Life In 19x19

I think L8 extend is much better and was surprised you didn't, if then h7 there is a problem at j7 which might not work quite yet with white breaking through to the left, but maybe something like e6 can make miai? Or just pull back and white needs to fix, maybe by pushing k8 and you extend so maybe a fix in sente (but you don't mind being forced to extend there and reduce worries of the aji to the right, though it seems you worried about that a lot more than I would) or if a gote fix you take can take sente unlike game (though maybe you use sente to keep on splitting and try to weasel your way into the left side). And even without sharp lines like that the squeeze hurts: you ended up faffing around with l2 small yose whilst he got important outside; maybe you'd prefer to play that direction initially. I wonder if such play would look as silly to a pro as playing the vital point of a 3-space eye of an unsurrounded group would to us.

Also move 125 isn't l9 atari then p9 jump better? I didn't count anything, just shape feeling.

Good job with the win anyhow. Btw Nelis is a nice guy, I met him at the WAGC.

-Yep, L8 does seem clearly much much better. I think B needs to protect soon, but it's worth the extra power in the attack. In that case perhaps his L3 was a serious mistake that should be at M2. Your e6 seems clever, I assume he would have to protect then. Or he solidly connects initially, and then his shape is still bad and I attach to E9.

-L2 isn't that small, but I didn't even consider not playing in the area. At the least I should consider C2, or attach at E9. Now you point it out, I can see I didn't gain anything

-move 125, actually I was scared he would tenuki the atari, but frankly either way, it's nowhere near as big as I thought I counted it to be.

a few thoughts on joseki



I found an analysis of 7x7 that must be about a year old, when I was much weaker. I thought I did all sorts such as 6x5, but couldn't find them.


another endgame practice I made up was showing that 1st line moves are worth at least 2 points, 2nd line >=6, 3rd line >=16

Ideas to try/ Things to focus on when playing:
-practise attack more - leave weaknesses in your shape
-imagine position from opponent's perspective
-use opponent's time to think

PANDANET

In the pandanet league, I played board 1 against Sweden, against a 2517 rated player, the strongest opponent I've ever seriously faced except Sai. I estimated 60% win chance. Perhaps my opponent would underestimate me for my rank, as I know I've improved a lot.

I gradually built up a large lead in the opening with a moyo, despite not liking them. My training with leelabot 5d appears to have made a difference. Move 55-59 I played a slightly dubious double hane sequence in the centre, my opponent tenukied ?!?! twice to connect up 2 strong groups in gote with 10 points. By move 70-80, they played so simply (they didn't notice my lead?) it was already endgame, which is my strength, so they went down without much of a fight. No potential to fall into middle game traps.

The game showed my improvements in the opening subtleties and balance, and judgement (practising counting was helpful but a bit too tiring. More helpful was better judging who has the advantage) There was no middle game, so it is not easy to judge my issues there. For sure, my fighting (reading and shape) needs much work to bring it up to standard but I think I've gotten more balanced, and am mostly over my old thought process of never cutting. And in the endgame, I can see how far it still is from perfection, but I think my judgement of the size of centre moves is a lot better.



Interesting:
Leelabot's whole opening theory, particularly variations move

Good:

• My opening punishing D2, O3, and R3, and playing N15 according to leela
• Clear plan to punish the weird invasion up to
• confidence that was gote
• clarity about my advantage, and much more reliable counting, and better endgame to be clear that sacrificing the points on the left in return for the centre was fine .

Bad:

• Missing danger of J4 in opening

To improve:

• Notice the option of R15 and at R16
• reading the cut correctly for ,
• move m9 to l8
• clarity that what I thought was a small blunder may have been the best sequence to take sente
• L1 (B 115) assumed a simple connect, missing the possibility of fighting back, maybe I lost 5 points total, but 119 was the mistake

-practise attack more - leave weaknesses in your shape
-imagine position from opponent's perspective
-use opponent's time to think

well

1. I handled the weird invasion reasonably, but the M9 double hane was dubious
2. This is helpful for more accurate reading. I think I have improved.
3. A little, though I doubt I'll ever fit the Luo Xihe model I was thinking of.

my London open wasn't great, getting placed with rating points much lower than several people I haven't lost to on even. I can try to blame lack of experience for nerves, and attempts to imitate leela's style that I couldn't handle, but whatever the case, I have much to learn.

a highlight is repeated death/near death in every game

game 3 is incompletely recorded, but the others are reasonably accurate

A solid game against a strong player where I was leading the whole way through (Pandanet vs Netherlands)
with leela analysis and my own detailed endgame analysis

3 solid games for my first tournament win

woohoo

Good games - enjoyed the fighting spirit and the candid commentary.

It's also interesting to see how useful Leela is for training and providing quick feedback on games.

Now that you say I hit overtime at move 47, it really emphasises how awful my time management was...

pure leela analysis

Btw Joanne played that same 2nd line move as Lothar against me in the last round of the Candidates but I didn't have a chance to discuss with you. I took the outside: when she cut I atarid from the outside which threatens to retakes the corner (rather than start the fight Leela nor I like) so she changed plans and gave me a ponnuki which should be fine for me (though I then played for a weird centre moyo which was awkward).

Uberdude: thanks, I didn't notice that variation

I was a bit surprised by such a good result of winning the candidates, as I wasn't feeling great about my go and it only got worse on the first day where I got far behind against a 1d. It was less nerves and more feeling out of practice: unsure what to expect from my opponents, unable to plan strategies, and inaccurate reading. Studying theory and watching bots is much less practice than actually playing and reviewing your own games, especially as they can make you doubt your ideas. Somehow I then gained some confidence and my game improved.

Intense tournaments are not very fun. I got a headache at the end of each day, and hence low memory and less able to be attentive at a conversation.

I've found I developed a bad habit of saying I don't like the centre or moyos, and then still playing for influence and doing ok with it. Perhaps it is that there are many facets to centre play and some I am strong at and some I am weak at, or that other players take territory more aggressively, I'm not sure. But I have better evidence now that I am relatively strong at local reading (does this probe work?, L&D) where there are not many options to read, relatively weak at centre judgement (too much to read and my judgement is insufficient), and strong at the endgame. I suspect I am relatively flexible with exchanges and sacrifice, but I have no real evidence yet.

I'll work on some reviews

sometimes my leela analysis comments look incongruous to my other comments, but that is because I did the leela analysis after reviewing myself first