Kirby's Study Journal

yoyoma · **#21**

You lost almost a whole move by playing E14 instead of E17!

leichtloeslich · **#22**

kirby wrote:

I was told E17 is best here. But I prefer E14. I can't get my head around E17 being better, and I think he'll answer.

Of course he'll answer, that's hardly the point. E14 first is a huge mistake.
Joseki is E17 first, since if you play E17 first your opponent has to avoid dying and play B13, after which you'll still get E14. But much more importantly: you'll get sente. (If you exchange E14 first you'll end in gote, which is a serious problem.)

Theoretically white could also D13 instead of B13 to deny E14 to black, but that leaves worse aji on the side.

Either way, the important thing to note is that you were supposed to get sente here.

edit: guess yoyoma beat me to it :P

yoyoma · **#23**

I didn't post a detailed explanation because I was curious to see how Kirby would respond.

Kirby, I saw other posts where you ask pros for advice on how to improve. They said play quick games, and you are playing those quick games. But in the comments I see "I've heard this isn't right, but I don't see why". Did you look at a joseki book? Eidogo shows this joseki and explains why you lost a move.

Kirby · **#24**

yoyoma wrote:

I didn't post a detailed explanation because I was curious to see how Kirby would respond.

Kirby, I saw other posts where you ask pros for advice on how to improve. They said play quick games, and you are playing those quick games. But in the comments I see "I've heard this isn't right, but I don't see why". Did you look at a joseki book? Eidogo shows this joseki and explains why you lost a move.

Thanks, yoyoma and leichtloeslich. That's awesome. I never knew that it was because of the difference between sente and gote. That's really fascinating, and now I know the reason for that order. I felt that I heard that the other move was right, but I didn't realize this sente/gote fact, so I couldn't make myself play it.

ez4u · **#25**

In the game notes at move 26 (W at F5) in Post 20, Kirby wrote:

Hmm, E5 would have been honte for him. I'll try to punish him.

From my copy of GoGoD...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Continuations when White Answers the Marked Stone $$ $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . , . . . . . , . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . a . . . . . . $$| . . O , X O b . i g f e $$| . . . O O X B . h d c . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$+ - - - - - - - - - - - -[/go]

Code:

Statistics:
261 matches

Wa:    217 (207)
Wb:    33 (21)
Wc:    3 (2)
Wd:    3 (2)
We:    1 (1)
Wf:    1 (1)
Wg:    1 (0)
Wh:    1 (0)
Wi:    1 (1)

So standing at F5 in the game is the standard play and there is no example from pro play of the "honte" at E5. Punishing this baby may be more difficult than we expect! :blackeye:

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so."
- Artemus Ward, 19th century American humorist

Kirby · **#26**

Interesting, ez4u. I thought solidly capturing would be superior, since I could get the forcing move in. I think my forcing move was sloppy, though, don't you?

Kirby · **#27**

By the way, are there examples with white influence along the left side? I feel this is relevant in the current situation.

P.S. You are my role model, ez4u.

skydyr · **#28**

My impression was that D6 or D10 were too early, and that black could have kept the game even by just playing calmly on the right or top sides. Just a sanrensei or something like leaves black developing on a much larger scale than white.

ez4u · **#29**

Kirby wrote:

By the way, are there examples with white influence along the left side? I feel this is relevant in the current situation.

P.S. You are my role model, ez4u.

Flattery will get you everywhere!

Let's step back to the beginning with our database...

In 437 games from the position below, Black played :b1:

265 times (the low approach at 2 was the choice 112 times). Basically Black does not want to play san-ren-sei and let White blunt the formation with a shimari at 2 or some other play on the bottom. (Note however, that the 16 times in GoGoD that Black went ahead and played 1 at Q10, the results are about even so as always YMMV)

About 70% of the time White goes ahead and attaches underneath at :w2:

. In return Black almost always plays the hane at :b3:

. This is natural since Black's potential framework from the upper right wrapping around the lower right to the lower left is bigger than White's framework on the left side (this is important!!!).

