mus v Boidhre

Boidhre · #1

Hey, we'd like both sides of this reviewed if people have the time.

We were originally 14k and 19k respectfully when this game started but both having very new dgs accounts our rank is fluctuating a lot. Handicap is 4 as we're carrying on a series of games from KGS where the handicap goes up or down one depending on who won the last game (I forget the name for this kind of series).

jts · #2

Boidhre · #3

Thanks jts.

cyclops · #4

I liked the game, both sides played well. I analysed it for my own fun, but I share it in case it is useful for you. W is maybe a bit overactive but that is understandable in a 4H game. Here too many comments and variations. It is overkill. Pick the ones that seems useful and skip the rest. Some coincide with jts'. But apart from one move mine are independent.

edit: the attachment only seems to be invalid. You can download and open it to see there is nothing wrong with it.

( admin: cyclops, I edited it to embed your SGF directly with the SGF tags
(which you could also have done yourself

) -- EdLee. )

Boidhre · #5

Thanks cyclops.

EdLee · #6

mus & Boidhre,

Boidhre · #7

I keep expecting the last post to be the last one and thanking it but it feels like spamming! EdLee, thank you and for anyone else who reviews this later thank you in advance.

tj86430 · #8

One short comment in addition to those already given:

At move 2, the tsuke (P3) is usually considered good, if black already has a stone around K4, because white can not extend as far from the two stone wall (O3/O4) as he would like. In the actual game when there is no such black stone, Q6 (or R6) directly is usually considered better.

In the actual game white got the extension he wanted at move 5 (K4), and thus moves 1-5 slightly favor white.

All this is from what I have been told, so if this is not correct the blame is on my teacher. ;-)

e: added a smiley to avoid further misunderstandings

EdLee · #9

TJ,

tj86430 · **#10**

EdLee,

EdLee wrote:

tj86430 wrote:

All this is from what I have been told, so if this is not correct the blame is on my teacher.

This is not good form, for a few reasons, the main one being we are responsible for our own post.
So many unknowns:
We don't know your teacher's Go level and Go teaching level (which may or may not be relevant here).
We don't know the exact circumstances they told you about :b2:

--
-- what was the exact board when they told you about :b2:

?
-- even if the position was exactly the same (4-stone game, :w1:

,

),
and your teacher was a good-level pro, and they told you as a 7k student,
we still don't know if they would've given the same note to a 17k student!

Teaching/reviewing is very tricky. :b2:

was the first move I decided not to comment for Boidhre;
but later I mentioned something about :b10:

-- but in reality both moves are no problem for these levels.

If we're not sure about something, as we amateurs are most of the time
and as is here about :b2:

, just say we're not sure (which also is what most of us do here anyway).
Or, we can first double-check with a pro.

Our teachers did not ask or force us to post our comments,
so let's not blame them for our (mis-)understanding.

Thanks EdLee for bringing this to my attention. I now realise how easily my last sentence could be misunderstood. I should have added a smiley (I have now done so). Naturally I don't blame my teacher for my misunderstandings (although one could argue, that if a student misunderstands, the teacher has not done the best possible job). I just wanted to it to be clear that what I said was not my own thinking, but what I had been told. Perhaps it would have been best if I hadn't said anything, so if you want to delete my post and the discussion following it, feel free to do so (I believe you as moderator can do it).

As for the general principles of teaching / giving advice: I generally don't do it, largely because I don't have much (if anything) to add to what others say (this may have even been my first attempt, I'm not sure). However, in this case I wanted to do it, because I have found the advice given to me useful. I by no means meant that :b2:

was a mistake, and I tried to be careful to choose my words to that effect.

As for your other comments; I'm not sure if the situation when I was given this advice was exactly the same (it may very well have been); however I'm pretty sure that the general principle applies. I believe the original point was that when you come from high-handicap games, where K4 is present, you are usually taught to play the tsuke, but when the K4 stone is no longer present, it may no longer be as good. Whether this might apply to 7k but not 17k; I personally think it applies, but this part is my own thinking and therefore likely to be wrong.

Lastly, I think that if only teachings from good-level pro (I'm assuming it means 6p-9p or so) were applicable and that if everyone in doubt should first check with a pro, we might have awfully few comments around here. However, if the meaning is to subtly tell us beginners that we shouldn't comment/give advice, then I can assure you that I will take the tip, and try to remember never to do so again. As for saying "I'm not sure" - that's what I was trying to do, really, but in differently chosen words, which were an unfortunate choice this time.

