#216 Quietimes vs BGrieco

[Uberdude]

@bgreico:

What is the purpose of your last move? Attack? Defend? Make territory? Make influence? Cut? Connect? Something else?

[bgrieco]

@Uberdude

I suppose it's to protect the corner.
I thought it was obvious.

You all may go on now posting the millions of variants that would yield a better result

[Boidhre]

@Uberdude

I suppose it's to protect the corner.
I thought it was obvious.

You all may go on now posting the millions of variants that would yield a better result

@bgrieco

Well, the question is more about why you chose that way to do it, what you hope to gain etc. Seeing people's thinking behind moves is what makes these games interesting after all!

[Uberdude]

@bgrieco

@Uberdude
I suppose it's to protect the corner.
I thought it was obvious.

You all may go on now posting the millions of variants that would yield a better result

Yes it's obvious that move is going for the corner, but I wanted to see what you attitude was. Are you attacking or defending (or a bit of both)? As you said "protect" it seems you are in a more defensive mode. What I was thinking you might say is you are attacking white, and then I could explain that, in general, you should not contact a weak stone if you want to attack it as contact moves make both sides get stronger ([sl=DontAttachWhenAttacking]DontAttachWhenAttacking[/sl]). Your last move has 3 liberties, as does black's stone, but it is his turn so just in that one-on-one fight he has the advantage (of course you have stones a bit further away that help). Here's just one variant that also protects the corner, but doesn't contact black's stone:

$$Bcm21 #216 Quietimes (KGS 16k)vs BGrieco (IGS 16k)
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 0 , . . . . . X . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm21 #216 Quietimes (KGS 16k)vs BGrieco (IGS 16k)
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 0 , . . . . . X . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[quietimes]

$$Bcm31 #216 Quietimes (KGS 16k)vs BGrieco (IGS 16k)
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X , . O X X O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . O . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm31 #216 Quietimes (KGS 16k)vs BGrieco (IGS 16k)
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X , . O X X O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . O . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This close quarters combat always frustrates me. I have done this tsumego enough times I should be better at it. Shoud and could are spelled differently. Anyways. I'm going to go low, await his response, likely pillar up two in a row. Then I will do the same and he will cut under from the opposite side. grrrrr

I also see attacking D5 or B5 however white will simply walk in from behind after an influence building defensive move. I could extend to D6 and try to keep some semblence of access to the center however I worry about no base. As it stands I will go with my move to put a minimum of investment into my C6 stone.

[bgrieco]

@Uberdude
Sorry, man, but your post went too far.
That's exactly what I meant with the face.
I don't want to know my errors while playing the game.

When I registered for this game, I imagined playing a normal game and sharing thoughts that could be viewed afterwards by both of us so we could review it and profit from it.
That's not what is happening !!!
We are having a play by play review by dans, Which should be great, except it isn't !!
My self-confidence is completely undermined. I feel like a lab rat walking through a maze with scientists observing.
I'm not here to have fun, I'm here to amuse you guys.

@Quietimes
Sorry, but I can't take this any longer.
You are a most valuable opponent. I wish we could ever meet personally and play a real game, or even, if you wish: I hang out on IGS at the no rated games room.
I am not having fun anymore.
My evaluation of the game is that : you made a very good left side and is successfully performing small invasions in my territory.
My strategy would be: make a strong moyo for a posterior attack on your left side. Since I cannot guarantee the success of my strategy, I strongly believe you would have won the game.
Therefore :

I resign and congratulate you for your skillfulness.

Thanks for the game.

[The Intrepid]

This forum isn't just for having fun. A big reason for its existence is to help people improve at Go. Uberdude's comment was in line with this idea, sharing some of his knowledge and providing an idea of how to play in similar positions in the future. It was certainly not intended to make you feel inferior or dispirited. Therefore, I hope you reconsider your decision to resign, and resume the game, instead.

[quietimes]

Thank you for the game.

[bgrieco]

@The Intrepid
Thanks for the msg but... I've already read the comments.

@observers
Guys,
Sorry to say that but I got really disappointed with the course this game took.
At the end, I saw that most of my complaints were true after all.
I believe the level of the usual "malkovitchers" to be much higher than ours (at least mine). You cannot expect us to play the way you guys do.

an example :

At the beginning, people commented why I was using a chinese opening in such situation and that people use it just because they learned a new word. And that's exactly it. I used it because I learned a new word and wanted to see how it worked out. If I knew HOW to use it, I wouldn't be a DDK !

At the end, the whole game became a discussion amongst you guys on a level far beyond mine.

I felt this game as being hijacked. I felt very uncomfortable.

And the worst part : I do feel like fool.

[quietimes]

Well a regrettable end. After reading the posts it was much what I expected and enjoyed very much. The reviews and tangents were very humbling. Did I learn much, no. The level of theory discussed was pretty high. I had been eyeballing H14 for some time and a follow up H2. It seemed powerful however I couldn't figure out the best way to exploit it further. Weak, I know. So, again a wonderful experience. Loved the comments, technically and how they jived with the Malkovich theme. The take away mesg for me is that clearly my "basics" that I have studied (and feel I have a handle on) are not the "basics" of everyone else. Anyone have a direction on where to correct my "basics". Please do keep it on a 16k level. Thank you!

