Laerthd study journal

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Wed May 23, 2018 3:57 am

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the variations!

:b29:

, I did not realize how tight white would be with a move like this.
I thought of playing maybe B11 but I couldn't see a clear path.
Just putting pressure without trying to kill seems much better.

:w46:

this seems quite similar to me. what is the advantage of playing O2 directly?
If anything, as white I would play P4 and next play toward the center with :w48:

at L5

yeah I was not sure about this sequence so I played it safe

For the AI analysis, I tried using Lizzie but it would start so I will have to look more into this.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Wed May 23, 2018 11:16 am

Hi Laerthd,

:w46:

at o2: W still has P4 atari ( too slow for B to play there now ),
and aji of R3 peep, R2 clamp, etc.

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:40 pm

Hi Ed,

That make sense, thanks!

Still haven't succeded to use Lizzie but I used go review partner with AQ,

To answer my question for :w6:

, apparently pincering is a little inferior to just play F17 (49.14% Vs 50.02%)

As Ed noted, failing to keep pressure on white group caused a big drop in my winning probability
:b29:

at c6 is valued at 50.9% and 47% for R14

I am not sure how to interpret these numbers however since for :w46:

AQ would play O2 but gives a better chance of winning for P4

My big mistake was :b93:

dropping my winning probability from 55.52% to 32.42%.
Here is what AQ would do :

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:10 pm

Hi Laerthd,

Thanks. Is AQ running on your home computer, Windows or Mac ?

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:22 pm

On a laptop running windows.
Probably not the best analysis tool but surely good enough for my level!

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Fri May 25, 2018 3:48 pm

Here are 3 games I played this week, 8k on Fox Go.
I ran go review partner with AQ on these games and it looks useful but only after a self-review, to see my blind spots. As daal noted on another topic, go is still missing quite a lot in term of quality review tools.
I would attach the win rates at each move but I cannot find how to include a picture from my hard drive.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Fri May 25, 2018 7:31 pm

Hi Laerthd,

how to include a picture from my hard drive

Click "Browse...", navigate to your photo on your computer,
then click "Add the file":

After that, click "Place inline", like this:

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Sat May 26, 2018 3:34 am

Hi Ed,

I tried that but it wouldn't work. I just noticed the error message I get, 3 is the maximum number of attached files.

So here are the win rates:

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 26, 2018 4:58 am

Hi Laerthd,

But it worked -- you attached 3 photos.

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Sat May 26, 2018 11:35 am

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant attach it to the first post, linked to the games.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat May 26, 2018 11:43 am

Ah, ( 1 SGF + 1 photo ) per post.

Laerthd · Post by **Laerthd** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:33 am

I've noticed that I play better than usual since I started posting here again!

I reduced my games to 1 a day on average I would say. It really forces me to think so I don't lose the only game I'll have today.
The popular advice to improve is "just play games" but actually I would say "play fewer games" is a better advice.
Also posting here and analyzing my games with go review partner forces me to think about my moves.
Here because it doesn't do any good if for 3 games in a row the advice is "don't push if you can't cut".
For GRP, it is so frustrating to analyze a game to look for better alternative and from move 50 to 150 it tells you that literally every move you played was worse than this specific spot. On the other hand, it is great for finding the urgent points.

Here is a game for today that I am quite proud in which I play white. I did some errors in the lower side but I got what I thought was a not so bad result in the upper left. However, AQ disagrees and I don't know why. It gives me a <20% chance of winning after the corner sequence. Any comments on that part would be helpful.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:03 am

Hi Laerthd,

It gives me a <20% chance of winning after the corner sequence.

My guess is AQ thinks if the ladder is bad for :white:

,
on your board, you shouldn't pick avalanche. You can easily test this.

See if

is your last chance.

( Caveat: just because AQ/AZ thinks <20% winrate,
it doesn't necessarily mean (top) humans can take advantage of it. )

dfan · Post by **dfan** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:26 am

Laerthd wrote:I reduced my games to 1 a day on average I would say. It really forces me to think so I don't lose the only game I'll have today.
The popular advice to improve is "just play games" but actually I would say "play fewer games" is a better advice.

The best advice is different for everyone! I need to play more games, but that's because I play fewer than one game a day.

Here is a game for today that I am quite proud in which I play white. I did some errors in the lower side but I got what I thought was a not so bad result in the upper left. However, AQ disagrees and I don't know why. It gives me a <20% chance of winning after the corner sequence. Any comments on that part would be helpful.

With move 16 you give Black a very useful move (and a prisoner) completely for free. One plays this sort of move to cause shortage of liberties so you can squeeze or capture, but neither is true here. Moreover, you're in the middle of a big fight with two weak groups on either side, so effectively passing hurts even more. Maybe it only loses 10 points or so, but that's a huge difference for an engine that is computing the probability that Black will win a game between two very strong players starting from this position.

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:01 am

On White 16

Life In 19x19

Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal

Re: Laerthd study journal