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 (to where I tenuki-ed at move 100) was not good, I think. My plan was to cut off the single stone at N14, but it was obviously an overplay

* 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?

_________________
be immersed

Are you saying you had no major thoughts up to ? What is your assessment of the situation up to that point? 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?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

The first bad move I saw was . If you look through professional games, the only move B ever plays locally (apart from tenuki) is the tight R7. To non-professional eyes, this move looks awkward and inefficient, but with practice it starts looking better, and eventually it even looks good The advantage of this move, apart from preempting a good W play on the right side, is that it prepares lots of B follow-ups like O2 and O5 for later. The looser game move lets W play Q6 in sente, removing much of this aji. And when B responds to Q6, the previous B move will become inefficient.

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.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Well, in my own review, the sequence starting at was the first move that I really felt was weird, and like a bad plan.

In other words, if I played another fast game, I would be pleased if I did not play the sequence starting at . But (just based on my own review), if I played the moves preceding in a subsequent game, I would not feel bad for repeating the mistakes.

I know there are mistakes in the moves before , but I do not know exactly what they are. That's part of the reason I hope to get review comments from this game.



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?

_________________
be immersed

Excellent point. And in fact, did seem a little unnatural to me, but during the game, and even after the game until reading your comment here, I did not see the reason why it was worse than R7. It seemed to push further ahead, and feel less over-concentrated.

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?

_________________
be immersed

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. But from this board, in retrospect, I do think that J16 and K16 look better. In terms of separating the groups, I like K16 better than J16. However, J16 does have the benefit of having some extra space.

All in all, I think that I like your K16 in this board position.



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?

_________________
be immersed

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.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Yep, I agree.



I agree with this. This may partially be due to the pincer that I played to begin with, as you mentioned earlier.



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:




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?

_________________
be immersed

A few questions/comments then:

1. Why play as a tenuki from White's approach and then dive into the 3-3 in gote? This seems like it is inconsistent? Did you have a plan and did this result seem appropriate to you?
2. is heavy and gives White a live group. You end up playing two stones ( and ) to separate the two groups. O13, threatening to cut, is probably better for . If White answers at Q12, the weak point at S12 remains. If White answers at R11 instead, you have Q12. Of course O13 does not stop the push and cut, so after White answers, you go back and add P17. If White answers this with O17, you play O16 and we revert to the joseki when White makes the second approach at O17. If White does not answer, you are left with the slide to N18, which is very big. BTW, I also think you should go ahead and play S15 and Q15 right away (see the point below).
3. At I would tend toward J16 myself. However, I might be wrong about that. I think the real point is . With the two White stones waiting in the middle of the top and Black already having played the cap at N12, the situation demands that Black continue at the top. Should it be L16, or maybe K16? Both look at something like L13 next. Jumping out to H15 looks like it leaves too much room at the top for White (immediate K17 by White?). The upper left will have to take a hit, but I believe this makes more sense across the board as a whole than answering in the corner.
4. Given how much you like to fight, did you consider at J15, followed by M16 and the cut at L15? If White answers L15 at K15 and you L14, can White survive everywhere? This looks too hard to read out in a quick game (especially since White could decide to sacrifice the R14 stones), but did you consider the possibility?
5. At why not just capture everything with D18, E17, B18? It does not look to me like White can possibly win a semeai against the Black top side stones.

Meanwhile how about the situation at ? was definitely not a good idea. White should have answered at O15, just to make sure that Black had destroyed his own eye potential here! But then there was . White out-thinks Black here (or Black out-thinks himself). Basically it is correct that the White stones are not yet clearly alive - but they are not cut off and isolated either. A more reasonable idea would be to surround them from a distance. Also, Black has just as little eye shape as White and is in more danger of being cut off. What is worth doing on the rest of the board? One task is to reduce the White bottom area. Another would be to build up the Black left side. Either of these can involve plays that begin to surround the top White stones from a distance. However, right now Black should be a worried about being surrounded by White. To me a play that moves out from the upper right and begins reducing the bottom feels about right. That said, Black's shape is weak here. The combination of P13 and N12 played earlier is liable to be cut. Even a one-space jump like N10 is open to a White peep at N11. Something like N13 is slow and ugly, but Black needs to do some repair work. If White M14, Black jumps to L12, threatening to activate H14 or to jump down toward the bottom (all the way to N7 even?).

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.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

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 because I wanted to hinder white's development on the bottom. You bring up a good point that my very next move, the 3-3, is inconsistent with this idea. I think that I played the 3-3 because, in general, I am more comfortable when my stones have a definite base. When stones are just splitting white, or do not have a definite space on the side for eyes, I get a bit concerned.

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 was a bad choice because it made white so strong, but my original intention was to protect the cut in sente. Maybe I am overvaluing the value of sente here. I probably am, because I ALWAYS want sente…

3. I am surprised of the idea of ignoring the top left - the that I played in the game. I agree that it is big to play another move on the top. However, I don't know if I would be able to identify the situation in which I should tenuki the top left, given a similar opportunity in a future game. How do you evaluate that a play on the top is bigger than in the game?

4. "Given how much you like to fight"
Haha. What gives you this idea?

"Did you consider at J15…"
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.



Yeah, K6 would have been scary. What is a good move for 106? Perhaps K6 or something, myself?

_________________
be immersed

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? In this case, you wanted to hinder the bottom when White had chosen to play first on the side. Given the symmetry on the board, I see no reason to prioritize the bottom above the right side. If the board were asymmetric, e.g. one corner had a 3-4 stone instead of 4-4 there might be a reason, but I do not see it here.

2. Your play at N12 was both gote and a weak shape that was subject to pressure later in the game! In the O13 version, the only way that White keeps sente is to leave Black with some damaging plays along the top. In the game, pretty obviously whoever ends up with sente will play in the upper left. However, that is a 4-4 stone right now so even if Black plays first, there will still be follow up for White. Sente is good, but sente at this point will not decide the game. Weak groups and bad aji left lying around will affect the course of the game long after the last big play of the fuseki has been claimed.

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.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

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:


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).

_________________
be immersed

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. White comes out stronger than Black. Normally Black only really wants to play like this when White already has a stone on the right side that will become over-concentrated.

Consider the 5-3 joseki below. Now think about your comments above and ask yourself where should White play next?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 9 6 X . . . .
$$ | . . 1 , 3 4 . . .
$$ | . . 7 . 5 . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 8 . 0 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

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.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

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.

_________________
be immersed

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. However, if we can not make that step we accumulate self-imposed weaknesses.

"We learn something every day, and lots of times it's that what we learned the day before was wrong."
- Bill Vaughn

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Thanks, ez4u.

_________________
be immersed