Unyielding Aggression from Two Young, Chinese Pros

[logan]

This is a game between 16-year-olds Qiu Jun and Kong Jie during the 1998 National Go Individual. Both became professionals at the age in 12 in 1994, however Qiu Jun was then regarded as the more prodigious of the two.

As some of you may know Kong Jie battled the other three prodigies (Qiu Jun, Hu Yaoyu and Gu Li) for the position of China's number one during the 2000s. It wasn't until 2009 that he suddenly rose to one of the world's top players, winning several international titles over the next three years. Qiu Jun had greater domestic success -- only going so far as runner-up to a few big, international titles. As the years went on some were disappointed that he didn't live up to the early expectations of him. Nowadays, Qiu Jun and Kong Jie play about equal. But that's not the story for today.

In 1998, Qui Jun won the National Go Individual with a score of 10-1. This game was his only loss, and the hero of it was Kong Jie -- playing several bold sacrifices as both players try to dish out maximum punishment.

[Shenoute]

The sequences starting with and I find really impressive.

is also a nice lesson in direction of play.

Thanks for posting the game.

[Joaz Banbeck]

... is also a nice lesson in direction of play...

I was wondering if 93 was an example of the wrong direction of play.
Black is trying to build territory in two places at once, and encouraging white to run between them, allowing white to threaten to invade both.

[bayu]

I was wondering if 93 was an example of the wrong direction of play.
Black is trying to build territory in two places at once, and encouraging white to run between them, allowing white to threaten to invade both.

I was wondering about that too. I don't think that black ever tried to build territory on both sides. He was sacrificing quite skillfully. It was more like planting aji. Or throwing out a bait.

[logan]

Commentary says that Black 93 was the last large point, and Black 95 should have been around 110.

Also, that White 96 would have been more reasonable at 99, but White was caught up in the moment. White 109 might have staged an upset if he had haned above with 110.

[Shenoute]

... is also a nice lesson in direction of play...

I was wondering if 93 was an example of the wrong direction of play.
Black is trying to build territory in two places at once, and encouraging white to run between them, allowing white to threaten to invade both.

Well, my reasoning was that having built a nice wall around f8, I'm pretty sure my reflex would have been to use it to make points, maybe by playing something bad like g15 or g14. But whatever b plays in this direction he's pushing white from behind and just asking him to extend and make points on the upper side. Black's move has only one goal (making points) and allows white to do the same, not very exciting.

That's why I found interesting, it both maps the upper side (and so denies this possibility to white) and threatens to create a moyo.

[Bill Spight]

... is also a nice lesson in direction of play...

I was wondering if 93 was an example of the wrong direction of play.

I was wondering what has to do with the direction of play. It's the last big point. My only question was whether it was too close to the White group, and therefore too thin.

[macelee]

I am impressed by B41 and W108, both nice ladder breakers.

[Joaz Banbeck]

... is also a nice lesson in direction of play...

I was wondering if 93 was an example of the wrong direction of play.

I was wondering what has to do with the direction of play. It's the last big point. My only question was whether it was too close to the White group, and therefore too thin.

I was thinking that it looked too high. Playing low at K17 undercuts white and seems more territorial, and safer.

[Uberdude]

I was thinking that it looked too high. Playing low at K17 undercuts white and seems more territorial, and safer.

But black will lose if he makes small safe territories on the side: he needs a fair chunk of the centre to win.