| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| 1d vs. 1d http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11697 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Pippen [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 1d vs. 1d |
I am looking for real bad mistakes for White here, mistakes that decided the game against me or did shift the situation significantly against me. I think White's 84 was such a move, but any move earlier? |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
I would have preferred to see white take the open corner with 6. Move 34 looks heavy. It commits white to essentially one line of play. I would have attached at D10. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
I agree with Joaz.  is heavy. If you want to run with it, jump at move 16. Although I think that invading on the 3-3 is better. Remember Jowa's advice, Don't run. This invasion threatens to utilize the aji of the  stone.The boshi aims at an invasion on the left side or at "a", to work with the stone.
|
|
| Author: | ez4u [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Kirby's Study Journal |
Pippen wrote: I am looking for real bad mistakes for White here, mistakes that decided the game against me or did shift the situation significantly against me. I think White's 84 was such a move, but any move earlier? I don't think that 84 is the problem. By then you need to play there to continue with your strategy. But What about 72? I think that White should jump once more to 1 below. It strengthens the center group and, if Black jumps in turn, allows for a more natural closing off of the side. |
|
| Author: | Shaddy [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
After the joseki starting with 6, White 4 is misplaced. 4 should be either an approach to a Black corner, or in the empty corner. You should stop playing that side split, because it's not a good move. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Also,  would be better placed at C-16 or D-16. Later you can make the approach to the bottom right corner or the two space extension to N-03, depending on how things go.
|
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Shaddy wrote: ...You should stop playing that side split, because it's not a good move. I thought about saying this myself, but it is sort of like telling a guy that his girlfriend is a junkie and that he should dump her. But you don't say it because he is so in love that he won't listen. You have to wait until she cleans out his apartment, steals his car, and splits. Then he will listen. 
|
|
| Author: | Shaddy [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
I considered omitting it, but I've not the patience to wait for Pippen to realize it's not good. I've waited long enough. I think it's important to get rid of the idea that it's ok to play bad moves because you prefer the result or some reason like that. It lets you get away from facing down positions with which you're uncomfortable, which is important for improving. In fact I'll say it again. Splitting the side instead of taking a corner is a bad move and not a good move. |
|
| Author: | Pippen [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Thx you all, all answers were really good in showing me mistakes and new ideas I hadn't in my mind before, except those comments that insulted "my girlfriend"  . I am a firm believer that a split fuseki is only slighty inferior and makes that up with the ability to be more flexible and suited for serious fighting and just look: If I play ez4u's proposal them I am clearly ahead, am I? Of course, usually I play this kind of split fuseki that should look better for White:@shaddy: You got it right, the idea originally was that I didn't know how to handle moyo fusekis (Sanrensei, Chinese, Mini-Chinese,...) down the stretch, so I wanted to avoid them. And it worked and still works since I feel if I lose those game it's in the middle game thru mistakes. With my split approach I jumped from 1k to 1d. Of course this is a philosophical theme of generality: Facing unsettling situations do you rather avoid them (split) or do you rather face them to master them (play corner and invite moyo games)? I don't think one is better than the other, because too often one can see the braves - those trying to face things - going down while the cowards survive.... |
|
| Author: | gowan [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Pippin is free to play any move he wants to. However, it is not good to tell other people to play moves he himself admits are (slightly) inferior. I believe that Pippin wins using that idea because his opponents at that level are not skillful enough to take advantage of the inferior move, just as Pippin is admittedly not skillful enough to play successfully against a moyo game. He seems to want to improve in his game but if he is wed to his split side move, eventually his opponents will win against it often enough that Pippin won't improve. As others have said, why not learn how to play against moyo game? If you want help, take some lessons from a pro. |
|
| Author: | Shaddy [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Pippen wrote: I'd be very happy as this Black. White doesn't have development potential; the two-space extension group there doesn't usually make many points. |
|
| Author: | Pippen [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
gowan wrote: I believe that Pippin wins using that idea because his opponents at that level are not skillful enough to take advantage of the inferior move, just as Pippin is admittedly not skillful enough to play successfully against a moyo game. Yes. Quote: He seems to want to improve in his game but if he is wed to his split side move, eventually his opponents will win against it often enough that Pippin won't improve. If I would find that out I'd change my style. But I doubt that my opening is the key I do not developing further. The opening is only slightly inferior (in fact many examples of split fusekis are played once in a while by pros or come around thru different move order) and too much is decided in the middle game to think that such a fuseki could block a development of growth if it was there. On the 1d-4d level there are still so many mistakes, misreads, blunders that fuseki becomes almost meaningless, except for example if you open twice with 2-2 as White or 3times 2-2 as Black. Quote: As others have said, why not learn how to play against moyo game? If you want help, take some lessons from a pro. I decided I do not want to put money or too much effort - more than the casual playing - into Go. If I had a regular teacher I'd be probably better, but at the end of the day it's just a board game. If you put money on it, it's no better than to put money on WoW. It's wasted because at a certain points the benefits of Go for ones life are just marginal. Then it is just about pure fun. |
|
| Author: | Pippen [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Shaddy wrote: Pippen wrote: I'd be very happy as this Black. White doesn't have development potential; the two-space extension group there doesn't usually make many points. That is a misconception about the split fuseki. It doesn't want to make points with the split early. The split serves as "the foot in the door" to start fights and invasions to make the game complex and thus to provoke mistakes one can easily use. There are two possibilities: Either a player likes to play moyo games, then the split fuseki won't suit him and he's already in disadvantage. Or a player doesn't care or likes it, then it's just on equal terms since the game becomes so unpredictable that nobody knows how it ends and who makes the first mistakes. If computers are strong enough I will have fun to test it out, like the board above. I bet Remi's CS in 100 test games would get a near 50% winning/losing for black in the above position, just as in all "standard" fusekis. IMO the fuseki in gernal is way too overestimated. |
|
| Author: | skydyr [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
As a stylistic question, at  why not split again? The game move seems inconsistent.If you were happy to play the inside approach as white here, it seems like white would have a better position by having taking the open corner at  and then playing the same type of move on the bottom, or at and treating somewhat lightly. If you weren't happy to play it that way, what made it so much better 10 moves later?
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Pippen wrote: On the 1d-4d level there are still so many mistakes, misreads, blunders that fuseki becomes almost meaningless So true. We might as well have a computer place the first 50 moves at random and go from there. 
|
|
| Author: | Boidhre [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Bill Spight wrote: Pippen wrote: On the 1d-4d level there are still so many mistakes, misreads, blunders that fuseki becomes almost meaningless So true. We might as well have a computer place the first 50 moves at random and go from there. Go960? 
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Shaddy wrote: Pippen wrote: I'd be very happy as this Black. White doesn't have development potential; the two-space extension group there doesn't usually make many points. Pippen wrote: I bet Remi's CS in 100 test games would get a near 50% winning/losing for black in the above position, just as in all "standard" fusekis. I agree. I think that  should be in the top left corner.
|
|
| Author: | Pippen [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
skydyr wrote: As a stylistic question, at why not split again? The game move seems inconsistent.If you were happy to play the inside approach as white here, it seems like white would have a better position by having taking the open corner at and then playing the same type of move on the bottom, or at and treating somewhat lightly. If you weren't happy to play it that way, what made it so much better 10 moves later?I never split twice since that seems to be too slow. @bill: To me that looks worse for Black, because White has tons of options here, e.g. 'a', developing very smoothly and with a lot of possibilities for later. By the way: I found 1 pro game in that opening category that look split fusekish (only different move order): p.s. I recommend this database with ~70.000 pro games, free on the internet: http://ps.waltheri.net/ |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Pippen wrote: @bill: To me that looks worse for Black, because White has tons of options here, e.g. 'a', developing very smoothly and with a lot of possibilities for later. Do you really think that is the right play for Black in the top left corner?Pippen wrote: By the way: I found 1 pro game in that opening category that look split fusekish (only different move order): It seems to me that that bolsters the idea that should be in the top left corner when is a wedge on the bottom side.
|
|
| Author: | Pippen [ Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1d vs. 1d |
Quite an ordinary invasion, but I always struggle to know how to continue (except to cut with the next black stone at F4). Can somebody show me the best sequence of 5-10 moves available for Black and White and then judge who's better? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|