make me flinch also

It is inconsistent. W L-18 is still possible, so the exchange of the last two moves is not good. (Not that the exchange is good, anyway. )

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 is the sacrifice and 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]

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]

arrrrgh, Joaz, why must you hurt my eyes...

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 , the invasion at 'a' becomes less feasible and my H17 group is well supported with . In exchange, Black ends up with newly played stones that aren't doing anything. It's important that I don't play 'b' instead of because it gives Black 'c' for free which gives me less options for handling the top.

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.

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.

Yes definitely. The way I've usually done it will not only be reserved for the 10-move interval, but also for any questions that are asked!

Yes, if I ever find myself going over joseki or using too many coordinates, I will use diagrams and it will not be something I will restrict myself from. Simply, expect the amount of text to be within one to two paragraphs. I will try to refrain myself from using such phrases like "this is joseki." or "this is shape.", which is easy to do when you're going over one move at a time but still tempting regardless.

Oh dear, I don't want to be a detractor. But if I look at a wall of coordinates, I more often than not simply blank. I find it too disruptive to constantly look to find a coordinate on the board and then try to find where I was last reading from, and try to understand what is being said all at the same time.

This is just a suggestion, but I think putting a diagram, even if it has a bunch of letters scattered all over it, is better than just listing coordinates.

Yeah, I'll make sure to always have a diagram in if I rely on coordinates next time, I know the pain . Edited the last one, I hope it's better!

Sorry about dissing your video commentary in the other thread - I feel like I opened up a can of worms over there, and I hate being a complainer in general.

But the new system sounds great! If I ever have time to do another Malkovich (not that I really had time for the first one I did...) I'll try and do something similar.

Nothing to be sorry about, it was really just an experimentation after all - and an experiment needs its criticism . No hard feelings.

It is probe time.

My initial reflex is to strengthen my group up top. But that can just provoke running to N13, and I have a red queen problem - I have to keep running just to stay even.

Or instead of a running fight, I can connect underneath. The joseki which I think I showed on my video ( and which I presume Araban has has probably showed you too ) goes like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Move 16
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . 9 1 3 X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O O . X 8 O 2 4 5 7 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X , . . . . X 6 O c . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . 0 b . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

And black gets territory while white gets influence. Black has aji at 'a', 'b' and/or 'c'. So I can always rescue my scraggly top middle group like that, and he will finish in gote, having captured a couple of stones.

That is the crucial question of the moment: does the L18 stone go south or east?
Rather than commiting myself, and letting him react, I'd like to make MHO commit himself first.

The theme of white's game since he played his 4th move has been upper left corner territory - or left side territory if he can get it. The point of this move is to see how white wants to play the left side before I decide how to handle my upper middle group. He has avoided a quick fight up top - which I had hoped to provoke - and settled for making a strong three-stone group. I want to find out what he intends to do with that strength before I commit myself.


If he is determined to play territorially like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . W . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W O . . . . X , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Then there is plenty of room for me to play like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . W . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W O . . . . X B . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . B . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

On the other hand, if he wants to leave the corner open, and play with a strong thick group like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . W X , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . W . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

...I'll avoid his thickness and connect underneath, and later invade at 'a' or 'b':

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . B . X . . . . |
$$ | . . b . . . . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a O . . . W X , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . W . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Regardless of the outcome up top, the stone has some nice features. It interferes with his probable plans to make territory down the left side. It also works as an extension off of my lower left corner stone.

The most aggressive response by white is to try to break the underneath connection in sente. I get compensation if he does:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . 1 X . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White's threatens to cut through. But covers that and endangers whites two stones on the right. An eventual move at R11 is very unpleasant.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Move 18
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . . . . X , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . . . . . a . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Thought chain: is distant -> applies little pressure to -> I can tenuki from . My move has a follow-up at 'a', which will make Black's top group painfully sealed (or, if Black misplays badly, dies), so I expect him to play there next.

My move follows the classic proverb: my vital point is the opponent's vital point. Black getting to play where I played would drive me into the 3rd line and give him thickness that I do not want him to give, despite my top center group still being light and easy to handle.

20/60

This growing framework on the right wants to keep growing (it has open space near it). Obviously this may not the the time for it, but I do not know how to deal with 5-3 and 5-4 stones. Let's assume all of the other groups mostly get settled in the areas they're in. How would you best approach the bottom right to help our right side? Also, as a followup question, is that the right direction at all? It works well with your right side, but black seems to want the bottom anyway.

I think it's too soon to consider a growing framework for either side on the right, one added benefit of my last move is that it makes it difficult for Black to try and harvest a moyo on the right. Consider the difference between the last move and the case where I would play elsewhere then Black getting the chance to play R11.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O O . X . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . e c a . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d b B . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . X , f . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . h . . . . . . g . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Trying to move out with 'a' would only allow b -> e, which then indeed builds a good moyo framework on the right for Black. If I were to play elsewhere and not worry about moving out with 'a', then B to play 'c' would make the framework magnificent, radiating all over the center while painfully sealing me in on the right. So basically it's a bit of a lose-lose situation for me - if I want to move out, it's painful - and if I don't want to move out and play elsewhere it's even more painful, though it's not entirely clear-cut like that. Regardless, the move I played helps me not have to worry about these sort of situations.

Regarding your question about approaching 5-3s and 5-4s, it's a bit too broad for me to answer. 'f' is just fine and dandy for me. 'g' is also possible, and if Black were to have a stone near 'h' prior to approaching, then I think 'g' is a bit better than 'f'. It's hard to explain why this is the case other than that the extra Black stone requires me to be a bit more defensive and settle more quickly.