Kirby's Study Journal

Kirby · **#1761**

Didn't do the blitz tournament for the e-congress, because it's hard for my work schedule. But I am doing Inseong's summer stage. Today's activity was a game (3-person simul) with Kim Youngsam.

He smashed me:

Kirby · **#1762**

Some general notes from his review:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . O X . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . B . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

My atari above was kind of crude. Instead, he recommended this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . O X . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X O 3 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 1 5 7 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

---

He liked my move here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . O . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O B . . O X . X X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X O O O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

He also liked this one:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O X X . O X . X X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . O X . X X X O O O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . X O . . O . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But he said the timing was good to play this, first:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 2 3 O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O 1 5 O X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O X X . O X . X X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . O X . X X X O O O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . X O . . O . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Or otherwise, play the ko I played later in the game.

The problem is, I didn't see that ko that early in the game.

Still, he thought the game was OK, but didn't like the move here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . . O X . . . B . O . . . . . | $$ | . O O X X . O X . X X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . O X . X X X O O O X . . O O X . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . X . . . C X . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . X O . . O O O X . O O . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I played it because I was concerned about his cut. However, he said this variation was good for black:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . . O X . . . 7 8 O . . . . . | $$ | . O O X X . O X . X X 5 6 . . X . . . | $$ | . O X . X X X O O O X 3 4 O O X . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . X . . 2 1 X . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . X O . . O O O X 9 O O . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . X 0 . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X 3 . 1 2 . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . . O X . . . O X O 4 . . . . | $$ | . O O X X . O X . X X O X . . X . . . | $$ | . O X . X X X O O O X O X O O X . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . X . . X O X . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . X O . . O O O X O O O . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . X X . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was really worried about him cutting and capturing me, but he said that black is getting a lot of points and thick here. I can kind of see it now, but it was hard during the game to think about that.

Finally, he said the ko I did was a good try, but I shouldn't kill the top here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . X . . . O . B . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X . X X O . O O X O . . X X O . . . . | $$ | O X O O X O O X X . . X . O O . O . . | $$ | . O O X X . O X . X X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . O X . X X X O O O X X . O O X . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . X . . X . X . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . X O . . O O O X . O O . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . O . . . X O O . . . O . . | $$ | . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Instead, just take the ko.

During the game, I was afraid he might kill me at the top. But I didn't read an actual killing sequence. And it seems it would've been seki... So I should've just captured and moved on.

---

All in all, it was a fun game. My first time playing Youngsam.

Kirby · **#1763**

Added BIBA to the mix - joined their online program, again. My first game of this month, against NhanHo:

I knew going into this that he was stronger than me. He got really far ahead, and pointed out a couple of big joseki mistakes.

First, he said that this was too slow:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I agree with him. Instead, I can follow suit:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . W . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

More than that, he pointed out that I missed a really big move here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Instead, this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . O W . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black can play there in sente, so it's really big.

Then, he said I made black way too thick with this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X W . O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I didn't think about bringing the stone out, but he pointed out I could try this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . 2 1 O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 X 5 . O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . 4 . X . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Finally, he said this was a huge mistake:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . X X O O O O O | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . X X X X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O O O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X W . . . . , . . . X . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It really hurts my stone at the 4-6 point.

So generally speaking, I think that NhanHo really knows these corner variations better than I do. And I need to study and get a grip on them. So at least there's something I can do about it.

Kirby · **#1764**

Two games today: one for Inseong's summer stage, and then a second for the e-congress. Technically, my econgress opponent didn't show up for the 4th round, so I got a bye for that. I played Brady from Brady's Blunders instead, because his opponent also didn't show up.

Here are the games:

Summer Stage:

E-Go Congress:

I'd like to review a little bit, but probably more urgent to spend some time with my family at the moment. Spent a lot of time on go this Saturday.

Kirby · **#1765**

Last game of the summer stage:

Inseong reviewed the game, and I also checked a little bit with KataGo. Basically, black played slow in the opening so I got a lead. But things started to go awry with these two decisions:

Decision 1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Decision 1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . W . O . . . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

For this one, I think I just played too quickly. It reminded me a little bit of this shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . O O B . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . X O X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It's a little hard to say white, but the block above at the marked stone seems like a similar feeling to me.

