I've been told more times than I can remember that "tenuki is always an option". And yet, so often when I look at the goban, think I have sente, and play a tenuki, things quickly go wrong. In this case, that move is Black 21. I took the opportunity to play in a different part of the board, and White immediately punished me. I quickly wound up with one weak group after another, and finally resigned when I made a mistake that cost me one of those groups. (Not that I would have won anyhow. I would have been behind with little chance of catching up and White would have had sente.)

Feel free to criticize me harshly. After White 22, I felt that considering how badly things were going, I must not have been playing very well.

Your comments seem focused on the number of problems you have, regardless of the number of problems white has. Frequently, you were worried about how many weak groups you had, whilst ignoring white's many weak groups in the same place!

Edit: I did a fairly in depth review of some moves, but I pushed that to the bottom of the post and replaced it with a review of why your (incredibly pessimistic) comments were wrong. Your mental mistreatment of weak groups is a real problem here.

In short, every time you say 'oh no I will have a weak group' you actually mean 'oh no I have a group that doesn't have two clearly defined eyes'. This isn't a problem, as long as the group has good shape to make eyes whenever necessary, and access to the centre. You also see white's moves as stunning tesuji that destroy your positions, and treat them as such, when in reality white's own stones are weak and often foolishly placed.

8: 'I don't think I've seen this move before, but it doesn't look good to me.' should be 'Why is white playing on the second line in the opening!? I am truly delighted to play Q5 and force him to push out from behind.'

20: 'White lives, but it's a small life, so Black should be much better off.' is accurate. Nice work!

21: 'I figured playing along the right side was bad, because the last time I did something similar so early in a game I had reviewed I was seriously criticized for doing it.' is good stuff, you're clearly learning from reviews.

22: You say 'If I had played between Q16 and the group below, it would have been to prevent a move like this.' like it's bad not to, but why? You should say 'White has played a move that doesn't impact the corner much, and doesn't really hurt Q8 if I just fix the shape with something like Q10.'

23: 'I still have weaknesses at Q10 and Q9 and don't see where I"m going to get eyes.' should be 'I have fixed my cutting point and left white with no eyes. White's foolish invasion is in trouble!'

34: 'And now I'm going to end up with two more weak groups.' should be 'white plays another invasion into my strong area. I look forward to making him live small and sealing him in delightfully. I can't possibly come out badly from this unless I force white to become strong whilst making bad shape and hurting my own stones'.

47: 'I figured I could easily make two eyes, and whichever side White blocked on wouldn't help much.' is spot on.

59: 'White's not going to get much from that thickness.' is also spot on, excellent strategy. Though it may be better to play C14 and B14 as forcing moves and then play on the third line to make a stronger group on the side.

71: 'Playing around O3 and allowing White to extend to the left would be exactly what White wants to do.' is also spot on.









21: Seems fine.

22: What to do now? Whatever you like! R13 doesn't really have much of a threat. I would like to play R15 and wonder why white has played a stone that doesn't hurt the corner much. The cutting point at Q9 is annoying, but the group is hardly in danger since white is also being attacked. Alternatively, maybe black Q10 is fine, which makes your group strong and more or less unattackable for the time being - but white still has to decide what to do with the R13 stone.

23: You suggest Q13 to replace your earlier move, but it's worth noting that Q13 is quite bad shape and small. It doesn't prevent the 3-3 invasion, after which you've spend many stones to take a smallish area, and still have a cutting point at Q9.

You say 'I don't see how my group in the centre is getting any stronger' here, but if you fix the cutting point nicely it isn't weak in the first place, and R13 is itself very weak. And you don't need to worry about where your eyes are if your shape is good and you're next to a weak group to chase.

25: You're still very worried about your cutting point, when you could have just fixed it solidly and played O16 now - leaving white with a group to save, not black. Actually, I think O16 is probably still fine, as your chosen move did fix the cutting point whilst putting pressure on white. You've played well, fixing your problem whilst cramping white, but you're determined to see that as a bad thing.

