Stones played high and/or facing the center and sides with an eye to future profit through fighting. Influence is often achieved by letting your opponent take some territory.

Stones that have served their purpose and can/should be sacrificed

Playing near your opponents strong spots or inside their framework in a manner that allows for you to A) live inside B) escape; resulting in significant reduction of your opponents potential territory. This can be achieved by letting some of the stones die to live with the majority.

Stones that serve important roles, such as cutting your opponent. Not an indicator of size, 1 stone can feel heavy

Having more then 1 desirable follow up to a move. I don't understand this concept well

Good: Leaving positions settled but with nice follow ups to be pursued later
Bad: leaving cutting points or being over extended with your own group.

(My substitution, as mentioned )
From your post #3 in blindgod's thread -- http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... f=4&t=5822
For beginners, your definition does not really help them answer these questions:
1. What is this magic again? What is it exactly ?
1(a) So all highly placed stones have this magic? No? Which ones do and which ones don't? How can I tell?
1(b) So low stones don't have this magic? Again, how can I tell?
2. What do I do with this magic?
2(a) "To make a fair share of territory later"? How?
2(b) What do you mean by "fair share" ?
2(c) By attacking? How?
3. I just let my opponent kill my big group and she got a lot of territory -- did I just gain a lot of magic?
4. (Repeat of 2.) I need to play a move now -- what EXACTLY do I DO with this magic again?

Move 17: a hane at S6 is better perhaps
Move 21,23 75, 79,81: going to list here all the times a hane would have been better(it happened a lot)
Move 29: Didn’t like the empty triangle but it seemed to be the best way to seal corner
Move 36: D7 steals W base and starts a running fight, might have led to a win in the long run.
Move 67: double Atari at J10
Move: 91 was the last big territory claiming move
Move 95: A speculative sequence, hoping to follow up net/Atari with stone at O12, and connect out. Didn’t work
Move 99: aiming at P14, it was spotted
Move 102: W messes up the edge work
Move 195: I believed it to be forcing and W responded, not sure if it was in retrospect.
I felt I was ahead by a fair margin in the middle game and played "safely" as a result. If I had thought I was behind I would have been more aggressive.

7: Letting a 4-4 stone get double approached is quite severe. So a local response is pretty big. In fact, it's bigger than a double approach on a 3-4 stone, so white should ignore your move and return to the upper right. But maybe you have to be the victim of a double approach a couple of times before you can truly appreciate this.

17: This move is on the second line. In general you want to avoid second line moves. Are you familiar with the reasons for the relative strength and weakness of moves on the first, second, third, and fourth line?

In general, when your opponent plays a contact move, your first instinct should be to look at the hane. Contact fights in go are brawls. They work a lot like street brawls; whoever brings more friends wins. Playing a stone that doesn't reduce the opponent's liberties is like having a friend who slips into the bathroom when the brawl starts.

23: See 17

29: Separate white instead. (After you play Q13, we call his shape ______, because ______?) After that, P14 and R14 are equally good moves for keeping your stones separate (miai, or equivalence).

43: See 17 This is like your friend running for his car, slamming on the gas, and driving across three states.

If I were forced to explain how a car works, Ed could undoubtedly beat me down into admitting that it's really just magic. But, after giving thanks to Nyaralathotep for the unspeakable mysteries of the internal combustion engine, I would still be glad that I know how to drive. Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean you should lose faith in it.

Today was great! Stayed home sick from school and spent the whole day on KGS. Well after I rolled out of bed at 1pm. The only game I was really unhappy about was my first one against a 2 stone handicap. Ended up in a position I was very unhappy with by the end of the fuseki and it was downhill from there. All the other games were fun though(won or lost). My favorite one had me chasing down a huge dragon Thrill of the kill, but his play style was fun to butt heads with.
And then in the evening there were two interesting game reviews by Dsuan.

I also tried my hand at teaching a 26ish kyu player. I do my best not to be authoritative beyond my limited knowledge of course. A higher kyu offered to take over the review, and while I was a tad disappointed, the review wasn't really about me. What was annoying was getting talked down at, being accused of hoping for mistakes. Now I can understand all his comments, they were good moves looking at the board. And I had seen and considered a fair portion of them(being some number of stones stronger he had me out classed on a few occasions), discarding them as part of my goal. Namely teaching. My personal approach to teaching is to try to set up/ leave positions in such a way that the student has things to think about. Over ambitious cuts, leaving invasion points open a little longer then I would normally, things like that. I think that the discovery of these moves in a real game is better then simply being shown them in a flurry of sequences post match. Of course this becomes a problem when other people start reviewing the game, you just look like your trying to save face when you claim to have set up a situation for teaching purposes. The reviewer did a very good job with the review, I am not trying to criticize him in any way.

I teach the way I do because I don't see the point in slaughtering a weaker player, and then preaching about how he should have played. I'd much rather try to get them to play how they should play. With a few prompts when something is important. After all, why do you need a win in a F/T game. Teaching the student is what's important. And I think my approach works just fine. Well sorry for the vent, it just bothered me is all. And I suppose I'm fishing for everyone's personal teaching theory.

Edit: Sorry for the whining, I'll keep it to the very minimum in the future. This just bothered me I guess. If anyone runs into me on KGS please don't hold back on offering to take over the review. I realized that this message might be off putting in that sense. I would rather the weaker player learned something, and a higher reviewer is better. This has mostly been empty venting. And I get mad at the people who do this on facebook
I'd delete the whole vent now that I've slept on it. It's a little and somewhat embarrassing thing to let bother me. I just feel that that is bad form. Saying something stupid and then removing all traces of it. I'd rather live with the mistake.

move 186-192: we decided jointly that B at D13 let the dragon live. If anyone can read out a killing sequence with that B stone in place, I'd be interested in knowing it.

Some thoughts on the game.
27:I feel like 27 was necessary so that my wall didn't go to waste.. W 28 was painful though.
36: Come to find out this is a really nasty endgame move prep. W large knight move to the first line later.
49: the exchange of B49 W50 seems bad. Connecting at W50 might have been better for my move.
51: if i tried to stop the push it seemed like it would just get messier. I decide to take the time to secure my right group. That let me focus on my top group after he pushed though. This is broken shape correct? Or is that not the case when your groups should be fine?
58: The gote block(preventing the reduction at 108ish) would have been very big for me. Knowing about it now there are quite a few moves from now on I'd trade for it. The corner invasion was a good idea before blocking though. Live in the corner and then block and his extension down just prompted me to make territory on both sides!
108: I am currently in the "Oh boy a Ko!! I'm a go for it" stage. Turns out my ko threats were wimpy(ish)
114: Looking at it now, I think the Ko was bigger. Him connecting up that peice is a problem. But perhaps not a big one. Should have ignore the threat
181: I learned my lesson about this move
246: The game losing move
255: Didn't realize this could be a ko until he played into the shape. If he had dealt with the ko threats first I would have lost.
261: Wasted a ko threat perhaps

After noticing it was not in the .sgf
Komi was 6.5
B won by 1.5

Thank you Edlee.
Well that sequence in the upper right became broken shape a lot sooner than I had thought. Definitely something to look for.

I really didn’t want him cramping my extension, which is why I played 19 as a counter pincer. But a and b do indeed seem to be miai. I’ll try to remember to look for that in the future.

The two local vital points are also huge(27 and 23). Those always seem less important… well until I’m NOT the one with a stone on them.

A question on broken shape. While perhaps not at W12, definitely after W50. Trying to keep W from pushing through would have gotten dangerous. Was solidifying my group on the right while he pushed through a good way to manage the damage from the broken shape?