Anyway, I just went for that kind of solid connection.

Instead, it makes a lot more sense to just play here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X C . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X C . W O . . . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The shape just seems better... For this one, I feel comfortable chalking up to just playing too quickly.

The other concept is probably a deeper problem:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O W . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Inseong says this is like a repeating concept in my games: I am not flexible. I want to play the strongest way, and I don't budge - even when it doesn't work. He said I should be more flexible and negotiate. When I'm in an advantageous situation, that lack of flexibility can be strong. But when I'm in a situation where it's not working, I can collapse.

His recommendation in this particular situation is this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . W . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I asked Inseong "how" to be more flexible. But I guess it's a hard thing to describe, and I just have to overcome it... So I've been thinking about the AYD a little bit. I've been doing it for a really long time on and off. Inseong's advice to me has changed slightly recently, but it's similar.

Before, he noted that I always play the technical moves. I try to make something happen when it's not there. I play the fancy move, just because it's fun to play. I've been trying not to do that, and recently, the repeating concept is that I'm not flexible - I go 100% or nothing.

Looking at the examples Inseong gives, I think I agree with him. But at the same time, it makes game reviews a little boring: I play a game, Inseong says I'm inflexible or tried something that didn't work. I play another game, and Inseong says I'm inflexible or tried something that didn't work.

I agree with his point, and he's probably right. I get to see some examples in my game, so there's that. But there's no path forward as to how to fix it, so I don't really see why I need Inseong to keep telling me the same thing over and over again. I can just check KataGo or something, and when I play a move that drops 10%, I can ask myself if I'm being inflexible or overly technical. Because that's the same advice I always get.

I hope I can overcome it, but I don't know how beneficial the review is when it's just the same thing on repeat. My fault for repeating, I guess.

So for the time being, I think I'm gonna go with some different teaching for now, I think. I want to still keep in mind that instruction: I'm inflexible, and I always play the technical move. But if it's always like that for me every game, I don't need a teacher to tell me over and over again - he already did.

mhlepore · **#1766**

Hi Brian - I don't think trying another method of learning is a bad idea. Sounds like you've hit a wall with the current plan.

I remember almost 20 years ago Yilun Yang came to Seattle for a weekend workshop. It was my first exposure to his style of teaching. In his game reviews, he instantly prescribed the correct move, which always cleanly conformed to one of his easy to understand principles. Yet I found it very hard to incorporate some of the lessons from that weekend into my game. In fact, I felt my game got worse, and it frustrated me quite a bit that I couldn't make his good advice fit with my play.

I still think Mr. Yang is a good teacher, but it has helped me to see other strong players make similar points in their own way. Or make different points altogether.

ez4u · **#1767**

Kirby wrote:

Last game of the summer stage...
Inseong says this is like a repeating concept in my games: I am not flexible. I want to play the strongest way, and I don't budge - even when it doesn't work. He said I should be more flexible and negotiate. When I'm in an advantageous situation, that lack of flexibility can be strong. But when I'm in a situation where it's not working, I can collapse.

I asked Inseong "how" to be more flexible. But I guess it's a hard thing to describe, and I just have to overcome it... So I've been thinking about the AYD a little bit. I've been doing it for a really long time on and off. Inseong's advice to me has changed slightly recently, but it's similar.

Before, he noted that I always play the technical moves. I try to make something happen when it's not there. I play the fancy move, just because it's fun to play. I've been trying not to do that, and recently, the repeating concept is that I'm not flexible - I go 100% or nothing.

Looking at the examples Inseong gives, I think I agree with him. But at the same time, it makes game reviews a little boring: I play a game, Inseong says I'm inflexible or tried something that didn't work. I play another game, and Inseong says I'm inflexible or tried something that didn't work.

I agree with his point, and he's probably right. I get to see some examples in my game, so there's that. But there's no path forward as to how to fix it, so I don't really see why I need Inseong to keep telling me the same thing over and over again. I can just check KataGo or something, and when I play a move that drops 10%, I can ask myself if I'm being inflexible or overly technical. Because that's the same advice I always get.

I hope I can overcome it, but I don't know how beneficial the review is when it's just the same thing on repeat. My fault for repeating, I guess.