34: Where is the bunch of weak groups that you keep talking about? I'm not sure what's best here, but it's probably either L16 (to harshly seal white in or kill, since white has few stones nearby) or M16 (to seal in less harshly, but take excellent thickness). Your move makes white strong unnecessarily.

41: So you spent some moves to make the K17 stone weak, despite being extremely worried about weak groups? Bad choice!

47: Good.

59: Probably best to peep at C14 and B14 first, it's free and punishes white for playing E15 rather than C14.

63: It's awkward to allow white to hane at the head of two stones, you want to try to do that yourself. E10 or B11 are the obvious shape moves, and seem okay, B11 seems better to make a base and give white shape problems. Your move is worried about life, but forgets about anything else.

67: Leaving white two hanes at the heads of two stones! Terrible shape, and this group isn't really weak.

70: You say 'Oh dear, I have a feeling I'm about to wind up with yet another weak group.'. Why don't you say 'Hurray, white has asked me to make him weak!' instead? Your own group isn't even weak, since you get a good extension and can easily move to the centre, though you play some bad shape moves (the same as before) when it comes to it.

21 is perfectly fine. Any corner approach would be fine, too. Black is way ahead.

23 is too small, as is 25. They fix a slightly weak group but lose all potential on the top.

The first strategy that occurs to me is to try to convert the top into cash while chasing white out, for which I'd play R15. It's a single white stone vs. 4 black stones, so I think your wall should be just fine.

However, if you think the wall is too weak, then my strategy would be to seal white in. In that case, I'd play P13. But P13 doesn't look like it makes a good shape with your wall. So I wouldn't do that.

I guess the shape move I'd want to play to help the wall would be Q12. White will extend to Q13. Then you can play R15.

I think if it were my game, I'd play R15 directly.

Don't be so scared (23 and 25). White plonked a stone down in the middle of a bunch of black stones. White is the one that should be scared!

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

my 2 cent. hopfully it helps.

if you have weakness on your shape it will cost you later so cover them.

from your example: if you cover your weakness then it will be too slow so i would cover them indirectly like Q14.
But, since your opponent played worst move possible...i really dont mind playing slow but thick move like Q10.
he is already behind by enough margin so you should lessen the variation by playing thick.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Ack, I wrote most of this review an hour ago, and since, tons of strong reviews have showed up. I'm not much stronger than you, but feel free to send me a couple more games, if you'd like a second look. Reviewing your game was fun, but I'm normally too slow. =D

Take this opinion with salt:

20: Yeah, your result looks great. White lived fairly minimally, but you have great thickness as a result. And the corner turned into territory magically.

21: The area you played and the two alternatives you mention all sound good to me! The one change I would make is, if you DO want this area, play high. It will work well to make a framework with your thickness on the right. Either of the other two suggestions work fine for me, though.

23: I prefer R15. It makes your corner naturally become solid territory, and keeps his stone weak. I figure, worst comes to worst, you get territory in the corner and you and your opponent both gain a weak group. Could be worse.

37: Makes white strong where you don't want/need to. Better to move out and split the two groups.

73: While this is good shape, I'd much rather counterattack. Either take a base with G3 or try L5.

77: Gives your opponent strength for little benefit.

93: Playing this at D13 is severe, but it also protects against the cut at G12. If W plays G12, you play G13, and have miai to kill one stone or the other.

115: This group is fairly stable, has places to run to, and has a start of a central base. I would rather worry about the C10 group. Either hane at the head of two or just jump out to F7.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

* I think is not a bad move at all. In fact, I might have played there myself, too. If you really feel like you must play on the right side, something like Q14 is not that bad either, though it's indeed probably a tad slow.

* is just good IMO, I would play the same.

* Anywhere between move 25 and move 30 I would play O16, whether I'd be playing black or white. That move really splits black's groups, and feels really important for both. After I'd be really, really happy that white actually forces you to play on the perfect point.

* is an overplay, AND very greedy. At this point, black is leading.

