| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Review Request for Direction of Play http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15962 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | BlindGroup [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:37 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Review Request for Direction of Play | ||
Would someone mind taking a look at my direction of play in this game? My perception is that I generally made decent choices in direction, but couldn't kill when I had the chance. I'm wondering if this is accurate.
|
|||
| Author: | nasdaq [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
yeah, i reckon the direction of play in the opening/mid game was fine. It was the reading of life and death status of groups that lost you the game. The contact fights between groups on the right side of the board. I think you played away before the situation was settled. So urgent before big is the proverb. or don't go fishing when your house is on fire 
|
|
| Author: | Tryss [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
An exemple of a tesuji you missed at move 95 : |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: direction of play in the opening/mid game was fine. Perennial.
reading of ( L&D/contact fights/foundation sujis ) that lost you the game. |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
Story of this game: 1. no, I don't think your direction of play in opening and early middle game is good 2. however, after losing a big group on the right side, your play becomes super sharp and you gain an advantage in no time 3. you are still disappointed though and when you fail to kill the top, you resign while being ahead. When disappointed, count. Detailed analysis: |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
Tryss wrote: It's a little more complicated I think "a" now works |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
Knotwilg wrote: I don't think so, though I am not sure that the last diagram is best play. |
|
| Author: | bernds [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
I don't like  . Pincer as Knotwilg suggested, or just play S4 for a safe decently sized corner, and White still needs to figure out what to do with his approaches. makes the white stones stronger. You want to attack, but in the game you play two additional moves at  and  before that gets anywhere near off the ground, and even then White can just jump out. If the peep and connect hadn't been played, then your extension at K3 would actually threaten some tactics, but now White's three-stone pillar looks better than the two black stones next to it.I would omit the moves around  and just play J4. That doesn't strengthen White's corner, has a decent relation to your other stones, and threatens an attack on the three white stones. If White plays an extension to defend the corner it's still locally better than the result you got in the game where your two stones got haned on top. is the sort of attacking move that has no clear followup. What are you gaining from the attack? just invites White to separate. If you play a knight's move, I think it would have to be the other one, at M15 ("play from the weaker side"). But M16 is perhaps more normal.  is really poor shape - making White strong again and yourself inefficient. looks slow, I guess the idea is the followup at K13, but you shouldn't really try for this shape.  is super inefficient and slow. At least consider H13, J12 or H12.At  consider attaching on the approach stone (at Q14). The principles here - don't just always respond, lean on other stones in the area to attack your real target. is the driving tesuji, except you need to play  at O12 and so on. Your does seem to leave White weak everywhere, but it's not something that would have occurred to me as the black stones also look like they could come under attack (and do). You might have been more successful if you'd played S13 at some point so as to have a more favourable capturing race against the top white stones. Even so it worked out kinda OK so it probably shouldn't be criticized too much.
|
|
| Author: | BlindGroup [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
Knotwilg wrote: 1. no, I don't think your direction of play in opening and early middle game is good 2. however, after losing a big group on the right side, your play becomes super sharp and you gain an advantage in no time 3. you are still disappointed though and when you fail to kill the top, you resign while being ahead. When disappointed, count. Thanks for the very detailed assessment! I see your points about the opening and early middle game. Your moves definitely seem stronger, and you are right that some of my moves were not consistent. I'll have to pay attention to that. I also kind of figured that there had to be a way to save those stones on the right, but I couldn't find it... Painful to realize that I resigned while ahead. My assessment of the score was completely wrong. For some reason, I figured that after losing the group on the right, I had to kill in the upper left to stay even. I have no excuse, however, because I had more than enough time to count. Need to force myself to do that even when I think the answer is "obvious". 
|
|
| Author: | BlindGroup [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
bernds wrote: I would omit the moves around and just play J4. That doesn't strengthen White's corner, has a decent relation to your other stones, and threatens an attack on the three white stones. If White plays an extension to defend the corner it's still locally better than the result you got in the game where your two stones got haned on top.I'm curious about the move below. @Knotwilg like it, but @bernds prefers A. I see @bernds point about strengthening the corner, but A feels a bit passive to me. I feel like I need to take advantage of white's skirt move at E2. Maybe something like B? |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
A few comments. |
|
| Author: | dfan [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
BlindGroup wrote: I feel like I need to take advantage of white's skirt move at E2. Don't forget that a lot of bad moves are self-punishing. |
|
| Author: | bernds [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
BlindGroup wrote: I'm curious about the move below. @Knotwilg like it, but @bernds prefers A. I see @bernds point about strengthening the corner, but A feels a bit passive to me. I feel like I need to take advantage of white's skirt move at E2. Maybe something like B? My reaction was that this would be trying to do too much at once, but Leela Zero disagrees - see below.LZ agrees with Knotwilg, but only by about one percent vs the move I liked or yours. So I think it comes down to preference. The continuation isn't one I've seen in this thread though: One move later, it changes its mind to this: This isn't something I'd want to try to imitate though. Finally, your idea: That seems to be the idea of an inducing move: make White give Black a better reason to play  .Interestingly, LZ doesn't hate the L4 peep very much. |
|
| Author: | Knotwilg [ Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
BlindGroup wrote: For some reason, I figured that after losing the group on the right, I had to kill in the upper left to stay even. This reminds me of loss aversion, a term in decision theory I learned from Daniel Kahneman. Although loss aversion is more relevant to decisions in the future, I think we can also apply it to past events. When we make a loss of a certain size (money, go stones) and we make a similar gain next, we tend to still mourn the loss and not realize events have evened out. Studies seem to indicate we need a gain of approximately twice the size of the loss to be psychologically even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion |
|
| Author: | BlindGroup [ Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Review Request for Direction of Play |
Knotwilg wrote: This reminds me of loss aversion, a term in decision theory I learned from Daniel Kahneman. Although loss aversion is more relevant to decisions in the future, I think we can also apply it to past events. When we make a loss of a certain size (money, go stones) and we make a similar gain next, we tend to still mourn the loss and not realize events have evened out. Studies seem to indicate we need a gain of approximately twice the size of the loss to be psychologically even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion Interesting! I hadn't thought about go playing in terms of loss aversion. I think you may have a point. If I remember correctly, Khanaman and Tversky also argued that loss aversion encourages people to take large risks to avoid losses? E.g. one would take a larger risk to avoid losing $100 than one would take to gain it. That seems like it would also fit a number of games I've played. 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
