Life In 19x19

HKA wrote:By the way - u have to explain your avatar - I am hoping it is a shot from "Lady Eve" but...

It is of course Charles Coburn, but I'm not certain which movie it's from.

I think I found it when I was doing a Google search of pictures of Coburn in The Devil and Miss Jones. Coburn actually wore the monocle in real life for a vision problem, and not just for characterization purposes in his movies, so it could be from any of a large number of movies. At any rate, it looks more like a publicity still than a shot from a movie.

I like the grumpy look of the photo, especially since it reminds me of how I feel when things start going wrong at the goban....

I'm a greedy player. I think. I'm not really good enough to identify playing styles...

I also have a bit of a reverse psychology thing going. "Oh, you're trying to secure that corner, eh? Let's see if I can make life." Which I guess is greedy.

The problem is, I can't really balance between being greedy and being aggressive.

Back when I was barely a SDK (around 8-10k) I always thought "damn, I could have won if I wouldnt have been so greedy". Then I got some of my games reviewed by youngsun(5P) and she said after every game "oh you played well, but I got the feeling you were a little bit scared in the opening". This was some kind of shock to me, I mean I always thought of my game as the exact opposite!

After playing more and more games I realised that she and I were both right. I lacked fighting spirit in the opening, played slow moves and in the middle game, when I realised that my opponent was far ahead, I started greedy overplays.
I think sometimes I still play to slow in the opening, but nowadays I dont blame the greed-factor for a loss, but the reason why I had to become greedy. I think a very effective way to cure the greed-factor-disease is accurate counting, but on the other side greediness may have some good factors, too ~ f.e. learning sabaki, to become a better fighter etc..

Maybe we should differ between appropriate and not-appropriate greed

Laman wrote: (...) i am not enough self-confident. when i look at the board i just feel i am behind, oponent's teritory look terribly big compared to mine, so i start some desperate fight to counter that, sometimes succesfully, sometimes to make things even worse in the end. (...)
so for me, the solution is to properly count the score during the game, then i am able to play normally

For me it is similar to Laman:
I got the same online analysis by R.v.Zeijst 7d, that 'it might be a lack of enough confidence' (to be sure that one can cope with the endgame).

In general holds:

from the [url]Ten Golden Rules http://senseis.xmp.net/?TheTenGoldenRulesList[/url] it is the first (most important?) Rule which addresses the problem:
Tān bùdé shèng （贪不得胜） - Greediness is not victorious

daniel_the_smith wrote:Last night in a game I counted. I could protect my side territory and let him live and win by 10-15 points. Or I could try and kill. Trying to kill would be a bad idea, I knew, because I couldn't read it out all the way and I didn't need a kill.

So of course, I did the sensible thing and tried to kill.

This happens in lots of my games and I can't understand why I keep playing moves I *know* are wrong.

I lost that game horribly; my side territory died and took another group with it.

LOL... That's funny...At least you knew the probable result before you tried to kill the group. I have the same problem in *any* strategy game.

If people are familiar with chess, there was a player by the name of Mikhail Tal who liked to sacrifice and a large amount of his games saw him sacrifice material in the search of an attack and sometimes created unfathomable complications even if the initial sacrifice wasn't sound. It didn't matter who his opponent was he sacrificed material. Sometimes he did this to attack, but I suspect in the majority of games when he sacrificed a piece or two it was for an interesting game.

He won most of them if he sacrificed, because he was one of the best if not the best attacker chess has produced.

So, I suppose that when we play moves we know are bad, we are doing it for an interesting game.

I wouldn't say that when you failed to kill your opponent's stones, you played incorrectly at that crossroads. Much more likely is that your mistake came after that point. After all, we all have our own individual styles and we play the moves that fit our style more than the moves that don't.

As for being greedy, isn't that kinda the point? I mean, how else are we supposed to win?

daniel_the_smith wrote:Last night in a game I counted. I could protect my side territory and let him live and win by 10-15 points. Or I could try and kill. Trying to kill would be a bad idea, I knew, because I couldn't read it out all the way and I didn't need a kill.

So of course, I did the sensible thing and tried to kill.

This happens in lots of my games and I can't understand why I keep playing moves I *know* are wrong.

I lost that game horribly; my side territory died and took another group with it.

You don't make a living from go, you didn't "have" to win the game. So long as you actually pushed your reading to the limit, and didn't just slap down some intuitive shape moves, you probably learnt more from the game than you would have by playing safe.

Suji wrote:I wouldn't say that when you failed to kill your opponent's stones, you played incorrectly at that crossroads. Much more likely is that your mistake came after that point. After all, we all have our own individual styles and we play the moves that fit our style more than the moves that don't.

I'm pretty sure that what I was attempting was impossible. I was giving four stones, if that's any excuse.

quantumf wrote:You don't make a living from go, you didn't "have" to win the game. So long as you actually pushed your reading to the limit, and didn't just slap down some intuitive shape moves, you probably learnt more from the game than you would have by playing safe.

Yeah, a few moves later I was able to read it out completely and found that it didn't work for me at all...

I have this problem especially when I'm involved in a fight between two moyo openings. I'm trying to learn to consolidate my cash, make thickness, and use THAT to fight, rather than my habit of jumping right in. Overall, I need to learn to keep pressure on my opponent, rather than all out fighting or peaceful consolidation but nothing between.

To quote the advice that Kasparov got regarding his games against Karpov, "Squeeze his balls–but not too hard. Just squeeze one ball."

daniel_the_smith wrote:

Suji wrote:I wouldn't say that when you failed to kill your opponent's stones, you played incorrectly at that crossroads. Much more likely is that your mistake came after that point. After all, we all have our own individual styles and we play the moves that fit our style more than the moves that don't.

I'm pretty sure that what I was attempting was impossible. I was giving four stones, if that's any excuse.

Sometimes we just have to do this to learn something. Granted, I've read something in relation to chess that probably applies to go as well which states,

“Without error there can be no brilliancy” --Emmanuel Lasker. (Lasker was the second world chess champion.)

So, maybe, your most brilliant game ever is coming up?

If that's the case, then I must be a freaking go genius!!

Hagios wrote:To quote the advice that Kasparov got regarding his games against Karpov, "Squeeze his balls–but not too hard. Just squeeze one ball."

I love the quote.

to : daniel_the_smith
i think it helps you see how stronger players plays go.
strong players are good at reading, counting, and choosing a sure way to win.
if you see my second game against Kerby i made a decision to kill my stones and win by little.
although i think i can kill them i was not 100% sure. if i fail to kill and kill my stones then i might lose.
but i am 99% sure that if i use my stones to seal the middle i am going to be ahead comfortably.
its all about deciding which way is a sure way to win.

i have seen strong 9d played extra stone in the corner to make sure there is no aji left over (he didnt need to play that stone) at the end he won by two point.

that is how strong players secure win.

@Magicwand:

Yeah, I was in a similar situation, and I knew it was best to let him live. I do not know why I went ahead and tried to kill. I am going to start asking myself the question, "Would I rather kill a big group, or win the game?" Maybe that will help.

Suji wrote:(Lasker was the second world chess champion.)

And, IIRC, one of the first western go player.