| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| 1k vs 2d, half point loss http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10439 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Numsgil [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 1k vs 2d, half point loss |
Played as black. Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
 W tenuki from  , L17 area seems very good for B ? Oh, you got it on  . J17 seems big shared vital point ? how about close W completely with something like P13 ? Also, you have P17 + N18 sequence to first make sure W is very close to dead locally. do you think the right side is bigger ? N4, or o5 ?
|
|
| Author: | Numsgil [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1k vs 2d, half point loss |
Thanks for the thoughts yeah figured I'd get sente to attack either the top or bottom. My thinking was taking J17 now was a wishy-washy move that doesn't really pressure either white group strongly. But maybe by setting up a large scale split attack on two white groups it's superior to a severe attack on just one. I think you're right about taking P17 and N18 in sente first. I was concerned about pushing at P17 with the aji at S16, but I don't think white has time to start trouble there. I really debated this in-game. My concern was that if I tried to build territory on the right, white would get to play a ladder breaker cum attack at C8.
|
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
| , yea, your lower left corner is no problem because you still have miai of C2, extend to C9, or jump out. But, the left side:
but I could be completely wrong.  No ladder: if necessary, you drop the 3 useless J15 stones (junk food for W ).
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1k vs 2d, half point loss |
Some top of the head comments, and some neat endgame variations. |
|
| Author: | ez4u [ Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1k vs 2d, half point loss |
I'd like to comment on two moves, one by White and one by Black. The two are 81 by White and 116 by Black. IMHO they suffer from the same problem. Basically what happens below is that White plays forcing moves with  and  and then makes a hanging connection with  . As I see it there are two ways to understand 77 and 79. First we might consider these to be kikashi that should be played and then abandoned for the moment. Second we might consider these to be essential cutting stones that will allow White to attack Black to the left and/or the right. Which is it? As I look at the board, Black is strong both to the right and to the left. This looks like one of those situations where we say, "If you're not bleeding, you're not cut." White has continued with cutting stones that only create weak White stones rather than Black ones. In the game, Black takes White's word for these being important and threatening stones and continues tightly with a peep at  , which White proceeds to ignore with  . Bill's suggestion to play from a distance with 82 at 'a' is better because we should be seeing the White stones as a target rather than a serious threat. Also in the game Black cut across the knight's move with  . I would have preferred to attach at 'b' instead, giving White more rope to (hopefully) hang himself with. Later in the game Black returns the favor and plays 110 through 114 as a nice kikashi combination in the bottom left as shown below. Now, however, it is Black's turn to put too much emphasis on a couple of kikashi stones. When Black connects with 116, White is able to attach at 117 and Black is rather at a loss for what to do next. A better approach would have been to play from the center at 1 below. Black is willing to give up 110 through 114 if in so doing the White left side can be cut off. For example if White plays atari with 2, Black is willing to hold back with 3 and 5 and then again with 7. What does White accomplish here? |
|
| Author: | emeraldemon [ Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1k vs 2d, half point loss |
ez4u wrote: "If you're not bleeding, you're not cut." I haven't heard this before, but I like it! |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1k vs 2d, half point loss |
 was my first thought, too. But after  I overlooked  .  Since I was giving top of my head comments, I dropped the matter and said nothing.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|