In the 182 games where White pulls back at :w4:

, we see that Black connects at :b5:

145 times, plays the hanging connection at "a" 27 times, jumps into the center at "b" (invented by Takemiya of course) 7 times, plays on the right at "c" twice, and plays in the upper left (at "d") a grand total of once. Now repeat after me, "This is natural since Black's potential framework from the upper right wrapping around the lower right to the lower left is bigger than White's framework on the left side (this is important!!!)."

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

Currently I think you way over-value sente. Note that in this game, as in nearly every game, :b1:

,

,

, and

below were ALL gote. What were you knitwits tinking? How could you make four gote moves in a row? Weren't you worried about that! :rambo:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Four Gote Moves in a Row!!!! $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 , . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Actually the database shows that :w4:

is pretty much sente. However, in order to ensure that, White has to play a low move relative to the left and entice Black into playing a move that is overall favorable - to Black. So the price of keeping sente may be higher than White should have been willing to pay.

Remember that in the opening there are always other big moves to be played. If there weren't, it would no longer be the opening. :blackeye:

By and large, if Black focuses on building his own frameworks, White is going to have to enter sooner or later and fight there. The komi allows White to settle for less from such a fight than if there were no komi but that is the nature of Go. If on the other hand, Black focuses on erasing White's potential rather than building his own, then Black commits to fighting within White's area of influence. It is not impossible to play that way, but to some extent Black is voluntarily giving up the advantage of the first move. At least Black is running the risk of ending in gote(!) and letting White seize the initiative.

Have you watched Bat's lectures on youtube? I watched a bunch of the games and enjoyed them. One thing that struck me about his play compared to mine (yep, I am more like you than I am like him :blackeye:

), he often is content to just continue developing his own framework rather than immediately challenging his opponent. I think this is a good, calm approach to cultivate. If we can't afford to do so, we have to immediately ask where did we go wrong in the moves up until now. Since the game starts out balanced, it should not be urgent that we forcefully interrupt our opponent's early play unless we have already made a mistake somewhere. In that case the question is not what to play next but rather what to fix in the next game. :salute:

oren · **#30**

ez4u wrote:

From my copy of GoGoD...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Continuations when White Answers the Marked Stone $$ $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . , . . . . . , . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . a . . . . . . $$| . . O , X O b . i g f e $$| . . . O O X B . h d c . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . $$+ - - - - - - - - - - - -[/go]

Code:

Statistics:
261 matches

Wa:    217 (207)
Wb:    33 (21)
Wc:    3 (2)
Wd:    3 (2)
We:    1 (1)
Wf:    1 (1)
Wg:    1 (0)
Wh:    1 (0)
Wi:    1 (1)

B would require a ladder breaker right?

ez4u · **#31**

Those are the stats for White's next play rather than Black's.

oren · **#32**

I meant your option b, not Black.

Kirby · **#33**

ez4u wrote:

Flattery will get you everywhere!

Thanks for this detailed post, ez4u. I must admit that I was PUI ("posting under the influence") last night, but nonetheless, the sentiment I expressed holds.

ez4u wrote:

Let's step back to the beginning with our database...
...
In the 182 games where White pulls back at :w4:

, we see that Black connects at :b5:

145 times, plays the hanging connection at "a" 27 times, jumps into the center at "b" (invented by Takemiya of course) 7 times, plays on the right at "c" twice, and plays in the upper left (at "d") a grand total of once.

This is a fascinating analysis, and the argument against "d" is convincing. :-)

Personally, I feel that 437 is a low sample size to get strong meaning from a position, however, given the variance in play (eg. "d" being played once, with :b5:

being played 145 times), it would seem that even a low sample size is somewhat convincing for the current argument.

ez4u wrote:

Now repeat after me, "This is natural since Black's potential framework from the upper right wrapping around the lower right to the lower left is bigger than White's framework on the left side (this is important!!!)."

I do not feel that I think of the game in this way. Especially in the opening, I don't try to process the idea of, "Is this framework bigger than the opponent's framework?" Instead, I follow a more greedy approach thinking, "What is the maximum that I can get away with? I want to leave him with as little as possible, and me with as much as possible." Awhile back, someone posted about an AI mancala competition. The winning algorithm tried to win marginally, not by a lot. It always tried to get just a little more than the opponent. The analogy was made that this is true in go, too. And maybe it is.

