So, I've been thinking of some ways to study outside of simply reviewing my games and solving tsumego. The idea that popped into my head was: Study Professional Games.
Of course, at my level, gleaning insight from games played on such a high level could be nigh impossible if I only spend a short time trying to decipher each move played. So, I thought to myself, "how can I study professional games and get real insight from it?"
My solution came with surprising ease. I've decided that I will spend a week studying a single game that was decided by points, not resignation. If a game has around 342 moves, I'll study the 48 moves a day and try to justify each and every move. And by the end of that 1-2 hours, I plan to play the game out, without looking, up to the move number I've studied to. And this will be repeated daily.
And by the end of the week, I'll attempt to play the game out from move 1 all the way to 342. My ideology here is that if I know it, I'll have a better grasp on the flow of stones.
Moves 1-4: These are obviously corner inclosure moves. Most low level Kyu's know this concept.
But to take it in depth, I find B's strategy here intriguing. To be honest, I don't see this fuseki often, and I think it's pretty cool.
3
The only reason I've known people to play this is essentially to prevent the opposing player from doing it. I can also see how it provides a nice way to dip into the corner too, though. Those seem to be the primary reasons behind
6-8
6 :W6: secures points. B still has D18, of course.
7 B is looking pretty good on the top part of the board in my opinion. B's influence is still very attack-able at this point, but appears to be a good move in my opinion. It works well with
8 This move would have puzzled me, but it doesn't. I've watched KGS Legend Murugandi's videos, and so playing R9 actually makes sense to me. Playing Q10 leaves some holes because of At least that's what I think, anyway.
Last edited by hailthorn011 on Thu May 12, 2011 7:20 am, edited 13 times in total.
I wouldn't worry about full games; maybe stick to the opening for now. The middle game fighting would probably be too difficult to grasp. There are better ways to learn it, i.e. study tesuji and practice reading (tsumego). The same goes for endgame (tesuji and endgame problems).
By looking at the opening you should learn some joseki, but most importantly you will learn to identify big points.
hailthorn011 wrote:I'll study the 48 moves a day and try to justify each and every move.
Suggestion: after you've picked a game, post each move on this thread, starting from , and your justification for it, and see what kind of feedback you get here.
hailthorn011 wrote:I'll study the 48 moves a day and try to justify each and every move.
Suggestion: after you've picked a game, post each move on this thread, starting from , and your justification for it, and see what kind of feedback you get here.
That's a great idea. Thanks for the suggestion! The game I've decided to study first is:
mw42 wrote:I wouldn't worry about full games; maybe stick to the opening for now. The middle game fighting would probably be too difficult to grasp. There are better ways to learn it, i.e. study tesuji and practice reading (tsumego). The same goes for endgame (tesuji and endgame problems).
By looking at the opening you should learn some joseki, but most importantly you will learn to identify big points.
You're definitely right. But I also think there may be some value in shape recognition, especially in middle game.
My two-cents: is a kikashi meant to diminish the value of white playing on top (especially closer to black's corner formation) because he will immediately come under attack. is stylistic. It could be played 1 line above or can approach the corner, I believe. The important thing to know is that when there is a shimari, the side the shimari faces becomes very large. Splitting is more "modern" I think whereas the corner approach would be more classic.
mw42 wrote:My two-cents: is a kikashi meant to diminish the value of white playing on top (especially closer to black's corner formation) because he will immediately come under attack. is stylistic. It could be played 1 line above or can approach the corner, I believe. The important thing to know is that when there is a shimari, the side the shimari faces becomes very large. Splitting is more "modern" I think whereas the corner approach would be more classic.
It is important to consider the function of each move, but it's also (more?) important to read between the lines. What moves were not played, and why not? This becomes more important as the game progresses, because in the early opening (read: first 5-6, maybe 8 moves) many choices are stylistic, but it still matters now.
Just make sure to choose games that have already been commentated, ideally by pros. There is no way you'll be able to figure out every move they played by yourself or by most of the people on this forum as well. You'll just end up justifying moves for the wrong reason and get wrong ideas no matter how much time you put into your thoughts. Also, the pro commentary will also allow you to double-check your thoughts with theirs to see if your thought process was correct or not.
Araban wrote:There is NO WAY you'll be able to figure out every move they played by yourself or by Most Of The People on this forum as well. You'll just end up justifying moves for the Wrong Reason and get wrong ideas NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME you put into your thoughts.
This is one kind of feedback I had in mind for hailthorn011 (emphases added).
appears to be a good move in my opinion. It works well with 
At least that's what I think, anyway.
, and your justification for it,
is stylistic. It could be played 1 line above or can approach the corner, I believe. The important thing to know is that when there is a shimari, the side the shimari faces becomes very large. Splitting is more "modern" I think whereas the corner approach would be more classic.
