(;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8]AP[CGoban:3]ST[2]
RU[Chinese]SZ[19]KM[7.50]TM[900]
GN[321807]PW[Zen-15.6T-1c0g 3502]PB[define-3.0 4123]DT[2017-12-02]PC[(CGOS) 19x19 Computer Go Server]RE[B+Resign]
;B[pp]BL[899]
;W[dp]WL[895]
;B[qd]BL[898]
;W[dc]WL[889]
;B[cd]BL[897]C[what?]
;W[cc]WL[884]
(;B[nc]BL[880]
(;W[qj]WL[875]C["slow"]
;B[cq]BL[868]
(;W[cp]WL[870]
;B[dq]BL[868]
;W[fq]WL[866]
;B[fr]BL[857]
(;W[gq]WL[865]
;B[eq]BL[847]
;W[ep]WL[864]
;B[gr]BL[845]
;W[hq]WL[862]C[zen loves to take gote here when the efficiency looks so bad]
;B[ci]BL[835]C[this looks like the perfect point of balance]
(;W[cf]WL[853]C[I was surprised by this]
;B[cl]BL[824]C[W's efficiency already seems bad.

The wall points in the wrong direction, B got the corner in sente and reduced the wall, and W is getting very little from W taking the corner first.

I suppose Zen sees points in the centre (which I also shouldn't underestimate) whereas alphago sees a target for attack]
(;W[qg]WL[844]
(;B[pf]BL[805]C[I wouldn't think to play in this area]
(;W[qf]WL[837]C[I also don't see what B's gain is here]
;B[qk]BL[796]C[but the style seems clear - aim for higher efficiency, saying a 2-space is slow, so make it more overconcentrated.]
;W[pk]WL[831]C[as usual we see define going for territory and Zen taking centre thickness]
;B[ql]BL[788]
;W[pj]WL[829]
;B[pn]BL[773]
;W[pq]WL[822]
;B[qq]BL[763]
;W[oq]WL[820]
;B[qr]BL[760]
;W[op]WL[819]
;B[po]BL[757]
;W[lc]WL[807]C[huge point and natural, but perhaps less of an impact on the corner than we used to think.

the lower side is small so it is natural to tenuki]
;B[qe]BL[746]
;W[oe]WL[800]
;B[od]BL[731]TR[oe][qe]SQ[pf][qf]C[hard to tell who gains in the marked exchanges.

but we can see define placing a very high emphasis on corner and side territory as usual]
;W[id]WL[797]C[W has no better efficiency than this.]
(;B[kq]BL[719]C[obvious area of the board, but not so obvious which point to pick. B plays on the weakness of the wall group to make things difficult for W, but I can believe that the P4 exchanges were good for W.

As usual define plays on the 3rd line, ignoring W's centre potential for now.

But plays somewhat ambitiously, trying to capture P4 on a large scale.]
(;W[dh]WL[787]C[it was also a big point for B to do something at the top with the aji at D16 (possibly G17 too, but I don't think the C16 exchange looks good then) or E15/14. Or maybe just D13 is proper.