My most important comment:
That variation you show starting from 35 is GOOD for black. Black's wall is SO nice to have! And in your variation, white isn't even alive yet! Black O18 threatens white's eye-shape, so white will have to crawl even farther over the second line to live.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that, in your variation, black is strong and solidly connected everywhere. White, on the other hand, has a weak group. This means that whenever black invades somewhere, or plays some risky aggressive move, you have some strong friends to run to. White, on the other hand, has a problem once the fighting starts, because they'd have to be careful that the weak group doesn't suddenly get into trouble. Even if you don't stage an attack on that group directly, white will have to worry about it. And eventually, he'll have to start spending moves to defend it; it doesn't matter if that only happens 100 moves later in the game, it WILL happen. The jump to N13 in your variation doesn't give white any eyes, it's purely dame. And look how badly the top left 4-4 stone has been kicked in the teeth by that wall!

In the game, however, you get split into two groups, and white is now strong. Ouch.

It's too easy to think in terms of "ouch, white took over all my points and my wall isn't doing much". Yes, occasionally a wall can be ineffective. But more often than not, they are really important, even if it isn't immediately obvious. For example, ask yourself the question: of your last 10 games, how many were won or lost by territory, and how many were decided by fighting (for example a big group dying or so)? I bet more games were decided by a big fight than by a few points. Right? Big walls help for those big fights. Have strong groups, and you can attack without fear. And it's really quite OK to let your opponent have those few points in exchange. You'll get those points back in the end.

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

Man, my first attempt to post got eaten by timing out on my login.

Anyway, it seems like the biggest issue you had in this game is misunderstanding thickness. Groups are heavy as opposed to thick when they don't give useful influence and/or have survival issues. In your variant commentary and your B59 comment you show disdain for the thickness created. Your variant position is great up until you made that last connection. Thickness is for fighting! Instead of fearing N17 just jump down onto white right-side group and pick a fight. Sure, you can't cut him if he resists, but resist he must. He makes inside connections, and you build up on the outside. When the dust settles white extending down in the gap is meaningless. You cap his advance and he can't cut because of your thick position.

White's outer thickness in the top-left corner exchange was actually very valuable as the next dozen moves unfolded. That mini-moyo was as a little bigger than your corner and much more relevant to the whole-board position, putting your K16 group under pressure. If W68 had been more tightly connected at E13 instead of out at F13 there'd be no weak point for you to invade, just cash in hand and the opportunity to run right over the top of your groups.

Lastly, B71 was a good idea with bad follow-up. Once white extended to O3 you needed to take the opportunity to surround him before you squeezed him. Instead you tried to keep him out of your corner territory and he squirted towards the center - connecting with his right side ground, sealing your corner, destroying your potential side territory, and after that he even got a big corner out of the deal! He had his cake and ate yours too.

If you wanted to defend that corner you should've just taken O3, let him extend to J3, and then launched an invasion either in his corner or between his hoshi stone and that side position.

- Marty Lund

Pardon my ego, but I said, "Tenuki is always an option."

Years ago on rec.games.go John Fairbairn asked people to submit candidates for new go proverbs. That was mine.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

A few more comments.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

At move 34: your right side group is not weak. It's quite strong. The space in Q10 is easily an eye. You have wide open access to the center for that group. The group has no cutting points or weak spots. And in an extreme emergency, if you somehow get surrounded, playing a single move at S12 will immediately make you another second eye on the edge.

Additionally, P8 is loosely connected to P5. White cannot easily cut, because if he loses both the P6 and P7 liberties, black can kill it starting with an atari at R6. So not only does your right side group both have center access and almost 2 eyes as it stands, but white will find it tricky to profitably separate it from the lower right corner. Seems to be a pretty clear "strong group" to my eyes.

It looks as though one of my (many) problems is not being able to figure out which groups are weak. (This would probably help explain why so many of my attacks seem to go wrong while my opponents' work well.) I seem to recall being told in a review that a group shouldn't necessarily look for two eyes on the side, but one on the side and one in the center. The reason given was that if you play for two eyes on the side, you're going to get sealed in and wind up with small life, which is what happened to White at the beginning of the game. On the other hand, the problem for me is that all I see is a group that might have one eye on the side, and maybe at some point in the future -- far beyond how far ahead I can read -- will get another eye in the middle. And that to me seems like a weakness.

As for the thickness, the problem I have is that I honestly can't remember it working out well for me any time I gave up territory to get thickness in return. Stronger players say it's good, but all I ever see happening is a bunch of stones that get surrounded on two sides and have to fight to make two eyes since they often no longer have access to an eye on the side.

You might have been able to glean from my comments that when I play, one of the things I think about is what stronger players would say about my next move when I'm faced with a number of options. I think I've made the analogy before, but I find the result is often like on those TV cooking shows. You see a master chef quickly go through the ingredients and the order in which to combine them, and then put the dish in the oven on medium heat for 20 minutes. And then -- voilà! they pull out the lovely dish that they made before the recording. You try it at home, and the result never looks quite as appealing as what you see on TV. It's the same for me at the goban: do what I think the stronger players would say, but the result never seems to work out the way they say it should.

When it comes to specific questions on some of your comments, I'll probably have more later in the day.

I used to have big problems with this as well for a very long time. But I think the problems are related. It really seems to me from the game and your comments that your play is very, very pessimistic - almost to the point that where others see a strong wall, you see a weak group. And yes, then it might seem very tempting to live quietly on the edge while being sealed in. At least, then you have one less group to worry about. Right?

But in fact, you are forgetting that when you're strong, you can use your wall for both attack and defense. Your opponent should not be able to go unpunished when playing close to your thickness, rather they should be squashed against the wall. And you yourself can invade much easier when you're thick, because you can run towards your wall.


This is the key point. What you are missing is that when you have a lot of influence in the center, you often don't need to make eyes at all! In case of trouble, your groups can just link up to some friends and be safe. Of course, having eyes is a nice bonus. But in fact, often the best way to live is to be connected to another group. If you can connect two groups, then usually both of them live. So then, effectively, two groups become alive with one move. The keyword is "connecting groups"!

Move 115 of the game you posted struck me as a perfect example. That move is really very negative. Why not try E7 or G5 to give one of your groups access to the center instead? Or if you're really worried about your wall, you can build a bridge with something like O13.

Of course, these things are indeed tough to master. To help you though: here are three tips!
* When strong, ATTACK & INVADE! When weak, become strong first!
* Don't try to live locally, unless you are really forced to!
* Don't be pessimistic! Your opponent's weak groups are just as weak as yours!

Oh, and you shouldn't value the short-term gain of getting a few points too highly. Go is about who has more points in the end, not about who has more points at move 50!

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

It seems that your proverb has entered the popular vocabulary, losing attribution and becoming just another proverb. Perhaps the ultimate compliment?

I looked through the rest of the game, and your comments. Two thoughts:

1) You're Eeyore!

2) Your evaluations are pretty consistently 20-50% worse than they should be. I think if you imagine you've got 20 points in komi, and play like that, your evaluations will be much closer to being accurate.

115 really is a perfect example. Imagine playing it at H9; there'd be no less than *three* groups for you to potentially connect to. You don't need eyes when you have that many potential ways to run in an emergency. There's no way black could break all three connections in sente.

It's the same principle as "don't physically capture stones until you have to"; don't make eyes until you have to.

What you need to do is to keep your options in mind. You need eyes, a connection, or a dead opponent's group to live. Usually the choice is eyes or connection. So, if you have two potential ways to make your second eye and two ways to connect, you actually have four ways to live. In cases where you have more than one way to live, you usually shouldn't take one of them until your opponent removes the next-to-last option. This is because connection and eye making moves usually do not gain you points (they just prevent you from losing points). Of course, to play like this, you must have a general idea of your options, and you have to double check that your options are truly independent.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com