125. Magicwand vs. balmung.

[jts]

I'm curious to see how MW deals with this, looks very tough for white...

Serves him right for giving 7 stones to such a strong player!

[Magicwand]

$$Wcm20
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . X . . O . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 5 X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O . . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm20
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . X . . O . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 5 X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O . . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

so he didnt move... below is what i expect from a dan players.

$$Wc20
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . X . . O . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 5 4 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O . . . 6 O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc20
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . X . . O . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 5 4 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O . . . 6 O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[EdLee]

Locally, the exchange is painful for W because of the broken shape so B should be happy to play :

$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . X . . O . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . W X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O . . . B O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . X . . O . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . W X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O . . . B O . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

[Violence]

I'm sure Magicwand and I would disagree if we were to talk about which one of us is better at playing even games.

But there's no doubt in my mind that Magicwand is far better at handicap games. I think I play too locally for a good handicap game, it's something I should really work on. If I were to play balmung, I would probably try and start big fights to try and beat him in an important infight where his surrounding stones don't matter as much.

I think there's a simple reason why Balmung is going to lose this game.

He has way too much respect for Magicwand.

In a handicap game, if you respect your opponent too much, you usually end up making slack moves, and never really questioning what he can do. As a result, Magicwand will play without having much pressure on him in each situation, and eventually overturn the result.

Balmung said it himself that he's sure that Magicwand won't try anything vulgar or unreasonable that he knows won't work.

But in itself, that can't be true. This is a handicap game, if we didn't try something we think shouldn't work, we'd lose the game easily! All our moves have to be unreasonable, they are moves that can't work, and we know that.

I think Balmung has a bit of a case of putting the dan players on a pedestal here.

You know what the difference bettwen a 6k trying to trick you and a 6d trying to trick you is? The 6d's just better at it. It's not like there's some kind of glorious mastery that you gain once you change the letter that accompanies your rank number, you're just better at not losing.

I'm sure anyone who's played a 6d who happens to be under the age of 13 can agree with me, many times, all they do is start some unreasonable fight and then beat the crap out of you. Vulgar? Sure. Effective? Against us weaklings, absolutely.

Or maybe I've just played Calvin Sun a few too many times.

[Laman]

Violence:

i partially agree with you. black shouldn't get scared by his opponent and instead strike when he has an opportunity. N15 shows this right attitude.

on the other hand, i really like a discussion at senseis on a topic of playing white in handicap, especially the part starting with BoBMcGuidan's post under the second line, where is basically said that white need not neccessarilly to play things that don't work and instead should focus on making good, honest moves, aiming at reducing black's advantage and eventually winning the game in endgame.

i won't pretend that i play this way, my style is closer to trying to outfight the opponent, as you wrote. but i really like the idea and i believe it is the correct and most admirable way to play handicap, if the player is capable of this.

(though it might not be the optimal way for maximizing your chances of winning, as i saw last summer at Czech go camp where we were taught by three Korean pros and couple of local 5-6ds and one of the pros happened to lose a 9H game against a 11k, probably because of this peaceful and nice way of play, while i am sure that one of our 5ds, famous for his fighting skills, would destroy the 11k ten times of ten, despite him himself claiming he is maybe three stones under the pros)

[Tommie]

Balmung appears more busy contemplating about his relative strengths and appearance,
than about finding good & effective moves with reasoning.

This reminds me about pubering teenagers (and politicians .

Violence noted points I agree to.

Laman, if a pro player loses against a DDK, it is just courtesy
- or tiredness, if innocent (ignorant) Go player does not know when & where to resign
(e.g. in a simultaneous - all 5d and 6d players have already resigned
- enjoy BBQ a/o a drink, while the Pro is hungry/thirsty too and
some proud SDK/DDK still ponders aoubout something).
+7d + 11k = > 18 stones difference ! = (.33)<exp 18> winning probability.

[Loons]

@Violence

If I were to play balmung, I would probably try and start big fights to try and beat him in an important infight where his surrounding stones don't matter as much.

I think this is exactly what Magicwand also wants.

@Laman

I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but it sounds like you're making a false dichotomy between honest moves and fighting moves. Though I guess white getting in a not-super-unfavorable fight may represent a black mistake. Looking at Adoreme's games with pros, they do like to start fights (or at least happily rise to Adoreme's).
Edit: (Obviously Laman is also in favor of honest fights in handicap games as well, just clarifying)

@Tommie

I would guess "pubescing" for people in puberty becoming pubescent. Like fluorescing, but with hair. Silliness aside, I worry that people dressing Balmung down (with the best of intentions) is contributing a little to his posturing (very sorry, I can't think of a non-rude synonym).

[Laman]

Tommie:

Laman, if a pro player loses against a DDK, it is just courtesy
- or tiredness, if innocent (ignorant) Go player does not know when & where to resign
(e.g. in a simultaneous - all 5d and 6d players have already resigned
- enjoy BBQ a/o a drink, while the Pro is hungry/thirsty too and
some proud SDK/DDK still ponders aoubout something).
+7d + 11k = > 18 stones difference ! = (.33)<exp 18> winning probability.

i haven't watched the game myself, so my statements may not be 100% accurate. from what i recall, it was a single casual game, both players were relaxed. possibly it was an educational game, so the pro didn't focus on winning so much, i am not sure. i could ask the other player for details, but i don't think it is neccessary

i think several players remarked how nicely / elegantly / surprisingly peacefully the pros played handicap games

Loons:

@Laman
I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but it sounds like you're making a false dichotomy between honest moves and fighting moves. Though I guess white getting in a not-super-unfavorable fight may represent a black mistake. Looking at Adoreme's games with pros, they do like to start fights (or at least happily rise to Adoreme's).
Edit: (Obviously Laman is also in favor of honest fights in handicap games as well, just clarifying)

oops, that really wasn't my intention, thank you for making it clear. i wanted to say that white doesn't have to 'cheat' black with overplays and not working moves and doesn't have to decide the game in the first 50 moves (this is my bad habit, because i hate being behind )

nice how many comments we have here in spite of relatively slower pace of the game

[lightvector]

Laman, if a pro player loses against a DDK, it is just courtesy
- or tiredness, if innocent (ignorant) Go player does not know when & where to resign
(e.g. in a simultaneous - all 5d and 6d players have already resigned
- enjoy BBQ a/o a drink, while the Pro is hungry/thirsty too and
some proud SDK/DDK still ponders aoubout something).
+7d + 11k = > 18 stones difference ! = (.33)<exp 18> winning probability.

i haven't watched the game myself, so my statements may not be 100% accurate. from what i recall, it was a single casual game, both players were relaxed. possibly it was an educational game, so the pro didn't focus on winning so much, i am not sure. i could ask the other player for details, but i don't think it is neccessary

i think several players remarked how nicely / elegantly / surprisingly peacefully the pros played handicap games

I (barely) won a 4-stone game against a pro player once, despite definitely not being within 4 stones of pro-level. But the game was a teaching game, and the pro was specifically playing to keep the game simple and to punish mistakes in the most obvious way possible. You know that a pro could start a fight and completely destroy you, but what amazes me is how much of the difference they can make up even when playing peacefully and explicitly avoiding complications.

[Mnemonic]

You know that a pro could start a fight and completely destroy you, but what amazes me is how much of the difference they can make up even when playing peacefully and explicitly avoiding complications.

That doesn't suprise me. Any stronger player can do that. What suprises me is that they actually have the patience to do it! When I play a handicap game, if my oppenent makes a mistake I try to punish it as harshly as posible (often with extrem overplay on my part) Whenever I'm behind I get the urge to fight for my life, which especially shows in handicap games.