42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Violence · Post by **Violence** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:47 am

Joaz:

Post by **Solomon** » Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:58 am

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

Post by **Joaz Banbeck** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:40 pm

I was going to clamp at J16, but interposing the peep at M16 may give me a better position, especially if he wants to cut at the star point. It is aji keshi, but may be worth it.

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

I may need some time to think about this. Today and Tuesday are going to be busy. I should be able to post Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:54 pm

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I was going to clamp at J16, but interposing the peep at M16 may give me a better position, especially if he wants to cut at the star point. It is aji keshi, but may be worth it.

$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . W X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . C , . C . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

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

That makes me flinch.

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:04 pm

Magicwand · Post by **Magicwand** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:12 pm

Bill Spight wrote:
That makes me flinch.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:54 pm

daniel_the_smith wrote:
Is something wrong with the obvious L15?

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:44 pm

Thanks, Bill. I should have known that, haha.

Post by **Joaz Banbeck** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:27 am

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

I never finished the previous post describing why I chose the move that I did, so I'll incorporate it here, and the next move also.

As mentioned before, the general plan here is to strengthen the pincer stone at L17 to attack the two stones at N17/N15. With this goal in mind, the only place for that stone to go is toward the center, for white has stones on either side. The simple and natural jump toward the middle does not work because white connects underneath like this:

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

So the stone must be strengthened while preventing the connection underneath. To accomplish this, I'll sacrifice a stone, and while he is busy killing it, my middle group becomes stronger and runs toward the center. Black :b1:

is the sacrifice and :b3:

is the stone that actually works for black.

White has several possible responses:

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

Simply killing the sacrifice stone with 'a' cooperates with black's plans too much, as white has with a ko that he cannot fight due to lack of threats, and he ends up low and eyeless while black gets influence:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc 5 fills the ko $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O X 1 6 . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 4 O 2 X . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . B , . . . . X , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Killing the sacrifice stone like this gives black sente with lots of possibilities. I can't tell who is better off here.

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

Option 'b' again goes low and black gets the center influence that he wants:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c x connects underneath for black $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 2 1 6 7 . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . O 4 X . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . 8 3 5 . . . . X , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 9 . . . . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

I suspect that the best for white is 'c', as black gets influence, but white does get complesation over in the left corner.

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

Magicwand · Post by **Magicwand** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:34 am

without reading any further than what he has played...
"wrong wrong worng" written all over.

let me take a look at his justification...
ok he didnt discuss white's correct response.
2 exchanges he made doesnt help black in any way.
and white is building influence to solidify the corner..

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

Violence · Post by **Violence** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:21 am

Post by **Solomon** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:11 pm

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Move 16 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . W O . X . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . X , . . . . X , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Okay, I'm going to be doing things a little differently now with Malkovich games and feedback would be much appreciated on whether this approach is preferred over the previous ones. I've noticed that there are several pros and cons with the "classical" way of doing Malkovich games (where you just write your heart out per each move) and the more recent way I've been doing it where I use video commentary. I've discussed these before and talk briefly about them in my blog.

So the new way will be straightforward. For each move I will discuss it very succinctly. Similar to the way Magicwand and others do it, minus the trash-talking (just applies for one person

) and more information packing. However, after every 10 moves I will discuss the past 10 moves in detail by text. After every 50 moves I will not only do the usual text analysis over the past 10 moves, but also throw in a video commentary going over the last 50 as well. There are several reasons why I'm experimenting with this:

This approach puts less emphasis on predicting the future and more on analyzing the past, which I think is absolutely crucial and something that Malkovich games need more of. You'll note that in the previous Malkovich games I played, I constantly focused on what would be next for my opponent and the current move that I played (the present and the future), but never really stepped back and analyzed moves I made earlier to see if I made any mistakes (and rest assured, I made plenty). I think this approach will balance that out a lot.
I really enjoyed making video commentary, but to reiterate a point I made elsewhere, using video to commentate on individual moves is excessive. I don't want to scrap the idea entirely, and this approach will allow it to be used as a supplementary tool. I personally think it shines for whole-game reviews or lectures. Using video to review 50 moves rather than a single move will be more streamlined for the observers.
This will allow more thinking for observers and bring in more questions for me to directly answer because it leaves more to interpretation.
It's a no brainer that stronger players have begun to watch these Malkovich games, and it's great to see players like Bill Spight, Violence, Magicwand, and others who are similarly-leveled watching. This approach will also cater to these players because they already know a lot of the variations I have in mind, and they need less to see what I had in mind and offer their insight from there.
This will keep me under control from trying to exhaust all possible variations for some fight and, as a result, cause me to miss the more obvious moves and rely less on something that's very important: intuition.
And finally, I think this approach is a good median between the way things used to be done and the way things are going now. Both sides of the camp have their share of complaints and justifications for why their side is better, but I think this approach negotiates well and can make both sides happy.

So tell me what you think! Remember, this is just an experiment and without feedback I won't be able to know whether to run with this idea or just go back to the way I used to do things. I was slightly inspired with this methodology by reminding myself of the KISS principle.

To even things out with the numbers, I will do the next detailed text analysis on move 20, and the next video commentary will be on move 60.

And with that said, here's my thoughts on the current move:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Move 16 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O B . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . a . 1 O c X . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . @ . . . b B , . . . . X , O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The last move Joaz played is questionable. After :w1:

, the invasion at 'a' becomes less feasible and my H17 group is well supported with :ws:

. In exchange, Black ends up with newly played :bc:

stones that aren't doing anything. It's important that I don't play 'b' instead of :w1:

because it gives Black 'c' for free which gives me less options for handling the top.

dfan · Post by **dfan** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:29 pm

For Araban:

Website · Post by **Chew Terr** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:31 pm

Araban:

Thanks, as always, to both players and observers for making this both interesting and educational!

Post by **Solomon** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:51 pm

dfan wrote:For Araban:
Araban wrote:So tell me what you think! Remember, this is just an experiment and without feedback I won't be able to know whether to run with this idea or just go back to the way I used to do things. I was slightly inspired with this methodology by reminding myself of the KISS principle.

My only complaint is that you had so much text describing your new system that I couldn't read both your move analysis with its coordinates and the actual board at the same time

I think your approach is very reasonable. I hope that you won't shy away from variations completely, and that you'll answer questions with a little more detail if people ask them.

Chew Terr wrote:Araban:
This sounds pretty good so far. The occasional encyclopedia post and video sound like they should flesh out this style just fine. My only request (for the moment) is, any time you say the 'j' word, add a diagram. If people say something is joseki, they often leave it at that without even showing where the joseki should go and why they chose it. Often weaker players (I only speak for myself) are left in the lurch, not being certain what exactly the player is aiming for and why that joseki shape was chosen. I figure you would have shown this anyways, but this is one thing I wanted to improve, so I figured I'd mention it.

Thanks, as always, to both players and observers for making this both interesting and educational!

Life In 19x19

42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)

Re: 42. Joaz Banbeck (1d) vs. Araban (5d)