YACHT Diary

[Revilo]

Allright, here we go. It is time to begin my study journal.

I have already introduced myself some days ago over here: http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13439

The first thing is now to explain the silly acronym I have selected as the title of this thread. Well, at my work Dilbert cartoons are very popular - and if you are a little familiar with them you might know that in Dilbert's universe it is very important to give a posh name to each and every project to conceal the fact that the project is simply wasting time and money...

This is whay I made up YACHT, which stands for Yet Another Chess History Transitioner. Well now, I guess that I won't transition from chess completely, and neither will the study journey be a waste of time and money. A challenge is always worth the effort, after all.

So what is the challenge? Well, in the beginning I've only set myself a short term goal. That goal is to reach an SDK rank at IGS by the end of this year. Currently I'm ranked 14k+ after having worked myself up there from scratch since the beginning of this year. This could be quite a steep goal but currently I don't fare too badly in the local EGF ranked circle. I don't believe that I have played enough games against the regulars yet to really determine a rank - it seems to be somewhere in the vicinity of 10k to 12k EGF, but yeah, time will tell here.

My current study regime is a little unstable because I cannot steadily spend two hours on go each day as I would like to do - so that means that some days I don't do anything go related at all and sometimes I spend more than two hours at go.

What I'm currently doing is the following:

[*] I try to play about 5 to 10 games each week on IGS, mostly in the range of +/- two stones handicap.
[*] I try to attend the local circle, which meets twice a week. This usually results in about 4 live games at various handicaps.
[*] I spend my time on the public transport, which I use a lot, reading go books and doing tsumego on my phone.
[*] I also spend a lot of idle time reading the game analysis and study journal threads on here.

The books I'm currently working with are:

[*] Takao Shinji's new joseki dictionary: Here I'm using a sort of immersion strategy I've carried over from chess. I mostly browse through the variations and look into them more deeply when I've got the feeling that I messed up something in my own games or a variation has caught my attention by some other channel.
[*] Lessons in the fundamentals of go: I go over this book regularly, but also only in an immersion mode, as the content sometimes feels a bit over my head. It's a really nice book, though.
[*] Relentless: That is, of course, totally over my head, but I really like the thoroughness of the analysis and there should be enough gems to be found in there even for me. Reading commented games of skilled players is what I did in chess when I was young and it helped me to develop a very good positional sense.
[*] Elementary go series (Tesuji) - I don't work through that book as thoroughly as I should but at least I revisit it regularly.

From the games I've played so far, it seems that there are some really glaring weaknesses that I should work on with priority, which are, in order:

[*] Being pathetic at life and death, followed by
[*] being pathetic at reading - this is something I've also been suffering from in my chess life. I'm never going to be a number cruncher, that much is clear. In chess I've always lived off my strategic skills, because the tactics usually work out in one's favor if the prior strategy was ok. If you know aggressive antics by your opponent shouldn't work, it's easier to find a refutation, and vice versa, if you have played soundly and the opponent has messed around, there's usually a shot that leads to an advantage, and thus that shot is easier to find.
[*] urgent vs. big vs. small vs. wasted moves...
[*] endgame technique

So, that's it for the introduction. I won't include a sample game of mine right away because I don't like to hurt your eyes with it without a least having spent some time on commenting it on my own, laying out what I thought I was doing. I'm probably going to do that by next weekend, when I've got a little more time on my hands.

PS: I would like to thank everybody who happens to take a interest in this thread in advance. I realize that I'm not really able to give something back right away, at least when it comes to go. If somebody likes to know stuff about chess, xiangqi or shogi, though, I will involve myself, be it in the off topics or in a private message.

EDIT: Progress IGS (Pandanet)

• 2016/01/30 --- 17k
• 2016/02/14 --- 16k
• 2016/05/14 --- 15k
• 2016/07/29 --- 14k
• 2016/09/03 --- 13k
• 2016/10/15 --- 12k

[Koosh]

The books I'm currently working with are:

[*] Takao Shinji's new joseki dictionary: Here I'm using a sort of immersion strategy I've carried over from chess. I mostly browse through the variations and look into them more deeply when I've got the feeling that I messed up something in my own games or a variation has caught my attention by some other channel.

