A review of my review: KGS debut!

[Fllecha]

Hi all,

I (Finally!!) played some games on KGS against a real opponent after some months of computer training. I ask for a review of my review, that is, a comment on my thoughts after the game.

Any help appreciated.

[EdLee]

Hi Fllecha,

The direction is good; but local the follow-up is block at R5.

One continuation:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 4 . |
$$ . . . . . . 1 2 . |
$$ . . . . O 5 X . . |
$$ . . X . O X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 4 . |
$$ . . . . . . 1 2 . |
$$ . . . . O 5 X . . |
$$ . . X . O X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

Variation: B pushes and cuts and starts a fight:

$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 4 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . O 2 X . . |
$$ . . X . O X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 4 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . O 2 X . . |
$$ . . X . O X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

(There are other variations. You have to be able to handle them, and fight if necessary.)

You didn't consider or read what if B cuts at Q7.
Just fix the cut at Q7.

Of course B cuts Q7 and starts a fight -- good for B.

standard nonsense, bad habit at these levels.

Not sensitive to liberties or shortage of liberties. Find another sequence.

see .

Bad.

Very scared. Nonsense move. Hane N12. (Or at least jump to M11).

wrong shape. L6 better.

Locally, only move. was bad, so of course you punish him.
( N9 instead is scared again, nonsense move. )

nonsense.

good.

too late.

Junk food. Too small. You are so happy to take 2 stones,
you miss the whole board.

very slow, very small -- completely missing the big picture.

E6.

108 Scared.

118 bad. See also .

121 mistake. Block at J12.

122 This is the correct local move, not a blunder!

126 Still very happy to take tiny stones but completely missing the bigger picture. Locally, H12. Globally, everything here is too small.
There are moves ten times bigger elsewhere.

128, 129 , 130 All Very small.
Both of you are still missing the entire board.

131 Finally, 130 forced him to open his eyes to the big picture.

132 Still blind to the big picture. Still only looking at very small things. B16.

133 You missed the vital point; B got this first.

134 Big mistake.

143 Too small.

Review your very small, very slow moves.

[yoyoma]

About how the game ends: Black passed for move 241. Why did you play 242? Black cannot do anything to save his group from dying. Usually both players just pass and then agree that Black group is dead.

[Fllecha]

About how the game ends: Black passed for move 241. Why did you play 242? Black cannot do anything to save his group from dying. Usually both players just pass and then agree that Black group is dead.

Yes, but since he was a 16k i feared that him would discuss since one may think that group is alive even at the end. One never knows.

For Ed:

Is there a method/rationale/general pattern to spot big plays or at least an heuristic to apply. Because as a beginner it's not so easy to do and to recognize. Or, better, now that you make me notice that I perfectly comprehend my error but in game sometimes its not so easy.

If it helps: i play chess and for example a good rationale that I teach to beginners to avoid big blunders is to make her say/think every turn "Have I a piece under attack?". With that, since chess is more tactical than go, it help to play better, it's a good heurisic. Is there somethin similar in go?

Many thanks for the review btw!!

[EdLee]

Hi Fllecha,

You're welcome.

Is there a method/rationale/general pattern to spot big plays or at least an heuristic to apply.

Yes. And you can find some of them in certain Go books taylored for the Western audience (outside of Asia). Or, on KGS, where some ppl like to spew/preach these guidelines like there's no tomorrow.

That's OK. As you know from your chess background,
these are merely training wheels for beginners; eventually,
after you've digested and internalized them, you must unlearn them
anyway, lest they become a hindrance. But that's later.

To use your chess analogy, do you have any piece(s) under attack.
That's good. In Go, we can come up with do you have any group(s) in atari.
Back to chess, later you learned reading 1-move ahead is not enough.
Example: your opponent can play a fork and then suddenly you have 2 pieces
under attack simultaneously. But this requires you to read ahead 2+ moves
and to see the fork. Back in Go, it means seeing an immediate atari is
good, but we can do better: we need to get a sense when there's a shortage of
liberties, not when we're in atari, which may be too late, but earlier.
2 moves earlier. 3 moves earlier. 4 moves ahead. The deeper the better. Etc.

Example: did you study your homework at ?

Examples -- other basic general guidelines:

• Do I have any weak group(s) ? (Extension from spotting atari.)
• If yes, what to do about it/them ?
• Does my opponent have any weak group(s) ?
• If yes, what to do about it/them ?
• Myriad of others which we can learn, then unlearn later.

[EdLee]

Hi Fllecha,

Here's a (silly) case:

$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 2 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 2 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

At first glance, it may seem very contrived and ridiculous.

Why would anyone play a move that can easily be captured by the opponent ?
But then we see in your game.

So is bad; why would B go after it with when the rest of the board is wide open, with 3 empty corners and other big points ?
But we see your .

W finally wakes up with , but why does B spend a move to take 1 stone with , when two corners are still open ?
See 126 thru 130 .

When the board is very empty like this, you can clearly see the mistakes.
But when it's much more filled up, you sometimes get confused.

[EdLee]

Back to your question about heuristics.

Back to your chess analogy: you know pattern recognition is vital --
you know the importance of the fundamentals (basics) of seeing checks,
forks, discovered attack (check), pinning pieces,
good & bad pawn structures, weak & strong squares,
sacrifice, lined up rooks (coordination of pieces), etc.

The same is true in Go. You need to digest and internalize literally
tens and hundreds of thousands of different shapes and sequences.

Example: to answer the deceptively simple question Do you have any weak group(s)
requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and pattern recognition.
You need to experience and study tons and tons of life-and-death cases,
tons and tons of tesuji problems, of actual contact fights in your real games.

In fact, as you already know from chess, this is a never-ending process.

We all start from the basics. Grind them out. One by one. Baby steps.

Homework: .

[Fllecha]

Thanks of your elaboration in my theme, great starting point for a think on Go. Ill elaborate more since Now IM busy, but ad :36: i Now see q4 forking two stones i think

[EdLee]

i Now see q4 forking two stones i think

Do you see anything else ?

[Fllecha]

Now i see that R3 devastates black because there is a pseudo ladder that may destroy the entire group. Sorry for answering Now

[EdLee]

Hi Fllecha,

No sorry -- this is all fun.

Yea, good you see R3.