As for the real content: Please tell me if you disagree with what I said about the move itself, I'm eager to learn more.

PS, I see no point in using the hide-tags, but since you obviously do, I follow the pattern.

Boidhre · **#11**

What I found interesting TJ was whether the statement meant that one should not interpret the advice to play the tsuke as a universal approval of the approach rather than an admonishment not to play it when K4 isn't there. (I could be very wrong!)

At the moment my only reason for playing it is because I like the shape at the end and I think the exchange of a framework on the side for white versus a corner and a smaller framework on the side for black is pretty reasonable at my level and if my opponent neglects the extension to form a base (it happens around 17k) I have a very nice target. I don't think small edges for white or black in the opening really mean that much for weak ddks similar to how in chess small advantages in the opening can be pretty much ignored for the most part by beginners since it'll be a major tactical blunder(s) that'll decide the game not minor advantages built up in the opening. Again, I could be very wrong! But I find these kinds of discussions about small advantages fascinating so thank you for your contribution to this thread even though my main focus at the moment is not these kinds of worries.

jts · **#12**

Boidhre wrote:

At the moment my only reason for playing it is because I like the shape at the end and I think the exchange of a framework on the side for white versus a corner and a smaller framework on the side for black is pretty reasonable at my level...

Yeah, as you'll notice I didn't have anything to say either about :b2:

either; I agree that as ddk fuseki goes, it's a pretty good result. (That isn't the same as saying it's a good result!

)But one reason why this is considered bad for black is that black doesn't have the corner yet; white can still invade and reduce the corner to almost nothing. In general, the Bq4/p3,Wo3/4 shape is surprisingly weak for black, wherever it occurs on the board, and more often than not W has some surprising mischief up his sleeve.

One useful way to think about p3 ("the kick") --- As you know, p3 isn't locally sente; the kick forces W to play o4, but that in turn forces B to play q6, which gives W the opportunity to extend to k4. Now, what if B just played q6 directly, without kicking first? More often than not, white will respond by playing k4! At this point, does B want to take the opportunity to play the kick? Absolutely not - B's stone at p3 doesn't offer much protection to the corner, but W's stone at o4 protects against a devastating black invasion that can separate o3 and k4.

Quote:

...and if my opponent neglects the extension to form a base (it happens around 17k) I have a very nice target.

Don't play go like that! There are some games that strongly resemble rock-paper-scissors. Some of them I even love. (Diplomacy, for example.) Go isn't one of them. The sooner you ask "where would I play if W were much smarter than I am?" instead of "where would I play if W were much dumber than I am?", the more you'll enter into the spirit of the game.

Quote:

I don't think small edges for white or black in the opening really mean that much for weak ddks similar to how in chess small advantages in the opening can be pretty much ignored for the most part by beginners since it'll be a major tactical blunder(s) that'll decide the game not minor advantages built up in the opening.

This is true if you mean "I want to focus more on learning to avoid tactical blunders than on playing a perfect opening." This is false if you mean, "I'm going to keep playing openings that I know are bad because it doesn't affect the rest of the game." It really does matter, even if you don't have a clear sense of how much it matters, and it especially matters to the people reviewing your games, because they're trying to look at who is winning and who is losing, and how aggressively each side has to play to stay in the game. When we look at the midgame tactical blunder, the first thing we ask is "was there a way to avoid the blunder," the second thing we ask is "was there a way to avoid the dubious invasion that lead to the blunder," and the third thing we ask is, "was there a way to avoid the losing situation on the board that made the dubious invasion necessary."

Boidhre · **#13**

jts wrote:

Boidhre wrote:

At the moment my only reason for playing it is because I like the shape at the end and I think the exchange of a framework on the side for white versus a corner and a smaller framework on the side for black is pretty reasonable at my level...

Yeah, as you'll notice I didn't have anything to say either about :b2:

either; I agree that as ddk fuseki goes, it's a pretty good result. (That isn't the same as saying it's a good result!

)But one reason why this is considered bad for black is that black doesn't have the corner yet; white can still invade and reduce the corner to almost nothing. In general, the Bq4/p3,Wo3/4 shape is surprisingly weak for black, wherever it occurs on the board, and more often than not W has some surprising mischief up his sleeve.

One useful way to think about p3 ("the kick") --- As you know, p3 isn't locally sente; the kick forces W to play o4, but that in turn forces B to play q6, which gives W the opportunity to extend to k4. Now, what if B just played q6 directly, without kicking first? More often than not, white will respond by playing k4! At this point, does B want to take the opportunity to play the kick? Absolutely not - B's stone at p3 doesn't offer much protection to the corner, but W's stone at o4 protects against a devastating black invasion that can separate o3 and k4.