Seems like you've taken a step in the right direction with this. I feel that it is important to track our progress and keep ourselves accountable for improvement to occur.

I'll make the obligatory "don't study joseki" pull here. The problem with studying joseki is that it introduces tunnel vision into the game. Try your best to avoid this trap and focus more on what final result you can expect when playing certain moves while using joseki as a guide after the game and to find ways to switch end results; it's important to learn how to grow your strength naturally from thinking in terms of this move vs. that move to this final position vs. that final position. Not even dan players have a good grasp of this skill.

I like to think of joseki as borrowed strength that stops helping at low-kyu/dan level. If you can learn how to think about the end results of positions sooner rather than later without overly relying on joseki, you'll probably be for the better in the long run.

[dfan]

If you reached a 2300 FIDE rating in chess I bet you will be able to reach single-digit kyu relatively quickly; some of the sorts of skills overlap, and you have already "learned how to learn".

Some things that I found carried over:

• Tactical calculation in general (in go they call it reading, it's the same thing).
• Pattern-matching, so you can prune your tree of variations effectively.
• Efficient/flexible/multi-purpose moves. I feel like this is taught more explicitly in go literature and culture than in chess; it is one place where I feel my go study helped my chess game.
• Memorization, whether that is opening moves and technical endgames in chess, or josekis and life-and-death statuses in go.

Some things that are different and require a different approach:

• The game peters out into an accounting exercise, something that I still don't find very satisfying compared with the way a chess game can still be very dynamic in the endgame.
• Sacrifices and trades are fundamental to strategy. In chess you might sacrifice one or even two pawns for development, or an exchange for positional considerations, or even a whole piece for a speculative attack, but in go you are constantly throwing things away in order to gain a bigger benefit, even things you may have spent a while building up. In this respect go can be much more fluid than chess, despite the fact that the pieces do not move.
• Things are going on on many parts of the board (relatively) independently. This happens a bit in chess too, but it's much more common in go to be really torn about what part of the board to play in next.
• No particularly good method of notation. This is a real drawback, I find. Given a chess position, I can write out lots of calculated variations without moving the pieces, or I can read the text of a variation and imagine the resulting position. The way you specify a variation in go is actually draw a diagram with all the moves on it. I find that this makes it more difficult for me to calculate and converse.
• Because there's only one kind of piece and there are no starting positions, the board has less implicit structure. If you give me a square on a chessboard (say, g3), I can tell you lots of things about it (it's black, White puts a pawn there when he fianchettos kingside, his bishop might end up there after Bg5, ...h6 and ...g5, his knight might come there (probably from e2) with the aim of landing on f5, etc.). In go, with some exceptions (the 2-1 points are special largely because of their eye-making ability, and the first move in the corner has some implications), the board is much more uniform. I miss this a bit from chess.

At this point the best way to improve is probably just to do whatever you're most excited about. Joseki and endgame technique are not going to be incredibly useful until you reach single digit kyu, but if you enjoy studying them, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Revilo]

I'll make the obligatory "don't study joseki" pull here. The problem with studying joseki is that it introduces tunnel vision into the game.

I believe we might be in some sort of agreement here. At least for me, I don't aim to learn this stuff by heart, but to learn specifics incrementally, mostly as a result of reviewing. As far as I've understood so far, it's important to understand why certain lines are played as compared to others considering the whole position.

That is sort of similar, although not completely equivalent, to the advice that it's useless to learn chess openings by heart if you don't understand how to play the resulting middlegames, or even endgames. This is how I understand sentences like "later, White can play A, followed by B, C, D..." - the learner is made aware of possible sequences later in the game, but does not seem to mean to play out this sequence right away, because there is other important stuff to be done in other areas of the board.