It is interesting that with W's two space on the right, B had efficient moves to push it around. But on the left with B's, W has nothing better than this, no good way to attack from the centre, nor pressure from the side.]
;B[ch]BL[707]
;W[cg]WL[783]
(;B[ej]BL[703]
;W[fi]WL[778]C[W's efficiency seems pretty good here, but the wall below starts to feel unhappy.]
;B[dd]BL[681]C[!!! what a probe!]
(;W[ed]WL[770]
;B[bc]BL[677]
(;W[ee]WL[758]
;B[ec]BL[667]C[with this flexible move, W seems to lose a lot of territory]
;W[eb]WL[756]
;B[fc]BL[666]
(;W[fb]WL[754]
;B[bb]BL[664]
(;W[gc]WL[752]
;B[be]BL[656]C[W's efficiency remains not too bad actually, but we can see how define takes 4 corners ...]
;W[fj]WL[736]C[this feels like it should be powerful since B tenukied, but it is interesting that B lived in the top left corner but W is still thin at E12.]
;B[fk]BL[643]
;W[gk]WL[731]
;B[gl]BL[635]
;W[fl]WL[717]
;B[ek]BL[625]
;W[fm]WL[715]
;B[eh]BL[619]
;W[ko]WL[706]
;B[ei]BL[600]
;W[hk]WL[694]
;B[lp]BL[589]
;W[lo]WL[685]
;B[mp]BL[579]
;W[nn]WL[673]
;B[no]BL[566]
;W[pl]WL[659]C[W successfully sealing off a large portion of the centre but ...]
;B[jp]BL[552]
;W[jo]WL[652]
;B[ip]BL[542]
;W[io]WL[646]
;B[hp]BL[527]
;W[go]WL[644]
;B[ho]BL[521]
;W[hn]WL[641]
;B[gn]BL[520]
;W[fo]WL[639]
;B[mn]BL[519]
;W[bh]WL[631]
;B[bi]BL[508]
;W[cb]WL[626]
;B[ef]BL[494]
;W[de]WL[619]
;B[ce]BL[493]
;W[eg]WL[608]
;B[fg]BL[487]
;W[dg]WL[602]
;B[ff]BL[473]
;W[df]WL[601]
;B[fh]BL[467]
;W[qm]WL[587]
;B[nm]BL[447]
;W[ad]WL[578]
;B[ae]BL[430]
;W[ba]WL[567]
;B[ah]BL[416]
;W[pc]WL[558]
;B[pd]BL[399]
;W[ob]WL[551]
;B[nb]BL[394]
;W[rc]WL[549]
;B[lb]BL[379]
;W[kb]WL[540]
;B[kc]BL[371]
;W[kd]WL[531]
;B[jc]BL[371]
;W[mb]WL[526]
;B[ld]BL[360]
;W[la]WL[524]
;B[mc]BL[360]
;W[le]WL[523]
;B[lb]BL[354]
;W[bg]WL[516]
;B[ag]BL[353]
;W[lc]WL[515]
;B[md]BL[352]
;W[jd]WL[513]
;B[pg]BL[347]
;W[qh]WL[504]
;B[lb]BL[334]
;W[di]WL[494]
;B[dj]BL[327]
;W[lc]WL[492]
;B[qc]BL[314]
;W[qb]WL[491]
;B[rd]BL[304]
;W[sc]WL[480]
;B[lb]BL[293]
;W[bq]WL[471]
;B[br]BL[288]
;W[lc]WL[470]
;B[rm]BL[277]
;W[rn]WL[464]
;B[lb]BL[276]
;W[qn]WL[454]
;B[ma]BL[273]
;W[rp]WL[446]
;B[qp]BL[270]
;W[ra]WL[442]
;B[ic]BL[269]
;W[hd]WL[432]
;B[ge]BL[259]
;W[fd]WL[427]
;B[bp]BL[251]
;W[bo]WL[422]
;B[aq]BL[250]
;W[bm]WL[417]
;B[bl]BL[243]
;W[lm]WL[408]
;B[hi]BL[233]
;W[ij]WL[400]
;B[ln]BL[224]
;W[kn]WL[392]
;B[km]BL[218]
;W[jm]WL[386]
;B[kl]BL[212]
;W[ll]WL[385]
;B[kk]BL[209]
;W[lk]WL[384]
;B[kj]BL[209]
;W[lj]WL[383]
;B[ki]BL[208]
;W[ii]WL[379]
;B[li]BL[207]
;W[nj]WL[373]
;B[lg]BL[200]
;W[ng]WL[366]
;B[ni]BL[193]
;W[oh]WL[361]
;B[il]BL[188]
;W[jl]WL[356]
;B[jk]BL[187]
;W[in]WL[349]
;B[ih]BL[182]
;W[ik]WL[342]
;B[jg]BL[176]
;W[jr]WL[335]
;B[kr]BL[173]
;W[rq]WL[328]
;B[im]BL[167]
;W[jn]WL[324]
;B[mo]BL[163]
;W[gm]WL[318]
;B[cn]BL[158]
;W[co]WL[311]
;B[rr]BL[154])
(;W[be]
;B[gc]
;W[db]
(;B[bd]
;W[gb]
;B[hc]
;W[ic]
;B[hb]
;W[ib]
;B[fe])
(;B[ic]
;W[jc]
;B[bd])))
(;W[bb]
;B[fb]
;W[db]
;B[he]C[this sort of shape?]))
(;W[fc]C[I'm not clear where B's follow up is]
(;B[eh]C[this aji is bad, but B can't play it now right?]
;W[ei]
;B[dg]
;W[di]
;B[df]
;W[cj]
;B[bj]
;W[bi]
;B[bh]
;W[bk]
;B[ai]
;W[ck]C[surely W is happy])
(;B[fj]C[push a few times and then use the B15 aji?])))
(;W[ec]
;B[bc]
;W[bb]C[the E12 aji seems different now]))
(;B[ko]
;W[di]
;B[dj]
;W[dk]C[is this the threat? it does look powerful]))
(;W[el]C[human style?]
;B[ko]C[just here?]))
(;B[kp]C[a more solid sort of move that tries to take a stake in the centre too, but I can understand why define doesn't like the efficiency here]))
(;W[qn]C[does B really have a follow up to Q14?]
;B[pg]
;W[nq]C[B's efficiency seems wrong]))
(;B[qn]C[this area seems obviously bigger, but B seems to be trying for more efficiency])
(;B[qk]
;W[pk]
;B[ql]
;W[pj]
;B[pn]
(;W[qc]C[is this the problem?]
;B[pc]
;W[pd])
(;W[pd]
;B[pc]
;W[qe])
(;W[pc])))
(;AE[cp][ep][cq][dq][eq][gq][hq][fr][gr]C[perhaps we can compare to this shape that W may like to play if B hadn't entered 3-3

in the game shape, locally there seems no way for W to spend a move to get this sort of efficiency, but B does have follow ups to attack W.]))
(;W[ck]C[I expected here]))
(;W[ci]C[alphago style is certainly to tenuki]
;B[eq]
;W[ep]C[this looks like normal alphago shape])
(;W[gr]C[complicated]))
(;W[dq]C[not at all obvious which direction to play]))
(;W[ci]C[I imagine alphago would play around here])
(;W[qq]C[or here])
(;W[fq]C[there is some possibility of this too]))
(;AW[ec]AB[dd]C[alphago considers this shape even, but without that exchange, it is hard to justify B's move logically])
(;AW[ce]C[it does mean there is no way W is going to defend the territory like this]
;B[cf]C[too good for B?]
;W[de]C[but is it really? locally this seems ok for W too?

but B has a few different aji options locally and W has no way to defend efficiently])
(;AW[cg]C[but if W goes slightly further, surely C16 looks very bad, losing C17 aji and heavy shape if B wants to run out.]))