Life In 19x19
http://www.lifein19x19.com/

Detailed review of own games at London open
http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12594		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  dhu163 [ Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Detailed review of own games at London open
At the recent London open, here are my 7 games. I entered at my grade from last tournament (1k) on advice of organisers - just win lots of games to update your rank (2d I believed)

I recorded the games until I was low on time, and then added to the file from memory (not that accurate especially move order)

Criticism of moves welcomed

I think my strength is in local analysis but am bad at judging globally. I never seem to know when I am winning/losing unless the difference is 50 pts ...

tm

mw: I know him from London central club. Won 3 Lost 1 before this game I think.

ab


Attachments:
201512 3 ab dh.sgf [7.97 KiB]
Downloaded 601 times
201512 2 dh mw.sgf [6.51 KiB]
Downloaded 606 times
201512 1 tm dh.sgf [11.46 KiB]
Downloaded 641 times
Author:  Freewheelin' [ Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
The third game seems to have a quite a significant drop in quality of play. It looks as if you were panicking a bit.
Author:  Javaness2 [ Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
Interestingly, they entered you into the results submitted to the EGD as being a 2d :)
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... y=T151228A
Author:  dhu163 [ Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
initially tried to get L19 to accept all 7 in one post (3 attachments max), but while I could see them all on my main device, I couldn't on another ... (invalid game data)

Freewheelin' wrote:
The third game seems to have a quite a significant drop in quality of play. It looks as if you were panicking a bit.

Mistakes up to the middle game were certainly my own (sadly), but towards the end, it was a pretty big mess of time trouble.

Thats some cool EGD calculation. Was worried they might leave me as 1k :D. Got confused about rating system. Changing my claim from 3d to 2d.

mi

dm

lb


Attachments:
201512 6 lb dh.sgf [8.08 KiB]
Downloaded 402 times
201512 5 dh dm.sgf [5.24 KiB]
Downloaded 598 times
201512 4 mi dh.sgf [4.51 KiB]
Downloaded 609 times
Author:  dhu163 [ Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
bp


Attachments:
201512 7 dh bp.sgf [1.94 KiB]
Downloaded 594 times
Author:  Uberdude [ Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
Javaness2 wrote:
Interestingly, they entered you into the results submitted to the EGD as being a 2d :)
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... y=T151228A


dhu163 wrote:
Thats some cool EGD calculation. Was worried they might leave me as 1k :D. Got confused about rating system. Changing my claim from 3d to 2d.


If you check the british rating list you are 3.0d british at 2241 gor (having gained 41 from all those wins, well done!), so you could reasonably call yourself a british 3d at your next tournament (one rank change doesn't cause a rating reset). But if they entered you as 3d you would start with 2300 gor which is, IMO, too much (though your performance rating, as in rating which would be unchanged by your results, was is fact 2366 which is the same as mine!).
Author:  Uberdude [ Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
I might make more comments later, but for starters in game 2 I prefer 11 at g3, a light and shapey move: then if white cuts you pull back, white captures and you atari then play L4 which is a nice combination of pincer and high chinese thingy with the corner.
Author:  dhu163 [ Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
The british numbers confused me. So UK ranks are 0.6 below European?
Can't understand what you mean by performance rating.

I knew of G3, in the game I thought it seemed submissive, better for when I fear a fight. Perhaps I should have feared it a little, not knowing any variations though.
Author:  Freewheelin' [ Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
dhu163 wrote:
So UK ranks are 0.6 below European?


They might have stabilised, as I don't think I've seen the once traditional "why did we (UK players) lose most of our games in the London Open" inquests for a while...
Author:  Uberdude [ Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
dhu163 wrote:
The british numbers confused me. So UK ranks are 0.6 below European?


When entering new players/ rank resets into EGD a 1d is 2100, 2d is 2200 etc. But most 1d in Europe are weaker than 2100 etc. So they look what the average 1d in Europe is, and the average gor per rank. Yesterday those values were

bottom of http://britgo.org/ratings/current.html wrote:
On the last run, an average European shodan rating (r) is 2052, and an average number of European rating points per one grade difference (g) is 95.27.


dhu163 wrote:
Can't understand what you mean by performance rating.

I mean I put your results into http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/gor_calculator.php and changed your starting Gor until your tournament result left it unchanged, i.e. for what rating would your results have been expected. Of course you didn't play enough 3ds to make it that meaningful (and had you won all your games it would be undefined/infinite).
Author:  Uberdude [ Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
Continuing game 2 analysis, let's compare these:

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


Versus game with white making honte protection:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 6 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . 1 . O . a . . . b . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Or if black chooses to nullify h4 instead of shimari.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 6 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . 1 . O . 7 . . . . a , X . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


The reason I prefer the first diagram is in the 2nd white has 2 easy ways to reduce the moyo (a/b), and in the third approach at a is quite spacious, whereas in the first it's not so easy for white to approach at a.

Also a bit later whilst your knight's move is a mutual moyo point, the shape feels not quite as firm as I'd like, because if white plays the hane as below if black cuts then white can cut the knight's move of. Now this fight might not be immediately playable, and black can answer 2 above to avoid this but that makes it easier for white to sabaki inside.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . O . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . O 8 . . . .
$$ | . . . . X O X 6 . . .
$$ | . . . O O X 7 X 2 . .
$$ | . . O , . X . O 3 4 .
$$ | . . . . X . . . 5 . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ +----------------------[/go]


Regarding white approach top side instead of splitting right, I'm not sure which is best, probably both playable. But I do think his split of right afterwards is a mistake (should reduce lower side) and your shoulder hit is good and you welcome the cut. But n4 seems a bit soft to me, I would rather jump out with the cutting stones and white has many groups. And I think after his not really net taking the 2 stones is better than getting squeezed as in the game: he can't cleanly capture the cutting stone and connect the 4 stones afterwards and your profit is big.
Author:  dhu163 [ Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
Interesting about the ratings.


On the game 2 joseki, diagram 1 seems like it might be faster, but it felt loose and still does, less in the corner and less towards centre, the focus is on the bottom, but it still feels awkward if white invades/reduces later. I feel more worried about the fighting variations. If diagram 2 is OK for black, I am fearless. Diagram 3 does seem disappointing if necessary.

But agree with your other comments. Lower side reduction seems more sensible. A bit disappointed at my lack of reading this tournament, just played without thinking much about my opponents responses to my moves. I didn't think much to play N4, just saw W O3 and didn't like it. Still, perhaps N4 is sensible, scared of corner aji with O3. If not e.g P10 does seem very good. Perhaps you're right about the 2 stones, but that variation seems more tricky, and up to 47 I felt very happy.


Your analysis appreciated
Author:  Freewheelin' [ Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Detailed review of own games at London open
Uberdude - if you have time I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts on top left corner in game 3.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/