[Revilo]

Some things that are different and require a different approach:

• Because there's only one kind of piece and there are no starting positions, the board has less implicit structure. If you give me a square on a chessboard (say, g3), I can tell you lots of things about it (it's black, White puts a pawn there when he fianchettos kingside, his bishop might end up there after Bg5, ...h6 and ...g5, his knight might come there (probably from e2) with the aim of landing on f5, etc.). In go, with some exceptions (the 2-1 points are special largely because of their eye-making ability, and the first move in the corner has some implications), the board is much more uniform. I miss this a bit from chess.

That is possibly one of the biggest differences. In my youth our coach devised some excercises that would make us learn the coordinates of a square like its name, instead of just reading it off of the grid. Later one would realize that every square has its story. That kind of story might be present in a certain shape of go stones as well, but it does not overwhelmingly occur at the same location. I'm having big trouble with this still, although I strongly suspect that the closer to the edge of the board a shape of stones occur, the more it also possesses its own story - like some stuff works on the third line, but not on the forth, because the edge takes liberties away, which alters the variation.

[Uberdude]

I would agree with "don't [just] memorize joseki", but not "don't study joseki", if by study you mean study in a good way (tautological, I know, also with the caveat of not for beginners). Joseki are a treasure trove of excellent play with examples of good shape, tesuji, exchanges, move order techniques, sacrifices and numerous other generally applicable concepts. I'm not sure what kind of joskei knowledge you have (IGS 14k is pretty broad), but do you recognise the joseki below? It's one of the most common, and on the surface simple, 4-4 pincer josekis.

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 9 . 3 1 7 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 5 . |
$$ . . . . . 8 6 . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 9 . 3 1 7 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 5 . |
$$ . . . . . 8 6 . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

If you study this joseki well you will learn various things. One is about sacrifice and trades, by playing 1 in the corner white is saying he is happy to sacrifice the approach stone, in exchange for a comfy life in the corner (black accepts the sacrifice with 2, he could also play 2 at 3 and allow white to connect for a wall facing the top side). If by studying this joseki you can open your mind to sacrifices generally, and more specifically the awareness of the 3-3 weakness of a 4-4, particularly how the approach stone can help it live, then you will learn a useful lesson. Another thing to learn from this joseki is about counting liberties and cuts on the 2nd line. What happens if white plays at 9 directly instead of playing the 5-8 sequence first?

[EdLee]

Welcome. Yet Another CHess Talent.

[Uberdude]

That kind of story might be present in a certain shape of go stones as well, but it does not overwhelmingly occur at the same location. I'm having big trouble with this still, although I strongly suspect that the closer to the edge of the board a shape of stones occur, the more it also possesses its own story - like some stuff works on the third line, but not on the forth, because the edge takes liberties away, which alters the variation.

Certainly, here are a series of beginner exercises on this theme I posted a while ago:
viewtopic.php?p=172664#p172664

[Revilo]

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 9 . 3 1 7 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 5 . |
$$ . . . . . 8 6 . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 9 . 3 1 7 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 5 . |
$$ . . . . . 8 6 . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

What happens if white plays at 9 directly instead of playing the 5-8 sequence first?

Yes, I've seen quite a lot of 3-3 invasions already. I recall that I also could have had this structure on the board in a recent live game in a 6 stone game against a 3 kyu, but the pincer was located one intersection further away though. I tried to avoid this then because I thought that White could render the weirdly shaped wall eyeless by attacking the pincer stone while running out. My opponent explained to me after the game that the pincered stone won't go anywhere as its escape could be blocked...

I tried to come up with an answer to your question regarding white playing 5 at 9 by thinking about it without moving any stones or looking it up:

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a b 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 9 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a b 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 9 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

and now I believe black can play a and either connect between 8 and a if white connects or squeeze with b first if white captures 6 in order to restrict white to one eye. White seems not to be able to cut between 8 and a in the squeezing variation. I wasn't able to figure it out completely though...

[Uberdude]

I tried to come up with an answer to your question regarding white playing 5 at 9 by thinking about it without moving any stones or looking it up:

Trying to figure it out for yourself without looking it up is admirable, but without moving stones is handicapping your learning for no good reason. Doing tsumego problems in your head is a good skill to practice, but for this kind of exploratory learning it helps to get a board, either real or virtual, and experiment.