So for the time being, I think I'm gonna go with some different teaching for now, I think. I want to still keep in mind that instruction: I'm inflexible, and I always play the technical move. But if it's always like that for me every game, I don't need a teacher to tell me over and over again - he already did.

This has me smiling and shaking my head. He tells you that you are too inflexible when you play. You cannot imagine how you could change. In other words, you are too inflexible when you don't play too! So rather than force yourself to change, you will change teachers so that you don't have to listen to the same criticism all the time. So your only flexibility will be in shooting the messenger.

Kirby · **#1768**

Not quite, ez4u. I agree that I can be inflexible and that I need to change.

But if that’s the only message I hear about my play, why do I need a teacher? To tell me the same thing, again?

If Inseong could tell me HOW to not be inflexible, or give me a path to change, then that would be valuable. But without that, I can just put up a sign on my desk and it accomplishes the same thing: a sign that says, “You’re often inflexible”.

I don’t think I can be blamed for not being patient about this. I’ve been his student on and off for about 6 years. The whole time, I’ve been inflexible, and I hear the same story.

If I knew how to fix it with Inseong’s help, I would have done it by now...

I didn’t want to say it directly, because I think Inseong is a great teacher overall. But I think that, due to the large number of students, it’s pretty easy to give a focused review for the new students he doesn’t know well, and when it’s time for my review, just find a move that’s inflexible, and move on to the next guy.

In some ways, I wonder if I’d get the same review if I were anonymous.

Kirby · **#1769**

Specifically, when you state that I “cannot imagine how I would change”, I mean that if a teacher could tell me how, I want to receive that instruction. But I’m not getting that!

Maybe you still think I’m being unreasonable. I don’t know why, do you can keep laughing and shaking your head at me, I guess.

Bill Spight · **#1770**

Kirby wrote:

I don’t think I can be blamed for not being patient about this. I’ve been his student on and off for about 6 years. The whole time, I’ve been inflexible, and I hear the same story.

Hmmm. Maybe you're not the only one who is being inflexible.

If you don't mind, here is a question. In go, what does it mean to be flexible? OK, if you knew, you could play more flexibly. So here is a related question. What might it mean to be flexible in go? A brainstorming question.

mhlepore · **#1771**

Bill Spight wrote:

If you don't mind, here is a question. In go, what does it mean to be flexible? OK, if you knew, you could play more flexibly. So here is a related question. What might it mean to be flexible in go? A brainstorming question.

Hi Bill. I know your question is for Brian, but I'm dying to get in here. I'll hide my response:

It seems this could be an issue of style, in addition to technique.

- If you always play thin, scattershot go, then you probably need to be flexible in figuring out how everything should link up.
- If you play thickly, it may be less of an issue.

Consider Brian's last two diagrams:

What he did:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O W . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What his teacher said would be more flexible:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . W . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It is true that being more flexible is one way to deal with this. Another way is to perhaps play more slow/thick in the first place, and you wouldn't have to deal with this.

That is why I'm in favor of getting exposed to more teachers - they will emphasize different ways of dealing with situations, and you can hopefully figure out what approach you like best.

Kirby · **#1772**

Bill Spight wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I don’t think I can be blamed for not being patient about this. I’ve been his student on and off for about 6 years. The whole time, I’ve been inflexible, and I hear the same story.

Hmmm. Maybe you're not the only one who is being inflexible.

If you don't mind, here is a question. In go, what does it mean to be flexible? OK, if you knew, you could play more flexibly. So here is a related question. What might it mean to be flexible in go? A brainstorming question.

You are right - I don't know exactly what it means to be flexible. I think when I've been told this, Inseong is specifically referring to the fact that I often play aggressively, aiming to get more points than the opponent, even when I'm in an area of the opponent's influence. In reality, I should expect the opponent to get more in an area where he has more, but I don't do it, sometimes.

One concept that I am trying to think about during games is that, when I am in an area where I am already strong, I can afford to play "strong" or direct moves. But in an area where the opponent is strong, I have to be willing to negotiate a little bit. I can't expect the same result in an area where the opponent already has five stones and I have one vs. a situation where I have five stones and the opponent has one.