Quote:

...and if my opponent neglects the extension to form a base (it happens around 17k) I have a very nice target.

Don't play go like that! There are some games that strongly resemble rock-paper-scissors. Some of them I even love. (Diplomacy, for example.) Go isn't one of them. The sooner you ask "where would I play if W were much smarter than I am?" instead of "where would I play if W were much dumber than I am?", the more you'll enter into the spirit of the game.

Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at it. Thanks! I agree completely on the latter point, I meant it as a sometimes added bonus at my level rather than as a reason to choose this response to the low approach to 4,4. I try to play the game while assuming that my opponent is better than I am and tactically this is generally true though the temptation to ignore this approach is always there and is a very bad habit that I'm trying to expunge.

jts wrote:

Quote:

I don't think small edges for white or black in the opening really mean that much for weak ddks similar to how in chess small advantages in the opening can be pretty much ignored for the most part by beginners since it'll be a major tactical blunder(s) that'll decide the game not minor advantages built up in the opening.

This is true if you mean "I want to focus more on learning to avoid tactical blunders than on playing a perfect opening." This is false if you mean, "I'm going to keep playing openings that I know are bad because it doesn't affect the rest of the game." It really does matter, even if you don't have a clear sense of how much it matters, and it especially matters to the people reviewing your games, because they're trying to look at who is winning and who is losing, and how aggressively each side has to play to stay in the game. When we look at the midgame tactical blunder, the first thing we ask is "was there a way to avoid the blunder," the second thing we ask is "was there a way to avoid the dubious invasion that lead to the blunder," and the third thing we ask is, "was there a way to avoid the losing situation on the board that made the dubious invasion necessary."

I mean it exactly as you put it in the first sense. The perfect opening is of no use to me if I often make a few 30 point tactical blunders around move 100. I find fuseki interesting, so I devote some bit of time to it for enjoyment value, but it's not (and shouldn't be) my focus for a long time as best as I can make out. If I have a focus at the moment it's when to invade and when to reduce, as well as basic life and death, (I find myself risk adverse and very much inclined to play reductions over invasions whenever I'm unsure), though I haven't the faintest idea where to start learning about invasions other than play a lot of games and learn by making mistakes and getting reviews.

EdLee · **#14**

tj86430 wrote:

I should have added a smiley.

They are nice indeed. I often commit random acts of smileys.

tj86430 wrote:

...if everyone in doubt should first check with a pro, we might have awfully few comments around here.

Yes.

EdLee · **#15**

Boidhre wrote:

since it'll be a major tactical blunder(s) that'll decide the game.

Exactly.

Boidhre wrote:

The perfect opening is of no use to me if I often make a few 30 point tactical blunders around move 100.

Exactly.

Bill Spight · **#16**

Boidhre wrote:

jts wrote:

Quote:

...and if my opponent neglects the extension to form a base (it happens around 17k) I have a very nice target.

Don't play go like that! There are some games that strongly resemble rock-paper-scissors. Some of them I even love. (Diplomacy, for example.) Go isn't one of them. The sooner you ask "where would I play if W were much smarter than I am?" instead of "where would I play if W were much dumber than I am?", the more you'll enter into the spirit of the game.

Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at it. Thanks! I agree completely on the latter point, I meant it as a sometimes added bonus at my level rather than as a reason to choose this response to the low approach to 4,4. I try to play the game while assuming that my opponent is better than I am and tactically this is generally true though the temptation to ignore this approach is always there and is a very bad habit that I'm trying to expunge.

I quite agree.

Slap-dash tactics can win games, but they can become a bad habit. Assume perfect play by your opponent unless that means that you will lose.

Boidhre wrote:

jts wrote:

Quote:

I don't think small edges for white or black in the opening really mean that much for weak ddks similar to how in chess small advantages in the opening can be pretty much ignored for the most part by beginners since it'll be a major tactical blunder(s) that'll decide the game not minor advantages built up in the opening.

This is true if you mean "I want to focus more on learning to avoid tactical blunders than on playing a perfect opening." This is false if you mean, "I'm going to keep playing openings that I know are bad because it doesn't affect the rest of the game." It really does matter, even if you don't have a clear sense of how much it matters, and it especially matters to the people reviewing your games, because they're trying to look at who is winning and who is losing, and how aggressively each side has to play to stay in the game. When we look at the midgame tactical blunder, the first thing we ask is "was there a way to avoid the blunder," the second thing we ask is "was there a way to avoid the dubious invasion that lead to the blunder," and the third thing we ask is, "was there a way to avoid the losing situation on the board that made the dubious invasion necessary."

