| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| A thickness based game http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11965 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | A thickness based game |
I played the following game and succeeded in keeping up with a few self assigned goals: - use time wisely - value thickness over territory - isolate groups and kill if possible, but don't go all out - win in the endgame We didn't get to the full endgame because my opponent resigned. By my count he was "only" about 8 points behind. I would be interested in missed chances or slack play, opportunities where I could have clinched the game earlier. Or any general comments. Thanks |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
q6 is ok if you like to play a thick and simple way, though I think it has fallen out of favour in high-level play in favour of the pincer and then iron pillar in the corner, with the threat of the peep and outside iron pillar next (and even Kobayashi opening is rare now). But I really can't condone the tenuki to f5. You were very fortunate your opponent didn't play p8 himself (or turn?) immediately. But then your p8 is slack, either push again if you want to emphasise thick shapes, or q8 or q9 to press harder. And sorry but r13 feels kyuish and greedy. After making him strong on the right you play close to thickness, your move has little affect on him. You might be jealous of him getting right side territory, but that's the deal if you push in the centre. And 3-3 is still open with the big knight. |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Uberdude wrote: And sorry but r13 feels kyuish and greedy. Doesn't it! When I reviewed the game, up to  White has only played natural moves while  is unnatural and greedy, and the bottom formation looks rather ambitious in a dull way.Thanks for the comment. |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Well, apparently there's was not much to say about this game. I'll draw my conclusions. Thanks again Uberdude. |
|
| Author: | Fedya [ Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
To be fair, you're one of the stronger players here. It's not as if those of us who are seven stones weaker than you can have much worthwhile to say about the game. That, and you know my thoughts about thickness. 
|
|
| Author: | Loons [ Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
 should be F7, right?Edit; I can imagine myself manically playing to 26, and then playing F8 G7 G8 H7 H8? Because I'm not sure white can resist. |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Hi Loons, Yes, jumping lightly for would have been more consistent possibly.Hi Fedya, Anyone can see anything. But of course no one is obliged. It's just that I don't post games very often. Take care. |
|
| Author: | studying [ Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
I wanted to try to return the favor of your excellent reviews. Here are a few comments: |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Here's a comprehensive self review, including the comments of those who were so kind to provide them. I believe  was a missed opportunity for my opponent, which allowed me to come back after a bad opening and even turn around the game. It also showed  was too aggressive and should have accepted a slower come back.We all agree was a terribly greedy move but opinions remain divided on the thickness obtained at  Cheers |
|
| Author: | Loons [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Could everyone please give a slightly more explicit explanation of why was so bad? I'm not sure if I buy the premise that such an enclosure is bad because it takes two moves to take corner territory with a 4-4. And it's a valuable place for both. The only other move for me is for black to continue expanding the moyo, but that feels riskier than defending this corner first. The large knight's move enclosure is pretty thick. I guess a small enclosure is thicker but also squishes white less. Perhaps it was better. Implicitly I don't like the idea of starting a joseki top left. |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Hi Loons For the short answer, see the last sentence. There are three aspects to consider here: - the opening thus far in this game - the nature of the star point - the nature of the large knight's jump/enclosure Up to  Black has driven White along the fourth line, pushing from behind. This is in general not advisable because it gives White secure (thick) territory on the fourth line, in exchange for influence on the fifth. The usual exchange is 3rd line territory for 4th line influence, basically because a stone on the 3rd line is already set to make eyes and it is natural to let it be what it's made for. Black still decided to make the exchange in the game so because the wall already has an extension, leading to a considerable sphere of influence (moyo).When Black embarks on such a high risk - high reward strategy, he needs to be consistent. He yields the right side to White in a major way in exchange for a project, so this is not the time to reduce the right side. Instead, he should continue the project until it has become so formidable that White must do something about it, i.e. the right side territory does not compensate anymore. Black's original star point aims to develop in one of two ways. Clearly the right side is not the way to develop because White already developed there, so if Black plays here, it should be at the top and not on the right. It would have been different with a 3-4 stone, which has only 1 direction to develop. If it's positioned such that it's natural direction is towards the right, then that move becomes urgent. A large knight's move is more ambitious and weaker than a simple knight's move. It leaves more room for invasion. An enclosure from the star point being unfinished business, White has hands free to deal with it the way he wants. Black's large knight's move is overall ill inspired: it does reduce White's territory but it does not apply any pressure on the right side group by scooping out a base or threatening to cut ... White is still very safe and the only thing White must regret is a reduction of his territory. That's almost endgameish. In short: Black is trying to develop a moyo AND reducing the territory he gave in exchange. That's greedy. |
|
| Author: | Charles Matthews [ Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Something occurred to me about this game. It wasn't , which isn't the kind of play that loses games (  seems worse to me, and plays out miai that can be left ... too stubborn). Play another knight's move in the centre instead.Cutting in the centre to create thickness, later, is really the only play. But Black is then overconcentrated on the left side. Go right back. Black should really want to play  here, not a. It has a massive effect on White's corner. Think about Black b, White c, Black d now.The trouble is that White has a crude cutting sequence, at least if  is played as shown. Black would have to sacrifice the four stones on the left.This is still bad for Black, I guess. So this looks necessary. Note that White won't play  immediately. The circled stones are on key points, at least. Often here would be better technique, but after Black seems to have had the better of the exchange.It looks to me as if here is the good preliminary to fighting. Once White has answered, Black can make a better plan for the centre.
|
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A thickness based game |
Thanks Charles I agree on  and it's An important lesson on thickness. My was cautious and mild. Your play gets thickness by applying pressure. Soft connectivity is not real thickness.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|