But sometimes, it seems like I aim for this result.

It's also always easy to chalk these mistakes up to lack of reading - seems like a cop out, but in some ways, I think reading further can help. For example, if I'm outnumbered in the opponent's area, and I see a sequence that clearly seems to work for me, and I have read out the variations for it, then I think it's fine to play it, even if it seems aggressive or whatever. But where I get in trouble, I think, is when the situation is a little fuzzy and I don't see the result. In those cases, I am used to aiming for a good result, even when I'm in an area of my opponent's influence, I think.

But it's always easy to tell this stuff *after* the fact. Because I do think about this stuff before the game. However, when I'm playing a game with 200 or 250 moves, it's easy to have a lapse in judgement for part of the time. So I think that playing the game, seeing the mistake through teacher or AI, and then reviewing it with the idea that I am sometimes inflexible and playing aggressive moves even when I am weak, is a decent strategy.

yakcyll · **#1773**

I'm not sure if I should be asking this here, but have you ever managed to figure out what he means by having a fixed idea? The mind control score might actually be the one thing we should aim at minimizing.

There's a lot of talk about how playing Go is an exercise in the discovery of truth. I suppose that 'truth' usually refers to the perfect play in this context, but this concept can be extended to any position in the game. I can offer a perspective you maybe haven't considered yet - that the exploration process is not so much about finding the best path from the point X, i.e. looking for the blue move, but rather finding the best final outcome both players can achieve for themselves from that point and then finding a way towards it. In this context, your lack of flexibility may mean that you don't reconsider what the final outcome from a particular position may potentially look like. However, I think focusing too strongly on the outcome coming from the perfect play may, especially during the match, complicate matters too much to be practical. Heuristics and intuition have to remain as the guides here.

On the other hand, considering the positions considered by mhlepore, it may again refer to the concept of 'fixed idea' - you come up with a plan, execute it, your opponent responds as expected. In the end you achieve exactly what you wanted... except not really. Your sequence worked out, but the end result was less satisfactory than planned. I do this habitually and the only practical way I figured to minimize the negative impact of this approach was to get better at evaluating positions in my head (which is a struggle, as visualizing complete positions in my head remains a major challenge). The other option is, of course, to consider the board after each move in separation - 'the value of the stones always changes' and all that.

Overcoming this 'inflexibility' might be a game changer for you. If you find something that truly works, let us know.

Kirby · **#1774**

yakcyll wrote:

In this context, your lack of flexibility may mean that you don't reconsider what the final outcome from a particular position may potentially look like.

Quote:

On the other hand, considering the positions considered by mhlepore, it may again refer to the concept of 'fixed idea' - you come up with a plan, execute it, your opponent responds as expected. In the end you achieve exactly what you wanted... except not really. Your sequence worked out, but the end result was less satisfactory than planned.

Both of these happen to me. Sometimes the situation ends up not as I expected it - I didn't read far enough, and the result seems bad. And sometimes, the result is what I expect. But then I review with the AI or with teacher, and what I thought was good was bad.

The latter case is probably more instructive, but it remains difficult to know when I'm in that situation. Sometimes I read out a sequence to be good for me, it plays out that way, and the AI agrees that it's good. Sometimes I read out a sequence to be good for me, it plays out that way, and the AI (or a teacher) evaluates it as being bad.

In fact, in the game in question, the opening seemed pretty good for me, both by Inseong's review and by the AI. And in particular, I remember playing this move:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . W . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The move above isn't something that is natural for me. After getting used to all of these various 3-3 sequences, my inclination is to just tenuki as white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X W . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

playing the top right attachment, or the approach.

But not too long ago, in a game, I tenuki from this shape, and my opponent played here (at least that kind of local shape):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . B . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And I felt a lot of pressure during the game - it seemed like things had gone wrong. I mean, when I played tenuki, I knew that black had this move. But it didn't seem bad in my head until I saw it on the board.

Then in review, I found out that AI sometimes suggests that white continue:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . W . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . C . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

That helps against black's approach on the bottom, strengthens white, and gives black some pressure.

The high move isn't totally natural, especially since black can approach in the marked area above. But OK, AI likes this sometimes. So I played it in the game to get used to it.

