Hi, Calvin!
A few comments. Go to move 111.
Main focus: The endgame is fighting strength.
| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Getting back into reviewing my games http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14322 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Getting back into reviewing my games |
Here is a game I played recently. I actually recorded a video of my thoughts while playing which was informative for my self-review, but I'm too lazy edit to out the swearing. In general, I think that the opening went well for me, but I wasn't able to sustain that advantage through the endgame. There are definitely a few slow moves and I underestimated my opponents lower center potential. I am playing white. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Hi, Calvin! A few comments. Go to move 111. Main focus: The endgame is fighting strength.
|
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
@Bill Spight With respect to the game move at 112, I see your point. It's kind of a small-scale double-open skirt, so there is less value in trying to close the bottom. I guess I didn't see it that way in the game. I was doing more of a local pattern matching. My failure to see C11 is, I think, psychological. I had previously decided (even before move 54) that the C9 and D9 stones were light and could be sacrificed, so I reminded myself for the next few moves after that not to try to defend them. Now, of course, the game changes and the circumstances change, and by the endgame I guess they become useful in a different way. So I need to be sharper in the endgame but also be willing to discard my previous evaluations. I had considered L4 for White 112, but not K5. That's clever to have the ladder breaker follow-up! I think there is also kind a "weak player's consensus" going on, where a vital point is missed by both players because they each trust each other that it doesn't work, even if it does.
|
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
I felt kind of terrible playing this game. Getting into byoyomi around move 88 probably isn't conducive to my best play, but there are still conceptual problems I struggle with that would show in slower games. Any comments are welcome. |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Another one, but this one is worse, and shows some of the dangers of not doing a positional judgement. I will title this: "For the Love of Gote" |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
I seem to be lacking sufficient sharpness. I played  when 'a' was still possible. Still, there are lessons to be learned in not getting into this bad situation to begin with. |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
I haven't posted in a while, but this is a special case as I played one of Kirby's opponents and got smoked. There is a catastrophic collapse to greed near the last 40 moves or so: |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Some of my own thoughts on the game. It hasn't been reviewed by others yet. |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
After  (106 in the game), I started trying to make a profitable attack with  . But after  , I had some trouble evaluating the position and deciding what to do next. I feel that I had a good postion before but this was hard to handle. Ideas? Maybe I should have just backed off and played 'a' after this. At least that way I don't die. I sometimes get obsessed with attack and then the counterattack is worse. |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
In this game, I got toasted in an early fight. I think for a while I had a decent fight going, and there is always this question of whether even to allow the fight. |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
In the game in the previous post, I had recalled one of the positions from Viktor Lin's blog where AlphGo Teach seems to recommend different lines than in a number of pro games. You can check the tool or Viktor's blog for yourself, but and  aren't so hot here.Although in the next diagram was a simple variation I know, I did not like this result for white in the whole board:But the real carnage comes later. After I played , black cut at . I did not defend this earlier but felt that I could handle it. After black cuts at  it gets a bit intense, but I'm not feeling that bad as white yet.It continues like this, but there's a question of whether would be better at  instead. I played the table shape of because I thought that group needed a bit more strengthening.It's hard to know how black will continue, but locally, it seems black may try to get out with .Here,looking back, I feel and  were too much.So was there a way to avoid this fight? Should I have avoided it? At least it was good exercise. Maybe I could have answered  with instead of 'a' as in the game. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Calvin Clark wrote: It may not look that way, but given the presence of  is bigger than "a". "a" does not secure the corner and does not even make an eye. Black "b" is still a problem, OC. 
|
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
I looked up a few games with this pattern. It looks like  in the game is rare and is more common to play as follows or push up at 'a'. is practically the only move seen (instead of the game move at 'a'.) After this, for white to defend at or 'b' fairly soon is common as is the pincer of  . Sometimes the cut is left undefended as I did and the opponent does cut, but those fights can get complex. So I invited this out of fear of playing a slow move. |
|
| Author: | Calvin Clark [ Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
In this game, I missed some chances to make it more active. These are my thoughts. No one else has looked at it yet. |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Theme for this game: "That which does not kill me, makes me stronger." -Nietzsche. ( Please ignore the extraneous triangle at move 32. It is a typo ) |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
A better description of my concerns about move 32: If the position were this, would you ever dream of playing at 'a'? Of course not. It is an endgame move. Yet by playing moves in a different order - C15 before C16 - you managed to get that exact position. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Joaz: but if this were the position, would you ever dream of playing a as white? It's easy to misuse tewari. Locally speaking, both the wedging in move and pole connection are plausible. Which is better here I don't know. It seems to me Calvin wanted to defend the corner weakness in sente so he could separate at f16 and set up attacks against h17 (but h16 instead of a pincer ruined that!), but how good are they? Maybe white could atari at d17 and cover at f16 if he doesn't like that, which would allow black to do better on the left side. But as you said after pole connection c12 still aims at b14 connection. I remember in my game against Haylee at the London Open (4th game move 35 here) I had thought about playing these exchanges against her corner but in the review she pointed out she would probably play the wedge which makes it harder for me to take sente and see them as good kikashi. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
I think this is a better way of analysing this potion with tewari. If we start with the following position, and say black wants to stop white a damaging the corner (tenuki is not the end of the world if there's something really important elsewhere, like a fight this was leaning for). If black just connects at 1 then white has sente. What would white do? Tenuki? Maybe a if local? White wouldn't play 2 to close off the left side with it so open, it's an endgame move, and a thin one at that. So exchange of 1 for 2 is significantly good for black (compare to what white can do if black tenukid before 1). Then black plays 3 and white connects at 4. This exchange helps white, who got stronger on the outside, though black can capture the edge stone for endgame. Although white is a stronger shape, it's also rather heavy and needs an extension (but it's black's move). I think this exchange is less bad for black that the last one was bad for white, so overall black has gained a bit. As black has sente he can play such as a/b to separate the top stone, pincer the left, or elsewhere. So, locally speaking, if black is sure white will play this way (big if) I think the wedge is generally better because black made one bad exchange, white made a worse one, and black got sente instead of gote. What about that if? White has other choices: one would be to play atari of before and tenuki, or this atari and cover at 4. Can black hane at a to cut and fight? That depends on a ladder as after b he has to defend at c. Maybe black would do this. This might make sense for white if the top side is interesting and the left not. Conclusion? Meh, go is hard. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: A better description of my concerns about move 32: If the position were this, would you ever dream of playing at 'a'? Of course not. It is an endgame move. Yet by playing moves in a different order - C15 before C16 - you managed to get that exact position. So what is the order of play that you are contemplating? Something like this? In this sequence White has made two stupid plays and Black has made one stupid play. And now you are saying that Black should not make another stupid play? Well, duh! By the time you have gotten to  you are already off the rails.
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Getting back into reviewing my games |
Uberdude wrote: Although white is a stronger shape, it's also rather heavy and needs an extension (but it's black's move). . . . I think that AlphaGo has shown us that White is not really heavy here. (Compare with the 3-4, 5-4 joseki.) Quote: Conclusion? Meh, go is hard. No detritus! 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|