But for some reason - I really don't know what it is - I am always afraid to play like this. Perhaps this is fundamentally because I am not confident in my ability to measure relative value? For example, I had no idea that black's potential framework was bigger than white's on the left side.

I trust that you are correct, but that's mostly because I have no idea how to know this myself (except that you've just told me!)

ez4u wrote:

Currently I think you way over-value sente. Note that in this game, as in nearly every game, :b1:

,

,

, and

below were ALL gote. What were you knitwits tinking? How could you make four gote moves in a row? Weren't you worried about that! :rambo:

...

This is an interesting thought. Perhaps I do over-value sente. I wonder if it is related to my lack of confidence in measuring relative value of positions.

That is, if I always try to increase what I have and decrease what my opponent has, I never have to try to measure relative value. I can avoid this, and just trust that my efforts to increase what I have and decrease what they have will result in an end score that is in my favor.

ez4u wrote:

Have you watched Bat's lectures on youtube? ...

No, I haven't. Perhaps this is something I should do. I've heard of the name before.

---------------------

Summary of Thoughts
Your post had many interesting ideas in it. Perhaps some general principles that stick out to me are the ideas that I:
1.) Over-value sente
2.) Do not have confidence in my ability (or lack thereof) to measure the relative value of territory

I feel that it's possible that these two are related. Maybe because of #2, I hold to #1.

To be honest, I don't know how to fix #2. Perhaps watching this Bat guy's lectures will help. But as it's my allotted time for playing a game coming up, I will try an experiment. I will try to play this upcoming game without trying to take sente as much. In other words, I'll try to force myself to play gote.

This still doesn't help at all with #2, but I feel like experimenting today.

Thank you for your input.

Kirby · **#34**

I tried to play gote this game. It didn't work out too well, but maybe that's because of reading more than my playing gote..
I might try it again tomorrow.

All in all, I'm confused about everything.

EdLee · **#35**

Kirby wrote:

I'll try to force myself to play gote.

Kirby, this is interesting; it's like playing bad moves on purpose --
Curious to hear about the results of your experiment. Good luck.

Kirby · **#36**

EdLee wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I'll try to force myself to play gote.

Kirby, this is interesting; it's like playing bad moves on purpose --
Curious to hear about the results of your experiment. Good luck.

Well, it's possible that I misinterpreted what ez4u was getting at, but my impression is that I value sente too much. I don't want to play gote to play a "bad" move, but maybe if I try to go against my current mindset, I can realize the benefits that I can get by playing gote.

I dunno, maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way. But if I value sente too much, it seems that I should stop trying so hard to play sente. :-)

Kirby · **#37**

I lost the last game I tried this with, as you can see, but I'll play another one in a few minutes here, and try it again.

Kirby · **#38**

I tried to play more calmly, again. I lost my patience a few times, and at times thought I should have been more aggressive.

ez4u · **#39**

The adventures of Kirby the Gote Master make fun reading. Thanks!

In the game from post #34, a really interesting fact is that in the position below, after Black captures the two stones on the left side with A11 (move 121), White can reduce Black to one eye at the top with :w1:

. If Black answers with :b2:

,

makes a six-point placement shape.

If instead Black plays 2 at 3 to prevent that shape, White can cut at 2 with 4 and the marked stones are caught in a shortage of liberties, e.g. Black 5 at "a", White "b" atari, and Black can not connect the stones. :rambo:

Right at the moment, it looks difficult to contain Black if he plays :b4:

and

due to the bad aji around "c". But as the game went on various choices could have been made differently to build strength in the center with this sequence in mind. Missing the follow up play at "c" in the ko fight may have cost White about 80 points! :blackeye:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Only One Eye! $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . b B . 3 O X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O O B O . O X O X X . . X O O . . | $$ | . O B B B 2 O a X O O X . X . X X O . | $$ | . . O O 1 X X X X O O O X X X O O . . | $$ | . . X O . . . X O c . X O . X X O O . | $$ | . . X O O 5 . X O X . X O X O X X O . | $$ | . . O . O . 4 . O . . O . O O X . X . | $$ | . X X O . . 6 O . . . . . O X X X . . | $$ | X . . X O . . . . . . . . . O O X O . | $$ | . X X , . . . . . , . . . O O , O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . X , X . . . . , . . . . . X . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

A move I found particularly interesting was the hane at M16 below. I sort of cringed when you wrote, "Hmm, OK. I could keep attacking, but maybe M16 is a "calm" move. I don't usually play calmly." I don't usually play that calmly either but it had a tremendous effect toward the left, which is exactly where White had built his framework previously. :tmbup:

Black continued with a standard "joseki" up to 9. However, what if White had connected at "a" instead of playing 9. I think this would be interesting too.

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

If Black goes ahead and takes the corner, Black cuts with 3 and 5 and has an excellent result on the top side. The marked stone is just right to support this.

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

So probably Black has to compromise with :b1:

below. But White can calmly answer 5 with 6, take the corner with 8, and treat 9 and 10 as miai. If Black plays atari with "a" and White connects with "b", White is building up the framework on the left plus points on the right. If something like the exchange of "c" for "d" follows, White is very happy while Black is not out of the woods yet.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Compromise, calmly 7 at P18 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . 3 2 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 6 5 . 1 4 X O 8 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O X . X O X X . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . O b O 9 X O O O . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . a . . . X O . . | $$ | . . X O O . . . . d . . . c . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . X . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the game, I thought that :w1:

below was a bit of the wild and woolly Kirby showing through. :rambo:

In the game, when Black answered at :b2:

, White felt the need to go back to :w3:

and got into some difficulty when Black continued with :b4:

. Playing

or "a" from the direction of the framework in the first place might have been better. If White then answers 2 on the right somehow, Black runs on a neutral point (say 1) and White calmly approaches in the lower left, e.g. "b", White is comfortable.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc A Momentary Loss of Concentration? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O X . X . X X O . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . O . O . X X O O . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . X O O . . . . . . . . X . 2 4 . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . a 3 . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . X , b . . . . , . . . . . X . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Kirby · **#40**

ez4u wrote:

The adventures of Kirby the Gote Master make fun reading. Thanks!

Thanks, I'm having fun, too. It's also nice to get feedback. Have you read The Way of the Peaceful Warrior? You remind me of the main character in this book.

ez4u wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Only One Eye! $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . b B . 3 O X O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O O B O . O X O X X . . X O O . . | $$ | . O B B B 2 O a X O O X . X . X X O . | $$ | . . O O 1 X X X X O O O X X X O O . . | $$ | . . X O . . . X O c . X O . X X O O . | $$ | . . X O O 5 . X O X . X O X O X X O . | $$ | . . O . O . 4 . O . . O . O O X . X . | $$ | . X X O . . 6 O . . . . . O X X X . . | $$ | X . . X O . . . . . . . . . O O X O . | $$ | . X X , . . . . . , . . . O O , O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . X , X . . . . , . . . . . X . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Believe it or not, I did think of reducing him to one eye here when I was playing there locally, but perhaps my I lost focus by the time I came to this point in the game. Again, I was concerned about my opponent's stake at the bottom, and forgot about the prospects at the top.

ez4u wrote:

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

If Black goes ahead and takes the corner, Black cuts with 3 and 5 and has an excellent result on the top side. The marked stone is just right to support this.

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

I totally agree. I love this alternative to what I played.

ez4u wrote:

In the game, I thought that :w1:

below was a bit of the wild and woolly Kirby showing through. :rambo:

Hmm, perhaps, yes. As it turns out, I think I recall thinking that :w1:

was not wild, but calm. As the game shows, it was not. I like the idea of calmly jumping at :w3:

or "a", however, this way of playing doesn't seem natural to me.

In general, I do not understand "neutral points" that well. Sure, they are intersections that do not have value or equate to points at the end of the game. But I don't see the board in an "endgame" sense this early (at least not naturally right now).

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online