I guess in this case, I have a bad intuition of the board regarding when white should tenuki. But it's somewhat "curable" since I can try out what the AI thinks is good, and kind of get used to it by playing it.

But it's a lot harder to do this in the middle game. Now I know that if I'm in a position like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

then it's good to play in a more flexible way:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O . . . O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . W . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

OK, cool. But it's pretty unlikely that I'm gonna be in this exact situation again. So what are the characteristics of the position that make this move/sequence a good one?

I can think of:
* I have weak groups in the opponent's area - I want to live with both without giving black too many forcing moves and outside influence.
* Black is strong in this area
* My inflexible move doesn't work in the sense that it doesn't connect my groups.

But there's some nuance here. In the game, I imagined this sequence:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X W . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O O 4 1 W . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . 3 2 5 7 . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . . 6 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Here, I thought, "white might end up capturing my two stones there, but I strengthen my two weak groups and become stable in black's area".

I don't think this line of reasoning is all that bad. Black does get a lot of points on the top, but my groups are somewhat stabilized here.

So my inflexible move here was flexible in my head because I imagined that I'd be willing to give up a little bit - 2 stones - but I'd be able to stabilize my group.

I think thought that was a reasonable thought, and I still do.

But what I didn't think about enough in the game was that black may be more ambitious than simply capturing the two stones. Indeed, as we saw in the game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X O . X . O . O X X . . . X X . . | $$ | . O X O . . X X . O . O X X . X O . . | $$ | . O X O . . . . . O . . O O O X O . . | $$ | . X O X O . . X . . . . . . X O . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . . . O . . . . B . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . O . X . O X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . O O X . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . X O . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black's not going for just the two stones. He's aiming bigger than that! And rightly so, because now I have two weak groups.

In my naivety, I imagined a sequence where I thought I was being flexible, giving up a few stones, for a decent position in the center. But I was blind to the fact that my opponent wasn't going for that.

And as a result, my move was inflexible.

Psychologically, how do I fix this?
* During the game, I thought I was being reasonable, giving up a little to gain a little.
* But I missed a key variation where, in fact, my opponent doesn't give me the option to give up two stones.

First, I think there's a reading problem here. The variation that resulted in this case was not what I expected. Second, maybe I thought that my opponent would play in a stupid way in his own territory? Not really sure.

But I do know it's not as simple as thinking before the game, "Let's be flexible!". Because from my thought process during the game, I could totally rationalize that I was being flexible - but in fact, I was missing a variation where my stones were brittle.

Anyway, I know that reading better can help all of this. But I still need to remain vigilant in trying to maintain flexibility in my opponent's area when the result of the situation is not clear.

yakcyll · **#1775**

Kirby wrote:

Anyway, I know that reading better can help all of this. But I still need to remain vigilant in trying to maintain flexibility in my opponent's area when the result of the situation is not clear.

I'm not sure if this also constitutes reading (whether it does is more of a conceptual/translational problem rather than semantical one), but in the case of the your match, the problem arose from not seeing a move, not exactly misreading (missing a liberty or seeing a different shape). That's a different issue, even less clear when it comes to ridding yourself of it. But in this context the 'flexibility' we're discussing turns out to be a heuristic: by playing flexibly - less in contact with your opponent's stones, less forcefully, more keeping shape in mind, which stones are more or less important - you avoid pitfalls that come from tactical struggle. This however sounds like a crutch, I think (or I'd like to believe that) ISH wouldn't suggest something in this vein.

As for why you didn't consider such a move... I've been struggling with a similar issue for a long time too, both when solving problems and in actual play. I'm in the camp claiming that it is a bit of a psychological issue, pertaining to attitude, state of the mind and other things... It doesn't mix well with my 'counter-Zen' thought processes.

Kirby · **#1776**

Yeah, I classified "not seeing a move" as a misread. Some people might consider this as a different concept than reading. I agree that the language/concept behind what constitutes "reading" may be ambiguous.

Generally speaking, I feel that doing things like life and death problems helps in increasing one's "reading ability". From this perspective, I think such problems help in gaining the flexibility to consider alternative moves - that kind of thing is required in order to solve life and death problems correctly.

