some of your attacking stones get surrounded and then are killed easily... is there a particular fundamental weakness in letting this happen (and so being something i could target with study) or is this just a bunch of things leading to bad play?

it is very hard to attack.

Hard to answer such a vague question, but a general principle is to not let your stones get surrounded. Oftentimes attacking is about trying to surround your opponents stones, so if your opponent ends up surrounding you you may have been mistaken about who was the attacker.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

well, it would be like, early game, i have some thickness in two spots but my opponent invades so i try to push my opponent towards it or trap him between two somewhat thick lines but then one of those lines gets shut in during the attack.

Again, it's hard to state anything definitively when we're not discussing a real position, but as a general principle you shouldn't be letting your groups get surrounded. It sounds to me like you're attacking the wrong way. Start off by attacking him in one direction, but don't keep pushing in that direction if it results in one of your groups getting surrounded in the process.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Probably -- at these levels, most likely, yes.

Similar to Dusk Eagle's reply: Go is very specific. In some cases, even a single stone
from far away matters (e.g. ladder break). It's mostly unproductive to try to discuss
a vague question like this. We need to see your specific board position(s).

well here is kind of an example of what happens. im white. as soon as black makes r10, i can sense trouble. i play that attachment joseki because i have heard when black doesnt have room to expand from it, you should attack them. and to attack the attachment they make after if they try to. but it seems harder to attack than to play the attachment and cause me to get into trouble because i will be the one under attack and surrounded even though i was supposed to be in a better position. when black plays O9 i feel like one of the groups will get surrounded and he will have successfully counter attacked my attack for enormous profit.

As expected, this.

is terrible -- broken shape for W. You must block at P8.

See toothpaste shapeStrategy and execution (techniques) must go hand in hand --
you can have the greatest strategy in the world, but if you cannot execute it because of your techniques,
then it still fails.

Your - exchange is also very bad -- the same broken shape for W, again.

The bunch of things are the basics.
If you post more of your games for review, you'll see the same basics problems again and again --
basic shape problems, basic tesuji problems, basic life-and-death problems, basic contact fight technique problems, etc.

What about the hane from the other side (this side here)? That way you don't let your group get separated.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B alternate, instead of white a
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Hi cherryhill,

There are many issues with the sequence you show, but nothing tremendously major, I think, considering the level of the players (DDK, yes?) Except at the very end, when you invade in 3-3. This is simply conceptually flawed, from what you say. If you have a group running along the board like you do, and you say you see it as weak and are aware that this large running group might be in trouble - why do you start another separate fight right next to it? It can only weaken your running group - since Black will attack your 3-3 stone in the corner and so get stronger to attack your other stones.

Not sure if I make myself sufficiently clear here, but from what you have shown this is the fundamental flaw in your play, not really specific tactical solutions like the toothpaste and stuff. Of course, toothpase is good, as Ed says, but its small potatoes, really - until you first address the big conceptual flaws you show.

So, rule #1 for you:
If you are worried about a group, try to strengthen it. Never try to weaken it by playing so that your opponent will get stronger in the vicinity. In particular, never start another fight which is close by but leads to you creating a separate group.

Study some basic L&D if you are still getting in trouble, this will also help and give you more confidence.

PS>
There are also other issues with your play - like for example how did it happen that you got into such pickle, and how to prevent it. This can be addressed, but I think that at your level you will get into pickle a lot, one way or another, no matter what specific moves and techniques you memorize - there is simply too much that can go wrong from game to game. This is why I try to draw your attention to something which might apply more generally, and give you more universal results.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

1. Read correctly.

2. Defend your important unsettled groups.

3. Kill the opponent's important unsettled groups.

The principles, in this order, apply generally and apply to your weaknesses to be corrected immediately in all your games.

All very true.
But better yet, one simple and clear principle is better than 3 less simple and less clear ones, so:

1. Make correct moves.

Apply this single simple principle in your games and I guarantee you will win every time!
That's really all there is to it! Who says Go is a complex game?

Honk if you find this helpful.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I disagree.

Big picture problems, "general", "conceptual" flaws, etc. are good to fix, yes,
but so are all the basic shape problems, basic tactic problems.

Basic shape problems like the toothpaste are not small; they are huge.
It is one reason Kageyama starts out on Chapter 1 with the ladder.
"Don't forget the fundamentals. Our study begins with ladders."

Original poster: My opponent invades and attaches to my stone at R10. How do I handle it?

L19 forum advice: Make correct moves; fix your basic shapes

How is this helpful at all?

I think the game move is correct because this way black simply draws back and white has a cut + less space. Black should be punished for the overplay.

I think should be as below:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Black's move 5 in game was quite bad, because:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

That being said, I think situation after a cross cut is really not easy to play. I wouldn't worry too much about specific sequences/reasoning behind the sequences at this stage because there are so many variations that the opponent could try that you need first obtain a grasp of the fundamental tactics - you have to be able to back up your strategy with reading. Furthermore, context is incredibly important - even a slightly different board layout could mean that you need to choose another sequence. I agree with Ed here (though personally I think perhaps he overstresses the important of broken shapes) - you should develop your feel for shape and reading which are applicable in every situation and the pre-requisite for learning and understanding specific middlegame sequences such as this one.

Well... specific tactical solutions for specific tactical situations cannot be called "The Fundamentals" in my book. Here is where our disagreement might lie. To me, this is the day-to-day tactical bread-and-butter of a go player. But for something to be called "A Fundamental", to me at least, it needs to be applicable more generally than just in very specific situations.

However - my main objection is that, while it is good to know the toothpaste sequence (and notice - even Kageyama does not even mention it in his book), it is one of many many little techniques a player must learn... with time. Learning it right now, might or might not substantially improve his game. Learning what I have said will. So, if we try to restrict to only one advice, as not to confuse the subject - I rather give a general one, applicable to each game and addressing his general problem, than a very specific one, however appropriate, but highly localized to a concrete game and/or position.

So, what I can tell you is this: yes, your are right, the toothpaste sequence is good to know and will certainly help him. Just like it is nice to know specific joseki or whatever. But more important, at this moment, and from the context of what he asked - is what fundamental and conceptual flows he made, not what tactical opportunities he missed. Because there is much more tactics in this game he showed, both before and after, the toothpaste being possibly one of the least important. So I think my advice was better and more helpful.

I guess this is where the difference between 'good play' and 'good teach' can be illustrated, we have talked about it before. I am not a very big proponent in "this move is better, learn it" approach to teaching. Better than trying to pick bad moves and point out better ones is to try to identify the conceptual flaws in the thinking of the pupil and address those instead. Once this is done, many of the bad moves will correct themselves.

But lets not compare sizes - lets rejoice in the fact that cherryhill got at least two pieces of advice here, and hopefully some of it will stick and help him.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

To be fair, the original question at the top is a lot more vague and general.

This is helpful because the problem is not only about the first reply to R10 --
it is about the follow-ups, which is why basic shapes are important, like .

There may be multiple valid replies to R10 (say, depending on the player's level).
W's hane in the game seems OK, until . If W blocks at P8 with ,
and plays all the subsequent follow-up moves correctly, then B dies,
and the local fight is finished.

And it's not just about this one game. Or the next 3. Or the next 10. Or even the next 50+.
As cherryhill posts more games to review, we'll continue to see these basic shape problems, again and again.
(Plus other "conceptual flaws.") They have to be fixed, one by one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. These basic shapes are exactly
part of the fundamentals, in my book. Yes, this we disagree.
(And yes, I agree with you that "big picture" things are also part of the basics.)

Take the ladder. To me, it's very fundamental (re: Kageyama). Yet it is both very general
and very specific -- we must read every ladder specific to each unique board position.
The atari is very similar.

Just because each ladder and each atari are specific to each board does not diminish their
universality or fundamentality, in any way.

If you consider the ladder and atari not to be part of the fundamentals in your book,
then... well, we disagree. But they do apply more generally. Good shapes, bad shapes, good tactics, bad tactics -- all these occur in every single game.
The bad "ripped keima" resulting from does not just happen once, in this game. It will continue to happen
tens, even hundreds of times over cherryhill's Go career.This is unclear and debatable. I agree with you that "big picture" problems are good to fix, too -- I never said otherwise.That's your opinion, and I disagree. In fact, I think bad shapes like these are one of the most important, and fundamental, things to fix.
(By the way, illuck, happens to make a broken shape, but I mean the importance of good shapes and bad shapes;
I do not mean to stress only bad broken shapes -- it's just that they occur in abundance at these levels.)
Nope. Fixing big-picture moves is one thing.
Fixing local tactical moves is another.