| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| A close(?) loss http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3636 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | NousAutres [ Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:41 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | A close(?) loss | ||
A recent tough-fought game on KGS. I'm pretty happy with it, aside from the result and a blunder in yose that turned a good chunk of my territory into seki. Costly oversight aside, the result would have been fairly even, if still a loss for me. I look forward to any and all commentary.
|
|||
| Author: | judicata [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A close(?) loss |
A few comments: Disclaimer on my reviews: I have seen pros and other strong players play moves that I've been told are "bad," "wrong," or "bad shape." So I'm always hesistant to say a move is wrong (except in life and death situations). That said, I would interpret "bad" or "wrong" as "not standard but okay in some circumstances--just know what you are doing." 5: This approach usually gives white more points in the corner, and is less commonly played. But there is nothing wrong with it--especially at your (or even my) level, you'll benefit just from playing with it. 6: White's response isn't great--the two-space jump from the 4-4 point is usually too loose. 7: I'm not sure about this one. Black is welcoming an invasion, but I don't know that this is a bad move. I would probably attach at D3. 13: Not bad, and it works with the rest of your stones on the board. That said, the F4 stones aren't totally safe, and neither are white's H4 stones. It is a tough situation, because directly attack the H5 stones might give them enough strength to attack the K4 stone. I think I like H8 right here: it is sort-of sente (or white is in big trouble), and white's peep at G7 doesn't work right now. 17: This is sometimes considered a mistake, though it appears ocassionally. Uusally, H16 or J17 are better, and I think that is true here. I'm a fan of H16 (of course it depends on the board), but some disagree. Because Q16 is high, J17 is probably better. 19: Questionable, I think, but you have the right idea of exploiting the weak connection between D4 and D7. You have to think about the health of black's F4 stones. 21: I think you should play the cut at E4 to give the D5 stone any meaning. Black's F6 and F8 stone may get cut off, but white's H4 and H6 stones will be weak if so, and black would get a good base and some territory on the bottom. Sorry, but I can't really play out variations right now--perhaps someone has a better one anyway. 27: This doesn't do anything except strengthen white's connection, fixing weaknesses that could have been exploited later. It also makes it more difficult to connect black's groups. 31: Descending to H2 is another idea to make the F6 group safe, but I think the game turned out better for black (so long as the F6 group doesn't die). 37: Difficult to say whether F2 would be better--white's group wouldn't have a base, but neither would the black group (which is sandwhiched between two white groups). 41: Not sente. 45: To your comment: I don't think this move is bad. White's move should probably be at R10 instead. 47: Hmmm. Usually black wouldn't want to kick here, because it makes Q10 look like a better move, and it doesn't secure the corner. But it may be ok here, considering the K4 stones. 51: I would block the other way--more potential for territory. 59: Next time, let white crawl along the second line. That is all I had time to review. |
|
| Author: | NousAutres [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A close(?) loss |
Thanks for your input judicata! judicata wrote: 5: This approach usually gives white more points in the corner, and is less commonly played. But there is nothing wrong with it--especially at your (or even my) level, you'll benefit just from playing with it. Usually I approach one-space low, I decided to go a little different here. judicata wrote: 7: I'm not sure about this one. Black is welcoming an invasion, but I don't know that this is a bad move. I would probably attach at D3. Yeah, throughout play in the lower-left, I constantly felt like I would have liked a stone attached, but I'm a little timid about attachments (fights tend to go poorly for me, I feel). judicata wrote: 17: This is sometimes considered a mistake, though it appears ocassionally. Uusally, H16 or J17 are better, and I think that is true here. I'm a fan of H16 (of course it depends on the board), but some disagree. Because Q16 is high, J17 is probably better. I agree. J17 was my alternate choice as a secure, profit-oriented move. I went for  because I felt that I wanted something for my lower-left chain to run towards. That idea might be completely wrong-headed, but if it isn't, I H16 seems the better move, tighter to the stones on the upper-left, more of a parry to any white encroachment in that area (at the expense of leaving an open skirt on the top.judicata wrote: 21: I think you should play the cut at E4 to give the D5 stone any meaning. Black's F6 and F8 stone may get cut off, but white's H4 and H6 stones will be weak if so, and black would get a good base and some territory on the bottom. Sorry, but I can't really play out variations right now--perhaps someone has a better one anyway. I think it's another casualty of my timidity. I usually feel outmatched in fights - I always worry I've started reading too late and any response to my moves means the opponent has thought of a refutation. judicata wrote: 51: I would block the other way--more potential for territory. 59: Next time, let white crawl along the second line. 51: I guess I don't really have to worry about white's 3-3 invasion linking up with its side invasion then? This is what I was thinking of: keeping those two white groups as separated as possible. 59: Will do. judicata wrote: That is all I had time to review. It's still plenty to think about. Thanks for your help! |
|
| Author: | judicata [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A close(?) loss |
NousAutres wrote: judicata wrote: 51: I would block the other way--more potential for territory. 59: Next time, let white crawl along the second line. 51: I guess I don't really have to worry about white's 3-3 invasion linking up with its side invasion then? This is what I was thinking of: keeping those two white groups as separated as possible. On 51, quite frankly, I could be wrong about which way to block. But white won't connect either way. If you want to separate two groups it doesn't matter if they are 5 spaces away from each other or 1--split is split. In fact, it is often good to chase groups towards each other and then cut them off (can be hard to pull off, though). Though, black had just let white crawl, I think the result in the game is good for black (the problem is, white's lower left corner is HUUUGE). Also, white 64 is gote--black should not respond, but play elsewhere. |
|
| Author: | aurik [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A close(?) loss |
I definitely agree that b51 was the wrong direction. Generally you want to block so that your wall faces the side with more open space. After a standard invasion joseki, you will have a really nice wall with an almost perfectly placed extension at j16. After this point, it looks very grim for W: if he invades your nascent moyo, you can take the upper side. If he invades the upper side, you get to complete your moyo. And his group on the middle-right is very attackable once you support Q12. That said, I think the bigger mistake here is the response to W106. Something simple to save your stones would probably end in W's gote as he has to rescue W106 at some point. Then, you can take F10 / B18. F10 looks likely to be sente, so I'd take that one first. As an exercise, count the board at W106. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