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a b 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 9 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a b 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 9 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

and now I believe black can play a and either connect between 8 and a if white connects or squeeze with b first if white captures 6 in order to restrict white to one eye. White seems not to be able to cut between 8 and a in the squeezing variation. I wasn't able to figure it out completely though...

How about if white 9 blocks here (push-block basic instinct)?

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 9 . . 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 9 . . 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

[Revilo]

How about if white 9 blocks here (push-block basic instinct)?

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 9 . . 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 9 . . 7 . |
$$ . . 5 8 3 1 6 . |
$$ . . . 4 X 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Well I actually thought I could now cut between 5 and 9, and use the double atari prepared by 6 and 7. But yeah, I was already told that the exchange 6 for 7 isn't necessary as Black can push and cut right away.

[Revilo]

This wasn't a very good go week for me. I played two live 9 stone handicap games against players around 1-2k EGF and got major chunks of my stones cut off and killed in both games after a good start. I need to pay more attention to my opponents' attempts to surround my groups and prevent their connecting out while the groups are not yet secure.

I will try to do better this afternoon.

The following is the one online game I played this week - I didn't find too much time to play more than one game which is not really according to plan. I have added comments about what I thought I was doing. Apart from the mega disaster in the upper left, I'm not too disappointed about my play - after all I actually expect to get into trouble more often than not because I do not have that much experience up until now.

But the brain freeze in the upper left around move 120 really felt disgusting to me...

http://lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=7537

[EdLee]

Hi Revilo,

Good feeling.

Good feeling.

D14 makes good shape for B, locally. It's an option.

D14 makes good shape for B, locally (and now even more, globally).

Locally, D3 bump asks W to choose: corner or side ?

Locally, the "resistance" you look for is block B2 -- deprive eye space.
Otherwise, W B3+D3 atari+A3, almost life.

H2.

D14.

Q17, or in this case, the outside could be more valuable, globally: P17.

See .

Impossible. P5.

P8.

P10.

Things going on here:
After this connect, W has 2 cuts -- W tries to fix both with .
( See my previous PM about your post 9. )
Ladder relationship if W pushes directly at P9, then cuts o10.
Shape problem at N5 ( which began with ).

This is one reason was a mistake.

Another mistake, bad habit, similar to .
Please see also this recent thread, post 98 --
Bill mentions another common, related mistake (bad habit): first line drop.

o9. See .

* * *
Intermission
, , Please study [sl=SqueezingOutTheToothpaste]Toothpaste[/sl] and [sl=SmallGaps]Related pages[/sl].

Good! You already recognized it!
* * *

Can you make a 2nd eye starting with S4 ?

, Do you have to win a ko ? Study more carefully.

,

164 F8.

[Revilo]

Thank you very much for your review, Ed. I am going to work your comments into my newly started database of commented games of mine.

Now another week has passed, and I feel I have improved a little. For one, I'm one win away of turning 13k on IGS.

Also, I've also done better in my live games this week. I've eventually decided to grade myself 11k EGF based on the results in the local circle. I've managed to win against a 1-2 kyu twice in a row at nine stones. In the first game a week ago, I got a healthy chunk of my stones cut off but still prevailed by 2 points in the end. Yesterday I made a ton of points against him by not letting my corners die, denying him a base and chasing him around. Later he caught up but I still rescued a 15 point lead over the goal line. I even had him on the ropes in a blitz game later on but after killing a big dragon of his, I overlooked an attack against a one eyed dragon of mine that had not yet secured its second eye.

One IGS, I still feel a little overwhelmed at times. I've decided to post a game against a Chinese player of my rank of 14+ kyu - I managed to win because of a disconnection, at which point I had probably caught up again after having fought for survival for almost the entire game. I'm sure a stronger player would have torn me apart within a couple of moves but here I managed to at least put enough doubt in his mind about some vague threads of mine that made him play some slack moves to let me escape my deserved fate...

I would very much appreciate some comments on this game. As before, I have put in some comments about my thoughts during the game.

http://lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=7568

[skydyr]

I've put some comments in here:

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=7570