I mean it exactly as you put it in the first sense. The perfect opening is of no use to me if I often make a few 30 point tactical blunders around move 100.

Oh, I don't know.

Suppose that you make three 30 point blunders. At your level your opponent will probably only punish one of them, and you will still win, based upon your gains in the other 100+ moves that you play in the game.

One of the names for go is the Long Game.

You remember a few weeks ago I advised you to play as a 15 kyu. That was not a bad guess, was it? I did not make that recommendation based upon your tactics. You were still putting yourself into atari.

I made it based upon your feel for the game.

Several years ago I read a review by a pro in a go magazine of a game sent in by the father of a 14 year old boy who had been playing for several months and was a 4 kyu. Somewhere in the late opening or early middle game the boy jumped into the center, and it was then that the pro remarked that the boy showed promise. That was the move that revealed a feel for the game.

There is a saying that chess is 98% tactics. (Probably an overstatement, eh?

) My guess is that go is about 1/3 tactics. There are many skills in go, many paths up the mountain.

Quote:

I find fuseki interesting, so I devote some bit of time to it for enjoyment value, but it's not (and shouldn't be) my focus for a long time as best as I can make out. If I have a focus at the moment it's when to invade and when to reduce, as well as basic life and death, (I find myself risk adverse and very much inclined to play reductions over invasions whenever I'm unsure), though I haven't the faintest idea where to start learning about invasions other than play a lot of games and learn by making mistakes and getting reviews.

Here is a thought. For one month, whenever you have a choice between invasion and reduction, invade. That way you will learn something.

(I don't mean make crazy invasions, but when you have a real question in your mind whether to invade or reduce.

)

Bonne chance!

Boidhre · **#17**

Bill Spight wrote:

I quite agree.

Slap-dash tactics can win games, but they can become a bad habit. Assume perfect play by your opponent unless that means that you will lose.

I read a very good line in "How not to play Go" by Yuan Zhuo where he was analysing a game of an 8 kyu player and pointed out a bad move that led to a good outcome for the player and remarked that so long as the player kept getting this result he would remain an 8k because he wasn't learning that his moves were bad.

Bill Spight wrote:

Oh, I don't know.

Suppose that you make three 30 point blunders. At your level your opponent will probably only punish one of them, and you will still win, based upon your gains in the other 100+ moves that you play in the game.

One of the names for go is the Long Game.

You remember a few weeks ago I advised you to play as a 15 kyu. That was not a bad guess, was it? I did not make that recommendation based upon your tactics. You were still putting yourself into atari.

I made it based upon your feel for the game.

Several years ago I read a review by a pro in a go magazine of a game sent in by the father of a 14 year old boy who had been playing for several months and was a 4 kyu. Somewhere in the late opening or early middle game the boy jumped into the center, and it was then that the pro remarked that the boy showed promise. That was the move that revealed a feel for the game.

There is a saying that chess is 98% tactics. (Probably an overstatement, eh?

) My guess is that go is about 1/3 tactics. There are many skills in go, many paths up the mountain.

Things are definitely a lot more interesting in the teens rather than the 20s and I'm getting punished a lot and not getting away with coasting along by making bigger moves than my opponent. I am getting a rather hard crash course though on dgs on fuseki and tesuji though! Myself and mus are playing our next two games as even games, the result will be very predictable I imagine but it's interesting playing on an even footing against a kgs 10k. Hard enough that I'll almost certainly lose but not so hard as to make me feel like there's absolutely no hope to pull off a surprise victory.

Bill Spight wrote:

Here is a thought. For one month, whenever you have a choice between invasion and reduction, invade. That way you will learn something.

(I don't mean make crazy invasions, but when you have a real question in your mind whether to invade or reduce.

)

Bonne chance!

I've been considering something like this. In general I've been trying to get involved in more contact play just so I can get more to grips with it. I'm far too standoffish by nature and this is often wrong in this game as far as I can tell and I need to remove my fear/aversion to it by exposure. I think if I'd spent a few weeks in the mid to high 20s I'd have gotten far more used to contact play than I am at present.

mus · **#18**

thanks..finally i have time to look through the review of our game.thanks for the great advice and variation for a better play..sorry Boi cause took me a long time..=)

_________________________
I added cool smileys to this message... if you don't see them go to: http://s.exps.me

mus v Boidhre

Who is online