White stone became heavy at that point. In my view it became part of a thin group with the subsequent hane, and then heavy with the connection forming a three stone group.

Loons · **#137**

Bill Spight wrote:

You are referring to the butsukari at Q-06? I don't think that the White stone became heavy at that point. In my view it became part of a thin group with the subsequent hane, and then heavy with the connection forming a three stone group.

I was just wrong, illustrating your point.

EdLee · **#138**

Loons wrote:

Saying amateurs get the metaphors but don't get the concept is an oxymoron.

It is not.

It shows (at least) two different levels of understanding:

If we say something is "heavy, like a burden; you want to get rid of it"
many people would "understand" it from real-life, non-Go, education and experience.
But to show an understanding of sabaki in Go, one must be able to demonstrate it on the board, with actual moves.
And, to repeat ad nauseum, people at x-kyu have an x-kyu understanding,
and people at y-dan have a y-dan understanding.
(So in fact it's an infinite continuum of levels.)

Loons wrote:

I think amateurs are trying to play thick and light but lack the technique, ie reading to do so at a high level.

As Bill already mentioned, it's not just technique or reading: it's everything.

drmwc · **#139**

I think 18 was a mistake, and the start of things becoming heavy. White played the stone on the side with a plan of abandoning it if necessary - 18 tries to hold onto it but leave many cuts behind.

How about this as an alternative?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm18 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 5 4 , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

If black insists on capturing the lone stone, White gives up a lot of points, but gets thickness and quite a nice moyo. I suspect it's playable for white. It certainly feels m ore in keeping with the spirit of this fuseki.

Polama · **#140**

drmwc wrote:

I think 18 was a mistake, and the start of things becoming heavy. White played the stone on the side with a plan of abandoning it if necessary - 18 tries to hold onto it but leave many cuts behind.

How about this as an alternative?

Personally, I don't really like that strategy. Black is rich in points and has sente to start ensuring white doesn't profit too much from his thickness.

If we drop white's sacrifice stone:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm18 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 5 4 , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

That doesn't feel like a crazy way for black to play: a bit territorial, but it's 4th and 5th line territory and ends in sente. So if black would be willing to entertain playing like this anyways, that seems to suggest the sacrifice stones value is almost completely wasted.

Pippen vs. whomever danplayer comes first here

Who is online