Life In 19x19

Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://www.lifein19x19.com/

White to play.

https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?t=11871

Page 2 of 2

Re: White to play.

Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:04 pm
by DJLLAP
Joelnelsonb wrote:So in posting this question, I wasn't looking so much for a particular sequence of moves but rather a general strategy for breaking up the black infrastructure. It appears, based on all the answers given, that white's best plan would be to approach the star point stone while putting pressure on the weak group in the bottom left. I think I missed this because I underestimated the potential of the 2-3 stone played by white. I've been reading "The Direction of Play" (which is an amazing book, btw. not sure how I've gotten so far without it. He starts off by telling you to forget everything you think you know about Go and he reteaches you the fundamentals of the game from scratch). In the book, he heavily encourages using the full potential of every stone played (especially in the opening) and this puzzle demonstrates my weakness in this regard.

Edit: Probably the biggest point that he makes in the book is to stop playing joseki moves simply because they're joseki. Instead, he teaches you to continually assess the whole board on every move and to search for the "direction of play" instead. He demonstrates how insanely important the very first moves of the game are.

I have never read Direction of Play, but I have heard that it has a somewhat dubious reputation. Not because the information contained in it is wrong or bad, but because it is very hard to access and confusing at times. I have heard many say that it is a book for high level dan players only, so it is cool that you are reading and enjoying it.

As for the first moves of the game being insanely important, tell that to Gu Li when he lost the Jubango with Lee Sedol. The pro commentaries say that Gu was ahead after the opening of every game, but usually, one small middle-game blunder threw the whole game in favor of Lee Sedol. The opening is important, but it only makes a significant difference when both players are already proficient at reading and fighting.

Re: White to play.

Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:15 pm
by Joelnelsonb
It is a very difficult book to understand as he takes what you might call an artistic approach to the game rather than analytical. He (Takeo Kajiwara) emphasizes that the complicated details aren't important for what he's trying to teach. He just wants you to grasp the underlying concept to be employed on every move. I feel like it's a book that I can continue to read and reread regardless of how much I improve at the game. It's just good,fundamental food for thought.

As for the first moves, what I mean is that he explains the significant advantages and disadvantages of the opening moves even as they relate to every other move. According to Kajiwara, The fewer stones there are on the board, the stronger the relationship between each stone. So the first move played by white is heavily influenced by black's first move and so on. This brings a little bit of understanding to those statements made by pro's like "the game was lost on the second move." It reminds me of studying Chess in that the first moves say so much about the direction that the game will go (if followed-up properly).

Re: White to play.

Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:25 pm
by topazg
FWIW, that and Kageyama's fundamentals books are probably my two favourite Go books. I have lots of others with good resources in (Yilun Yang's fundamental principles etc) but those two ... I just like. It's not the moves that they leave you with, it's the underlying attitude's and overarching ideas that make them re-readable again and again IMO

Re: White to play.

Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:38 pm
by mitsun
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc White to play.
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . a c . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , b d . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . X . . X . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]
Since the two B wings are nearly equal, the symmetrical invasion at :w1: would be my first choice. B will probably block the left side, where the extension is slightly wider. W should be able to live in sente, then set about reducing the resulting B thickness. W can strive for more efficiency by trying to make exchanges a-b-c-d before invading, but there is no guarantee B will play along.

Re: White to play.

Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:40 pm
by Bill Spight
DJLLAP wrote:
Joelnelsonb wrote:So in posting this question, I wasn't looking so much for a particular sequence of moves but rather a general strategy for breaking up the black infrastructure. It appears, based on all the answers given, that white's best plan would be to approach the star point stone while putting pressure on the weak group in the bottom left. I think I missed this because I underestimated the potential of the 2-3 stone played by white. I've been reading "The Direction of Play" (which is an amazing book, btw. not sure how I've gotten so far without it. He starts off by telling you to forget everything you think you know about Go and he reteaches you the fundamentals of the game from scratch). In the book, he heavily encourages using the full potential of every stone played (especially in the opening) and this puzzle demonstrates my weakness in this regard.

Edit: Probably the biggest point that he makes in the book is to stop playing joseki moves simply because they're joseki. Instead, he teaches you to continually assess the whole board on every move and to search for the "direction of play" instead. He demonstrates how insanely important the very first moves of the game are.

I have never read Direction of Play, but I have heard that it has a somewhat dubious reputation. Not because the information contained in it is wrong or bad, but because it is very hard to access and confusing at times. I have heard many say that it is a book for high level dan players only, so it is cool that you are reading and enjoying it.
Kajiwara was a creative and colorful character. He was prone to exaggeration, which is evident in the book. Not to disparage it at all, but Kajiwara should be read as a stimulus to your own thinking rather than taking him as gospel. I don't think he would want it any other way. :) The book was aimed at kyu players. As are most go books.
As for the first moves of the game being insanely important, tell that to Gu Li when he lost the Jubango with Lee Sedol. The pro commentaries say that Gu was ahead after the opening of every game, but usually, one small middle-game blunder threw the whole game in favor of Lee Sedol. The opening is important, but it only makes a significant difference when both players are already proficient at reading and fighting.
Sorry, but that's a crock. I don't know why it is popular these days to disparage the opening. Where do the pros spend their time thinking?

Sure, if you are a 5 kyu and come out of the opening 15 points down, you still have a chance to win the game. But if your opponent is as capable as you are in the middle game, those chances are slim. OTOH, if your opponent is also 5 kyu and is better than you in the opening, while you are better in the middle game, then the odds are pretty even. Otherwise you would not both be 5 kyus.

It is true that if you are a 5 dan and come out of the opening 15 points down against an opponent who is as good as you are in the middle game, you can almost resign. But that is nothing against the opening. It is that the variability of 5 dan games is much less than the variability of 5 kyu games.

Re: White to play.

Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:44 pm
by Bill Spight
mitsun wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc White to play.
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . a c . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , b d . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . X . . X . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]
Since the two B wings are nearly equal, the symmetrical invasion at :w1: would be my first choice. B will probably block the left side, where the extension is slightly wider. W should be able to live in sente, then set about reducing the resulting B thickness. W can strive for more efficiency by trying to make exchanges a-b-c-d before invading, but there is no guarantee B will play along.
Certainly a viable plan. I did not mention it because, IMO, it is difficult for kyu players to handle.

Re: White to play.

Posted: Thu May 28, 2015 2:23 pm
by illluck
mitsun wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc White to play.
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . a c . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , b d . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . X . . X . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------------------------[/go]
Since the two B wings are nearly equal, the symmetrical invasion at :w1: would be my first choice. B will probably block the left side, where the extension is slightly wider. W should be able to live in sente, then set about reducing the resulting B thickness. W can strive for more efficiency by trying to make exchanges a-b-c-d before invading, but there is no guarantee B will play along.
I sort of feel like that black will block from top due to the nice reductions bot (which is why I wanted to attach one point above 1 or the submarine from the top). One thing I was also wondering is whether stablising the black group below makes the second line block on the lower right corner even worse, but I guess that's not really as important as getting an invasion in.
All times are UTC-07:00
Page 2 of 2

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited