Request for Analysis, 11-10k

BlindGroup · #1

Overall, I as happy with the attached game. I made a few clear mistakes. However, I've been working on my general strategy and I thought that went quite well. So, it seems like this is a good game to review to see what I should be aiming for beyond my current focus. The proverbial unknown unknowns ;-)

In particular, I'm wondering if I'm on the right track in terms of my general strategy. At key moves, I have tried to explain my overall goal to see if I'm aiming the right thing. I have also inserted questions at few points where I'm uncertain. And in case it helps target comments, I currently bounce between 11k+ and 10k on IGS.

Thanks in advance!

Knotwilg · #2

So this is what 10 kyu games look like these days? Year 1 After Alpha-Go and ranks are already deflated by 10?

Very good strategic fundamentals, often good technique, calm and collected.
If it weren't for shape mistakes like 86 and 94 this could have been a dan game.

Highlights in the strategic department:

42, 78: direction of play
58: aji keshi

Detailed review:

Bill Spight · #3

You outplayed your opponent strategically. Congratulations.

A few comments.

BlindGroup · #4

Thank you both. These are very useful comments!

Knotwilg, on the rank issue, a key point might be that I have holes in my skills that were not evident in this game. Most notably, my fighting skills are significantly weaker than most players at my level on IGS. Almost all of my losses occur the same way -- in terms of the overall board I can "outplay" my opponent strategically, but when they respond by picking a fight or starting an invasion that should not work, I fail to play properly. Part of it is due to shape issues like the ones you noted, but I also need to work on my reading and counting skills, etc. If you try to do something by leaning on a weak group and your opponent does not respond to the threat, one has to be able to make good on it...

BlindGroup · #5

On reflection, maybe a better way to articulate my weakness is that I have more trouble with opponents who are not as passive as this one -- and IGS players at my level are generally not at all passive. Sequences like the one below are very common, and players frequently play what seem me to be non-joseki moves. This really forces one to understand the basis for the different josekis but, of course, very few of the variations played come up in the joseki books or are seen in professional games. So, one can't rely as much on preparation and fighting skills become more important. The great thing about this is that I've found that the experience is really helping me understand the rational for a lot of the "standard" moves.

Below are sequences that I have recently seen played as part of the pattern on the first approach of a corner. I could see either being reasonable depending on the surrounding board conditions (like a checking extension at H3, for example), but such conditions usually do not exist in the first 20 moves of the game. However, to take advantage of these moves, one has to understand (or more likely figure out within the available time constraints) why they are not joseki. And if the answer is because the stones can be killed, one has to be able to fight well enough to kill the stone! And to make matters worse, the proper sequences often involve shapes (like the double hane) that players at my level (or at least me) do not fully understand.

Bill Spight · #6

BlindGroup wrote:

On reflection, maybe a better way to articulate my weakness is that I have more trouble with opponents who are not as passive as this one -- and IGS players at my level are generally not at all passive. Sequences like the one below are very common, and players frequently play what seem me to be non-joseki moves. This really forces one to understand the basis for the different josekis but, of course, very few of the variations played come up in the joseki books or are seen in professional games. So, one can't rely as much on preparation and fighting skills become more important. The great thing about this is that I've found that the experience is really helping me understand the rational for a lot of the "standard" moves.

Below are sequences that I have recently seen played as part of the pattern on the first approach of a corner. I could see either being reasonable depending on the surrounding board conditions (like a checking extension at H3, for example), but such conditions usually do not exist in the first 20 moves of the game. However, to take advantage of these moves, one has to understand (or more likely figure out within the available time constraints) why they are not joseki. And if the answer is because the stones can be killed, one has to be able to fight well enough to kill the stone! And to make matters worse, the proper sequences often involve shapes (like the double hane) that players at my level (or at least me) do not fully understand.

In the top left White's jump gives White an extra stone. So there is nothing particularly wrong with simply connecting underneath, even though it seems a bit passive. If you want to attack White lean against White's left side first, to strengthen your wall.

In the bottom right it is Black who has the extra stone. It is OK, then, to attach underneath, perhaps giving up that stone to connect. If you want to play more aggressively, you can attach on top.

BlindGroup · #7

Bill thanks again for the detailed response. If you do not mind my asking a follow up question to your first set of comments, why is your suggested variation for move 32 better than the move I made? My thinking was that my group on the upper left is alive even if black moves first, and starting to secure the corner would be more valuable. I guess I was thinking of your suggestion as more of an extension and following the principle of corners before side extensions. What am I missing?

Bill Spight wrote:

You outplayed your opponent strategically. Congratulations.

A few comments.

Bill Spight · #8

BlindGroup wrote:

Bill thanks again for the detailed response. If you do not mind my asking a follow up question to your first set of comments, why is your suggested variation for move 32 better than the move I made? My thinking was that my group on the upper left is alive even if black moves first, and starting to secure the corner would be more valuable. I guess I was thinking of your suggestion as more of an extension and following the principle of corners before side extensions. What am I missing?

What if you allow Black two moves against the top left corner? If you reply to a Black approach against that corner, then Black can use the attack to build a position on the left side. By extending from the corner you prevent that, and you leave yourself a good extension that threatens the Black position in the bottom left corner. Also, Black is solid on the right side, so your extension does not have much of a follow-up there.

That said, your move is good, threatening to build a framework on the top.

So I can't say that my suggestion is better. Just something to think about.

Edit: Note that my suggest for :w34:

is different. Once Black has extended on the left side it is the White extension on the bottom side that carries a threat.

Request for Analysis, 11-10k

Who is online