Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
Please review my two stone game (I was black) http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4393 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Kirby [ Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Here is a game I played today, again with main time at 30 seconds per move, where I had two stones against my opponent. Please review it. Some notes I have about the game (please comment on this part, in particular): * The sequence starting with ![]() * At move 104, I was not sure what I wanted to do. White had some influence/moyo mojo going on, and I wanted to reduce it or invade it. It wasn't clear to me the best way to do this. You can see the sequence that follows. * The sequence starting at move 134 was obviously not working for me, and bad for black. I thought I could cut off his R12 group, and had weird visions of killing it if he didn't let me connect. I was obviously imagining things. * Please let me know if you think 142 was the best play locally. Was G5 better? * B13 (move 170) was a misread and an overplay. The plan was this: I wanted to play b9, but it did not work directly. I was attempting to get black stones to connect to after playing b9 if white blocked at b8 in response to my b9. Obviously, I did not accomplish this. * R10 (move 196) was bad. I forgot white had S16, so the cut does nothing. Instead I should be the one playing S16 - or another part of the board. Those are the major thoughts I had of the game. Does anybody have any other insight into the game? |
Author: | ez4u [ Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Are you saying you had no major thoughts up to ![]() |
Author: | mitsun [ Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
The first bad move I saw was ![]() ![]() |
Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Move 34 was good in intention but iffy in execution. You can attack two groups at once by playing any of several different spots on the top side. And the only way that your cutting stone can really get into trouble is if you play it low and too close to one of the targets. And you did both ![]() Something like J16 or K16 looks better. My overall feeling about the game is that you are too tightly focussed, making locally good moves without considering their large scale effects. |
Author: | Kirby [ Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:03 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
ez4u wrote: Are you saying you had no major thoughts up to ![]() Well, in my own review, the sequence starting at ![]() In other words, if I played another fast game, I would be pleased if I did not play the sequence starting at ![]() ![]() I know there are mistakes in the moves before ![]() ![]() ez4u wrote: Do you feel that you maintained the advantage of the your two stones? Why did you set out to capture N14? Did you consider that the key strategic point of the board as it stood at that time or was there another reason? Well, I didn't think that deeply about capturing N14, but I think my reasoning at that point in the game was this: 1.) Hmm, his influence down there is a bit troublesome. 2.) He's got a group up on top that doesn't necessarily have two eyes. 3.) Maybe if I try to terrorize it, something good will happen (eg. get power against the influence on the bottom, or maybe even be able to attack it a lot). Since I didn't read out the execution well, #3 obviously didn't happen. To your other point, I do not feel that I maintained the advantage of my two stones. That's another reason I wanted to put this up for review. Where did I lose the two stones? |
Author: | Kirby [ Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:07 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
mitsun wrote: The first bad move I saw was ![]() ![]() Excellent point. And in fact, ![]() Your explanation gives a great reason why R7 works better. It seems that this required looking at another situation that could arise on the board, instead of the immediate local vicinity. That's something I'm not good at, I think. Your point is a very good one, and I appreciate it. Do you have any other comments? |
Author: | Kirby [ Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: Move 34 was good in intention but iffy in execution. You can attack two groups at once by playing any of several different spots on the top side. And the only way that your cutting stone can really get into trouble is if you play it low and too close to one of the targets. And you did both ![]() Something like J16 or K16 looks better. Hmm, yes. During the game, I actually considered J17 instead of H17, since it was further away. I do not know exactly why I rejected it. But I like your high moves better. I have a hard time playing high moves for some reason. Maybe it comes down to our discussion earlier about territory vs. influence. ![]() All in all, I think that I like your K16 in this board position. Joaz Banbeck wrote: My overall feeling about the game is that you are too tightly focussed, making locally good moves without considering their large scale effects. This could very well be. Could you elaborate, please? I have had people tell me before that I lose track of the big picture (both in real life and in go). Do you have a diagnosis? Alternatively, do you have some examples? It appears that mitsun has already given one (:b18:). Is this the same example that you were thinking of? |
Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Kirby wrote: ... Joaz Banbeck wrote: My overall feeling about the game is that you are too tightly focussed, making locally good moves without considering their large scale effects. This could very well be. Could you elaborate, please? I have had people tell me before that I lose track of the big picture (both in real life and in go). Do you have a diagnosis? Alternatively, do you have some examples? It appears that mitsun has already given one (:b18:). Is this the same example that you were thinking of? 18 as you played it gets a point or two more locally, but if you think on a larger scale, as Mitsun mentions, it forgoes the aji of O2 and O5. 38-48: The whole process of living low with N19 looks ok locally, but when you look at it on a larger scale, you can see that it encourages him to continue with P17 which damages your other group. 138 is another example. Locally, it appears to be invading white's sphere of influence and preventing him from getting territory there. But on a larger scale, black would prefer to play S10, limiting that same potential while also making territory of your own. On move 192, when you finally do get sente to expand your lower right group, the best that you can do is S9 instead of S10, because you forced him to play R10 earlier. By my calculation that is a loss of 2 points due to move 138. -------------- BTW, separate from the topic of focussing: at move 70, O15 was the vital point. O16 feels like it gets you more space, and you eventually do with O15. ( If you look at your corner at move 100, it is not clear that you have room for two eyes there, but you are secure because you always have P16. ) But if he had taken O15 himself with 71 you could have been in trouble. |
Author: | Kirby [ Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: ... 18 as you played it gets a point or two more locally, but if you think on a larger scale, as Mitsun mentions, it forgoes the aji of O2 and O5. Yep, I agree. Joaz Banbeck wrote: 38-48: The whole process of living low with N19 looks ok locally, but when you look at it on a larger scale, you can see that it encourages him to continue with P17 which damages your other group. I agree with this. This may partially be due to the pincer that I played to begin with, as you mentioned earlier. Joaz Banbeck wrote: 138 is another example. Locally, it appears to be invading white's sphere of influence and preventing him from getting territory there. But on a larger scale, black would prefer to play S10, limiting that same potential while also making territory of your own. On move 192, when you finally do get sente to expand your lower right group, the best that you can do is S9 instead of S10, because you forced him to play R10 earlier. By my calculation that is a loss of 2 points due to move 138. I agree that 138 was bad, but I'm not sure if it was as much about playing local vs. global as the fact that I blatantly misread, as I mentioned in the original post: Kirby wrote: * The sequence starting at move 134 was obviously not working for me, and bad for black. I thought I could cut off his R12 group, and had weird visions of killing it if he didn't let me connect. I was obviously imagining things. Joaz Banbeck wrote: BTW, separate from the topic of focussing: at move 70, O15 was the vital point. O16 feels like it gets you more space, and you eventually do with O15. ( If you look at your corner at move 100, it is not clear that you have room for two eyes there, but you are secure because you always have P16. ) But if he had taken O15 himself with 71 you could have been in trouble. Well, I think that O15 is a better point to play for sure. But my reasoning for O16 was single-fold: I wanted to play M15 without having it get cut off. And, again, I think this was a bad strategy. By the way, thank you for all of your comments. Also, I would like to thank the others that have commented in this thread, as well. One item that I don't think was addressed was this: * Please let me know if you think 142 was the best play locally. Was G5 better? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? |
Author: | ez4u [ Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Kirby wrote: ez4u wrote: Are you saying you had no major thoughts up to ![]() Well, in my own review, the sequence starting at ![]() In other words, if I played another fast game, I would be pleased if I did not play the sequence starting at ![]() ![]() I know there are mistakes in the moves before ![]() ![]() ez4u wrote: Do you feel that you maintained the advantage of the your two stones? Why did you set out to capture N14? Did you consider that the key strategic point of the board as it stood at that time or was there another reason? Well, I didn't think that deeply about capturing N14, but I think my reasoning at that point in the game was this: 1.) Hmm, his influence down there is a bit troublesome. 2.) He's got a group up on top that doesn't necessarily have two eyes. 3.) Maybe if I try to terrorize it, something good will happen (eg. get power against the influence on the bottom, or maybe even be able to attack it a lot). Since I didn't read out the execution well, #3 obviously didn't happen. To your other point, I do not feel that I maintained the advantage of my two stones. That's another reason I wanted to put this up for review. Where did I lose the two stones? A few questions/comments then: ![]()
Meanwhile how about the situation at ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Finally, Black 106 looks too deep. If White had capped at K6 with 107, the whole center looks like turning White and you could start the next game right away. ![]() |
Author: | Kirby [ Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
ez4u wrote: … Thanks so much for taking the time to leave some comments, ez4u! I really appreciate it. Here are some responses to the numbered items that you listed: 1. I played ![]() So I think what happened here is I thought that I wanted to hinder white's development, and then I chickened out, because I did not know how to respond to his pincer comfortably. I suppose the solution to this would have been to try jumping out. 2. I like your idea of O13, and I think that it produces a better local board position than what I played. If you don't mind further explanation on this, could you let me know more about how you feel OK leaving the situation in gote? I think that my ![]() 3. I am surprised of the idea of ignoring the top left - the ![]() ![]() 4. "Given how much you like to fight" Haha. What gives you this idea? "Did you consider ![]() No, I did not consider that possibility. It does look interesting, though. I like the pressure that it (potentially) puts on the N16 stones. 5. I guess the only answer is that I was a chicken. I think that you're completely correct. I really agree with your assessment of the situation starting with 68/70. I should have strategized from a distance. ez4u wrote: Finally, Black 106 looks too deep. If White had capped at K6 with 107, the whole center looks like turning White and you could start the next game right away. Yeah, K6 would have been scary. What is a good move for 106? Perhaps K6 or something, myself? |
Author: | ez4u [ Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Kirby wrote: ez4u wrote: … Thanks so much for taking the time to leave some comments, ez4u! I really appreciate it. Here are some responses to the numbered items that you listed: 1. I played ![]() So I think what happened here is I thought that I wanted to hinder white's development, and then I chickened out, because I did not know how to respond to his pincer comfortably. I suppose the solution to this would have been to try jumping out. 2. I like your idea of O13, and I think that it produces a better local board position than what I played. If you don't mind further explanation on this, could you let me know more about how you feel OK leaving the situation in gote? I think that my ![]() 3. I am surprised of the idea of ignoring the top left - the ![]() ![]() 4. "Given how much you like to fight" Haha. What gives you this idea? "Did you consider ![]() No, I did not consider that possibility. It does look interesting, though. I like the pressure that it (potentially) puts on the N16 stones. 5. I guess the only answer is that I was a chicken. I think that you're completely correct. I really agree with your assessment of the situation starting with 68/70. I should have strategized from a distance. ez4u wrote: Finally, Black 106 looks too deep. If White had capped at K6 with 107, the whole center looks like turning White and you could start the next game right away. Yeah, K6 would have been scary. What is a good move for 106? Perhaps K6 or something, myself? 1. I think that if you wanted to hinder White's development, a pincer in the upper right would have been more reasonable than playing away completely. I think it is useful to consider a continuum from replying in various ways to White's approach, to pincering the approach stone, to playing away. We can think that you move out along an aggression/risk curve, depending on what approach you choose. Only the subsequent play tells you whether you achieve sufficient rewards to go with your chosen risks. Particularly at the very beginning of the game, the symmetry can make it difficult to achieve a clear payback. White has as much flexibility as you do. Also, in a handicap game should we expect that Black is better at handling complexity than White? ![]() 2. Your play at N12 was both gote and a weak shape that was subject to pressure later in the game! ![]() 3. I think this is a case of urgent versus big. A second play at the top creates a very weak group for White. A third play by White in the upper left will not kill Black. Also Black already has the C6 stone in place so outward influence for White will have limited effect. 4. ...like to fight... I think your avatar gives you away! ![]() ~106 I think I would be inclined to play F7 to see how White will respond. Black does have to tackle the center-bottom somehow, but the more territory Black threatens to make on the left, the less he has to reduce the center. The two stones on the bottom left are the weakest part of White's formation. |
Author: | Kirby [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
ez4u wrote: …... 4. ...like to fight... I think your avatar gives you away! ![]() ~106 I think I would be inclined to play F7 to see how White will respond. Black does have to tackle the center-bottom somehow, but the more territory Black threatens to make on the left, the less he has to reduce the center. The two stones on the bottom left are the weakest part of White's formation. Thanks a lot for the comments, ez4u. I can understand and relate to just about everything you've said, but I'm left with one remaining comment: In response to: Quote: Your play at N12 was both gote and a weak shape that was subject to pressure later in the game! I agree that N12 was gote, but it seems to me to be the way that I selected to use my "sente". It was probably a poor choice due to the bad shape, but what I was really getting at was, I opted to play R13 so that I would not have to go back and protect white's cut at Q15 in gote. As it turns out, I ended up playing N12 in gote anyway, but my real question is, is sacrificing R13 as I did (in order to avoid protecting the cut in gote) a good strategy? Presumably it's not the choice you would have made, and I guess this is because it makes white so strong. I guess I just saw the play at R13 "more sente" than coming out at O13. I will trust that R13 is better, but I feel I would have a hard time playing that way in my next game, since R13 feels kind of good to me (albeit probably a bad move). |
Author: | ez4u [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:20 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Kirby wrote: ez4u wrote: …... 4. ...like to fight... I think your avatar gives you away! ![]() ~106 I think I would be inclined to play F7 to see how White will respond. Black does have to tackle the center-bottom somehow, but the more territory Black threatens to make on the left, the less he has to reduce the center. The two stones on the bottom left are the weakest part of White's formation. Thanks a lot for the comments, ez4u. I can understand and relate to just about everything you've said, but I'm left with one remaining comment: In response to: Quote: Your play at N12 was both gote and a weak shape that was subject to pressure later in the game! I agree that N12 was gote, but it seems to me to be the way that I selected to use my "sente". It was probably a poor choice due to the bad shape, but what I was really getting at was, I opted to play R13 so that I would not have to go back and protect white's cut at Q15 in gote. As it turns out, I ended up playing N12 in gote anyway, but my real question is, is sacrificing R13 as I did (in order to avoid protecting the cut in gote) a good strategy? Presumably it's not the choice you would have made, and I guess this is because it makes white so strong. I guess I just saw the play at R13 "more sente" than coming out at O13. I will trust that R13 is better, but I feel I would have a hard time playing that way in my next game, since R13 feels kind of good to me (albeit probably a bad move). Consider the situation before you played N12. Because the right-side White stones are alive, White can cut you off from the center with O12. This is not so easy when you have played O13 instead of R13. So I saw N12 as essentially necessary rather the the use of your sente. See my original comment above, I considered that it required two plays (P13 and N12) to separate White and break into the center, which O13 does in a single play. In the O13 variation, White can cut you off from the center, but only at the cost of driving you over the top of the two White stones at the top. R13's only value is its predictability. But predictability is not a good thing when the predictable result is not good. ![]() Consider the 5-3 joseki below. Now think about your comments above and ask yourself where should White play next? Feeling uncomfortable with a play represents an opportunity to improve. Getting our heads around new ideas and applying them in our games is actually the only way that we can improve! But it does require that we try new things in order to become comfortable with them. |
Author: | Kirby [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
I suppose I understand what you are saying, ez4u. I am having a hard time digesting it, which is why I haven't responded quickly. All of the points you make seem to make sense in isolation. I think I am having a hard time separating my feeling/intuition from logic, if that makes any sense. |
Author: | ez4u [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
Basically our feeling/intuition is either the go-specific logic/knowledge that we have internalized or else baggage that we have brought into the game from elsewhere. In order to improve we have to: 1. Apply our logic to understanding new concepts and train ourselves to intuitively apply them, and 2. Look at those things we believe that just ain't so (i.e. do not work) and retrain our intuition to exclude them. Neither tends to be a comfortable experience, but the second can be extremely difficult since it is intimately tied to our self image. None of us likes to admit we are wrong. None of us likes to admit that the great game we played last month was more a matter of what our opponent missed than what we did. ![]() "We learn something every day, and lots of times it's that what we learned the day before was wrong." - Bill Vaughn |
Author: | Kirby [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Please review my two stone game (I was black) |
ez4u wrote: Basically our feeling/intuition is either the go-specific logic/knowledge that we have internalized or else baggage that we have brought into the game from elsewhere. In order to improve we have to: 1. Apply our logic to understanding new concepts and train ourselves to intuitively apply them, and 2. Look at those things we believe that just ain't so (i.e. do not work) and retrain our intuition to exclude them. Neither tends to be a comfortable experience, but the second can be extremely difficult since it is intimately tied to our self image. None of us likes to admit we are wrong. None of us likes to admit that the great game we played last month was more a matter of what our opponent missed than what we did. ![]() "We learn something every day, and lots of times it's that what we learned the day before was wrong." - Bill Vaughn Thanks, ez4u. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |