I played a game against a stronger player, who for some reason is ranked below me and got a two-stone handicap. I played a low knight's approach for my second stone. (It's a move I like and use a lot.)
Ended up like this, which I though was a reasonable result, though hardly fabulous:
Sadly I never got to pincer them on the lower side because their next stone was at R3 and by the time I killed their corner invasion they had a stronger group along the bottom. This is the second game I've played with this opponent, and in both games I was slaughtered.
In review, they said I ought to have played the 3-3 point instead and taken the corner.
While it would possibly have got me the second corner, it seems to me that the very best I could have hoped for from it was to get a tiny bit of territory sealed off by a heavy black wall, and been worse off than when I started everywhere else, having only one stone on the entire playable area of the board with black being in control everywhere else.
Last night I didn't feel up to arguing with someone who clobbered me by 40+ points, though (60+ the last time we played.)
What do you think was the better opening?
Do you have any suggestions for better moves than either?
Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
-
lorill
- Lives with ko
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:03 am
- Rank: yes
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: France
- Has thanked: 69 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
Huh ? What was this circled move ?Inkwolf wrote:
Now that's just silly. Please don't listen to this player, and don't take 10pts of territory so early while black gets so much outside influence.
Your ideas were better.
-
amnal
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:42 am
- Rank: 2 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 114 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
Two things to say about this position. Both are local problems, but taken together these kinds of move will make your overall opening terrible:Sadly I never got to pincer them on the lower side because their next stone was at R3 and by the time I killed their corner invasion they had a stronger group along the bottom. This is the second game I've played with this opponent, and in both games I was slaughtered.
1) The black circled move is unusual. This is because it's quite bad; it doesn't claim more territory than before, it doesn't extend in any direction, it doesn't attack white. It seems you played the star point on the side, but this seems wrong as it ignores black's bad play - now black can hane at either end of your two stones and leave you with bad shape. Consider instead the point I labelled 'a', which increases white's liberties, makes white a strong wall with no defects, and threatens to seal black into the corner.
2) The white circled move seems submissive; it is a contact move so it will make bother players locally stronger, but you are already locally strong so it isn't obvious that you want to do this. Instead you want to stay strong whilst making black weaker. To this end, you can play (for instance) a to keep the corner strong but without making black stronger (though this is still submissive and not normal), b (most normal) to sit back and see what black does - black can't take both the corner and side without you getting the other easily, or some kind of pincer.
You are correct; the 3-3 invasion here is very bad. Black's wall is far greater than he would be allowed in any normal joseki, because it's so big that white cannot neutralise it even with another move on the bottom.
In review, they said I ought to have played the 3-3 point instead and taken the corner.
While it would possibly have got me the second corner, it seems to me that the very best I could have hoped for from it was to get a tiny bit of territory sealed off by a heavy white wall, and been worse off than when I started everywhere else, having only one stone on the entire playable area of the board with black being in control everywhere else.
Last night I didn't feel up to arguing with someone who clobbered me by 40+ points, though (60+ the last time we played.)
What do you think was the better opening?
Do you have any suggestions for better moves than either?
Usually we reserve the 3-3 invasion for when black already has stones nearby. This aims to either make black overconcentrated (if those stones are too near black's wall), or possibly to leave black a perfectly reasonable position that you plan to reduce instead of invading.
Overall, the only problems with the diagrams you posted are those which I noted above, both local mistakes. Your loss has almost nothing to do with this, but if you post the rest of the game I or someone else can show you what the problem really was.
Finally, in your final diagram the circled black stone is bad unless black has some stones protecting the cut at a. In the diagram, you can cut at a straight away to punish black for this mistake. I won't show the expected sequences unless you want to know something specific about them.
-
hyperpape
- Tengen
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
- Rank: AGA 3k
- GD Posts: 65
- OGS: Hyperpape 4k
- Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
- Has thanked: 499 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
There's not any real question that the 3-3 point invasion is bad here. The first thing a player should learn about the 3-3 invasion is that it is normally far worse for the player invading--it is a special purpose move.
But this is the normal variation. Black has fewer cutting points and more influence towards the bottom.
But this is the normal variation. Black has fewer cutting points and more influence towards the bottom.
-
Inkwolf
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:08 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Wisconsin
- Has thanked: 413 times
- Been thanked: 462 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
He kicked at R15, I extended, and he connected in the notorious empty triangle. ^^lorill wrote:
Huh ? What was this circled move ?
Thanks!
Amnal, thanks for the tips. You have given me new ideas to think about, and I will try to remember them the next time i play.
No point in posting the file, really. I got caught up in localized fighting trying to defend my side while Black put dots all over the board. I didn't have a single stone west of the center line until Move 89. It's a wonder I didn't lose by more.
Hyperpape, thanks. Glad everyone agrees the early 3-3 invasion was a stupid idea.
-
Sevis
- Lives with ko
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:14 am
- Rank: KGS 6 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Sevis
- Location: The Netherlands
- Has thanked: 11 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
is no good at all -- if black wanted to strengthen the position, a is better, but it's not necessary. In fact 
is already not very good, and you should be happy your opponent played it.I would play
either low or closer to the two stones.The
exchange (I'm guessing that's how it happened: I see no other way for the position to have occurred) is weird. I would not play either of the moves: is small (consider b instead, or approaching another corner), but is like ignoring a shoulder hit: you can now play under the stone, and black is not comfortable at all.I think that your main problems are not in the opening, though -- post some later parts of the game.
And, as has been said before, the 3-3 is just plain silly.
-
EdLee
- Honinbo
- Posts: 8859
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
- GD Posts: 312
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Has thanked: 349 times
- Been thanked: 2070 times
-
emeraldemon
- Gosei
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:33 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: greendemon
- Tygem: greendemon
- DGS: smaragdaemon
- OGS: emeraldemon
- Has thanked: 697 times
- Been thanked: 287 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
I think there's a moral to this story: opening is not losing you games. Fighting is. Get stronger at fighting 
-
Inkwolf
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:08 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Wisconsin
- Has thanked: 413 times
- Been thanked: 462 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
Whoops, I made a mistake posting....I thought he played Q15, but he didn't until later, when it made more sense. Still, that actually does come up in games at my level, so thank you all for the advice on it. This is the actual order of moves. I'd really, really rather not post the full sgf.Sevis wrote:
I would play
The
Thanks again for all the comments.
B probably would have been better to play than 9, or maybe Q 3, 5 or 6.
-
Dusk Eagle
- Gosei
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:02 pm
- Rank: 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 378 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
is bad - this result favors white, and the corner is still open.
is the proper response 
. should be at 'a' or 'b'.
should normally be played at if he's going to approach this corner. is no good - hitting at the diagonal point *below* an opponent's stone is called an armpit hit, and is a move you should avoid (until you know when not to avoid it 
). Note that it's actually bad for the same reason as - it induces your opponent to get stronger without real reason. If you rearrange and 
you can see the similarities. at 'c' would be the usual response, and certainly better than the 3-3. This makes me wonder if black knows what he's even going for in the area. If you block at R4 you should get a good result.Overall, I think white is playing quite a bit better than black so far in this opening. Your problems definitely came later in the game.
And, like others have said, taking the 3-3 point under a lone 4-4 stone at that point in the game is bogus advice. That move is generally reserved for when black's influence would be mostly useless on both sides, or when black is so powerful in the area that normally better moves are too difficult to pull off.
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.
-
Inkwolf
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:08 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Wisconsin
- Has thanked: 413 times
- Been thanked: 462 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
Thanks, DE, for the advice about 9, I will watch that sort of thing more carefully.
Bah. I have to catch this guy sometime when I'm not playing like an idiot.
Unfortunately, I blocked in the wrong direction, at Q3. He played R4, I blocked at R5 and he crosscut me and before I knew it, I was focusing more on fighting him than on making good moves or territory. I got the right edge for about 4-5 lines in, part of the bottom, and a little chunk of the top, but nothing but tentacles through the middle and a failed corner invasion on the left.Dusk Eagle wrote: If you block at R4 you should get a good result.
Bah. I have to catch this guy sometime when I'm not playing like an idiot.
-
Dusk Eagle
- Gosei
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:02 pm
- Rank: 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 378 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
Re: Opening against handicap: what's your opinion?
Fighting is fine, and there are plenty of good moves to be made and lots of territory to be earned while doing so. One of your goals in a fight should be, "How can I profit from this?", though doing so can require some skill. Still though, R4 is definitely the way to block - after R4 Q3 P3, yourInkwolf wrote:...I was focusing more on fighting him than on making good moves or territory.
suddenly appears to help your group a lot, no? Also, look at the wall you build toward your position on the right.We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.