Bill Spight · **#1777**

Kirby wrote:

Yeah, I classified "not seeing a move" as a misread. Some people might consider this as a different concept than reading. I agree that the language/concept behind what constitutes "reading" may be ambiguous.

Following Sakata, I think that reading consists of (at least) three different skills:

1) the selection of candidate moves;
2) the calculation of variations;
3) the evaluation of results.

By that view, not seeing a move is a failure of skill 1), selection of candidate moves. Even bots overlook good moves.

Quote:

Generally speaking, I feel that doing things like life and death problems helps in increasing one's "reading ability".

That's the common wisdom. But note that L&D problems don't do much for skill 3), the evaluation of results. And the pool of moves to choose from is limited, so their help in developing skill 1) is limited, as well.

Quote:

From this perspective, I think such problems help in gaining the flexibility to consider alternative moves - that kind of thing is required in order to solve life and death problems correctly.

If I may make a suggestion, following Kotov, perhaps the best way to develop reading skills and flexibility is the study of middle game positions. Kotov studied middle game positions in games with published commentary, spending 30 minutes — Too long for me. Maybe 15 min.

— studying a crucial position, then writing down the results of his reading, and then checking with the commentary. At first his results were horrible, he wrote. And he was quite a good player already.

Today KataGo can supply the commentary and we can interact with it to see what it thinks of different moves. It and other bots can suggest candidate moves, calculate variations, and evaluate results. What's not to love?

Edit: Also the bots play flexibly.

lightvector · **#1778**

Kirby wrote:

But what I didn't think about enough in the game was that black may be more ambitious than simply capturing the two stones.

Just an idle thought: given that the opponent is supposed to be resisting you... when you try to play flexibly from a position of weakness and are looking for flexible moves, do you subconsciously also bias towards expecting the opponent to favor moves that are flexible too when you look for their moves in response?

Flip side: when you do have a clear local advantage and are intentionally trying to play uncompromisingly and sharply, do you subconsciously expect the opponent to also play uncompromisingly rather than to negotiate when reading their responses?

Kirby · **#1779**

Bill Spight wrote:

If I may make a suggestion, following Kotov, perhaps the best way to develop reading skills and flexibility is the study of middle game positions. Kotov studied middle game positions in games with published commentary, spending 30 minutes — Too long for me. Maybe 15 min.

— studying a crucial position, then writing down the results of his reading, and then checking with the commentary. At first his results were horrible, he wrote. And he was quite a good player already.

Today KataGo can supply the commentary and we can interact with it to see what it thinks of different moves. It and other bots can suggest candidate moves, calculate variations, and evaluate results. What's not to love?

Edit: Also the bots play flexibly.

I think it's a good idea - and more possible these days than before given the bots that are publicly available.

Kirby · **#1780**

lightvector wrote:

Kirby wrote:

But what I didn't think about enough in the game was that black may be more ambitious than simply capturing the two stones.

Just an idle thought: given that the opponent is supposed to be resisting you... when you try to play flexibly from a position of weakness and are looking for flexible moves, do you subconsciously also bias towards expecting the opponent to favor moves that are flexible too when you look for their moves in response?

Flip side: when you do have a clear local advantage and are intentionally trying to play uncompromisingly and sharply, do you subconsciously expect the opponent to also play uncompromisingly rather than to negotiate when reading their responses?

I think it's difficult for me to answer these questions, since I don't have a clear picture of what my subconscious is doing.

That being said, even when I'm doing go problems where there is a clearly defined solution, it seems to take some degree of discipline to imagine the strongest responses from the opponent. The goal I have when doing a problem like that is to find a solution, and I feel some amount of pleasure when I find it. So there's the hope that the move I imagine during reading cannot be refuted. Of course, there often *is* a refutation, so it's important to think of the strongest responses.

Regarding negotiating vs. playing strongly in an advantaged or disadvantaged situation... I don't think I consciously think of this much, which is maybe something I could work on. That is to say, from a given board position, I don't usually think, "I'm outnumbered here by 30%, so I should negotiate by giving up to X points". Rather, I'm usually thinking, "OK, with this board position, what is the best result I can get?".

So probably my view of what the best position is in such cases is skewed - or I'm not reading enough to see what the actual result is going to be.

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online