Thank you all for your comments!

BG, thank you for the game. An absolute blast.

PS. Using the score estimator, totally cool with that. I did rush the start of the game before everything was defined however the bones were in place and it was a fun.

[Uberdude]

Ooops, I didn't mean to upset you you bgrieco. I'm not even sure your attachment is an error (it has pros and cons, one pro being that it has a better follow-up if black tenukis as he did in the game), just that it goes against the principle about not attaching to attack which is a good thing to know. I would like it if I had a stronger player to discuss my Malkovich game with me as I played it, so I thought others would too. Evidently that was not the case, so sorry that I made you uncomfortable.

[EdLee]

bgrieco,

And the worst part: I do feel like fool.

There's absolutely no reason for you to feel this way... unless you choose to.

We are here to discuss Go, Go moves, and other things related to Go.
As posters, we sometimes state facts. But other times, we state our opinions.
This is important -- when people say they think a move is good,
or a move is bad -- this is only their opinion. We can be wrong -- this happens all the time.
Especially for most of us amateurs here. I make mistakes in Go (and other areas) all the time.
I am wrong about Go moves (and other things) all the time.

Sorry to say that but I got really disappointed with the course this game took.
At the end, I saw that most of my complaints were true after all.

Again, you have no reason to be disappointed with the course of this game.
In my opinion, this game's (hidden) comments are quite similar to all other Malkovich games'.
Some hidden posts could be pretty good, some are OK, while a few may be completely wrong. (See Post #47)

At the beginning, people commented why I was using a chinese opening in such situation and that
people use it just because they learned a new word. And that's exactly it.

So what? That's only their opinion. You don't know how valid is their opinion.
You don't know how other people feel about this opinion.
I don't know how other people feel about this opinion either,
but I know how I feel in this case -- I disagree with it.
At these levels, in my opinion, you can play however and whatever you want.

I felt this game as being hijacked. I felt very uncomfortable.

Once again, I disagree. I think you should not feel this way.

Richard Feynman had a book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" (1997) -- you may enjoy it.
I sincerely hope you can view this differently soon and that you continue to enjoy Go.

All this is merely my opinion.

[Phoenix]

A Malkovitch game aims to do two things, both of which fulfill many reasons. Those things are:

-Gain insight into how the player is thinking as he/she plays
-Draw observer comments and spark discussion

I can imagine how that might be an uncomfortable experience. Malkovitch observer comments are not meant to be taken personally. And yes, you are still at a low level, and everyone here understands this. We simply write down our opinions on matters related to the game at hand, other comments, or related thoughts.

Don't get discouraged. You put yourself in a position to be criticized, and it can be hard, but this forum is about discussing ideas and (if I'm not being presumptuous) helping one another. I'm sure we all want to see you succeed.

So look back on this as a regular game, take in or disregard our comments, and take your next step on your path to what you want to achieve in Go.

[Amelia]

As a fellow DDK and malkovich player, I just want to say that I understand briegco's position, but I disagree with it. I appreciate a lot having comments from stronger players even though I'm not allowed to read them yet. Having the chance to get such comments on a slow, serious game was one of the reasons I started my own malkovich game.

[skydyr]

Sorry to say that but I got really disappointed with the course this game took.
At the end, I saw that most of my complaints were true after all.
I believe the level of the usual "malkovitchers" to be much higher than ours (at least mine). You cannot expect us to play the way you guys do.

an example :

At the beginning, people commented why I was using a chinese opening in such situation and that people use it just because they learned a new word. And that's exactly it. I used it because I learned a new word and wanted to see how it worked out. If I knew HOW to use it, I wouldn't be a DDK !

Speaking as the person who made the comment, I thought I was clear that I liked the way white was playing, and apologize if it was taken the wrong way.

The point I wanted to make was that anyone can play a named opening, but that one should put a bit of thought into how to proceed after that position prior to being in it. As you suggest, it's important to get a feel for things one doesn't know by trying them out. My take on this is that it should be approached with something like the scientific method: you make a hypothesis that from this point, black or white could play this way to make a big profit, and then you test it. My (perhaps mistaken) impression was that there was no hypothesis, and to me this seems like the wrong way to approach the experiment.

That said, everyone on here that's currently stronger than you was in your shoes at one point too. I can remember a time when I'd have killed to be 25k, even, and felt that I would never be any good at this game. We'd all like to help you learn and get stronger in the same way that other people helped us in the past, and continue to do so. When someone is commenting on a malkovich, though, they can't really have a discussion with the players, so they have to assume some of the player's thinking and the level at which to explain something. Sometimes complicated positions arise as well, and other people have questions about it. People don't comment on these just for the players, but also for everyone else on the forum.

Anyways, I hope this clears things up a bit, and I'm sorry if you felt we were taking shots at your expense.