when someone invades and you attack but then...

[illluck]

That being said, I think situation after a cross cut is really not easy to play. I wouldn't worry too much about specific sequences/reasoning behind the sequences at this stage because there are so many variations that the opponent could try that you need first obtain a grasp of the fundamental tactics - you have to be able to back up your strategy with reading. Furthermore, context is incredibly important - even a slightly different board layout could mean that you need to choose another sequence. I agree with Ed here (though personally I think perhaps he overstresses the important of broken shapes) - you should develop your feel for shape and reading which are applicable in every situation and the pre-requisite for learning and understanding specific middlegame sequences such as this one.

[Bantari]

...the fundamental flaw in your play, not really specific tactical solutions like the toothpaste and stuff.
Of course, toothpase is good [...] but its small potatoes, really - until you first address the big conceptual flaws you show.

I disagree.

Big picture problems, "general", "conceptual" flaws, etc. are good to fix, yes,
but so are all the basic shape problems, basic tactic problems.

Basic shape problems like the toothpaste are not small; they are huge.
It is one reason Kageyama starts out on Chapter 1 with the ladder.
"Don't forget the fundamentals. Our study begins with ladders."

Well... specific tactical solutions for specific tactical situations cannot be called "The Fundamentals" in my book. Here is where our disagreement might lie. To me, this is the day-to-day tactical bread-and-butter of a go player. But for something to be called "A Fundamental", to me at least, it needs to be applicable more generally than just in very specific situations.

However - my main objection is that, while it is good to know the toothpaste sequence (and notice - even Kageyama does not even mention it in his book), it is one of many many little techniques a player must learn... with time. Learning it right now, might or might not substantially improve his game. Learning what I have said will. So, if we try to restrict to only one advice, as not to confuse the subject - I rather give a general one, applicable to each game and addressing his general problem, than a very specific one, however appropriate, but highly localized to a concrete game and/or position.

So, what I can tell you is this: yes, your are right, the toothpaste sequence is good to know and will certainly help him. Just like it is nice to know specific joseki or whatever. But more important, at this moment, and from the context of what he asked - is what fundamental and conceptual flows he made, not what tactical opportunities he missed. Because there is much more tactics in this game he showed, both before and after, the toothpaste being possibly one of the least important. So I think my advice was better and more helpful.

I guess this is where the difference between 'good play' and 'good teach' can be illustrated, we have talked about it before. I am not a very big proponent in "this move is better, learn it" approach to teaching. Better than trying to pick bad moves and point out better ones is to try to identify the conceptual flaws in the thinking of the pupil and address those instead. Once this is done, many of the bad moves will correct themselves.

But lets not compare sizes - lets rejoice in the fact that cherryhill got at least two pieces of advice here, and hopefully some of it will stick and help him.

[illluck]

Original poster: My opponent invades and attaches to my stone at R10. How do I handle it?

L19 forum advice: Make correct moves; fix your basic shapes

How is this helpful at all?

To be fair, the original question at the top is a lot more vague and general.

[EdLee]

Original poster: My opponent invades and attaches to my stone at R10. How do I handle it?

L19 forum advice: Make correct moves; fix your basic shapes

How is this helpful at all?

This is helpful because the problem is not only about the first reply to R10 --
it is about the follow-ups, which is why basic shapes are important, like .

There may be multiple valid replies to R10 (say, depending on the player's level).
W's hane in the game seems OK, until . If W blocks at P8 with ,
and plays all the subsequent follow-up moves correctly, then B dies,
and the local fight is finished.

And it's not just about this one game. Or the next 3. Or the next 10. Or even the next 50+.
As cherryhill posts more games to review, we'll continue to see these basic shape problems, again and again.
(Plus other "conceptual flaws.") They have to be fixed, one by one.

[EdLee]

specific tactical solutions for specific tactical situations cannot be called "The Fundamentals" in my book.
Here is where our disagreement might lie.

I have no idea what you're talking about. These basic shapes are exactly
part of the fundamentals, in my book. Yes, this we disagree.
(And yes, I agree with you that "big picture" things are also part of the basics.)

Take the ladder. To me, it's very fundamental (re: Kageyama). Yet it is both very general
and very specific -- we must read every ladder specific to each unique board position.
The atari is very similar.

Just because each ladder and each atari are specific to each board does not diminish their
universality or fundamentality, in any way.

If you consider the ladder and atari not to be part of the fundamentals in your book,
then... well, we disagree.

But for something to be called "A Fundamental", to me at least, it needs to be applicable more generally than just in very specific situations.

But they do apply more generally. Good shapes, bad shapes, good tactics, bad tactics -- all these occur in every single game.
The bad "ripped keima" resulting from does not just happen once, in this game. It will continue to happen
tens, even hundreds of times over cherryhill's Go career.

it is one of many many little techniques a player must learn... with time.
Learning it right now, might or might not substantially improve his game. Learning what I have said will.

This is unclear and debatable. I agree with you that "big picture" problems are good to fix, too -- I never said otherwise.

...the toothpaste being possibly one of the least important. So I think my advice was better and more helpful.

That's your opinion, and I disagree. In fact, I think bad shapes like these are one of the most important, and fundamental, things to fix.
(By the way, illuck, happens to make a broken shape, but I mean the importance of good shapes and bad shapes;
I do not mean to stress only bad broken shapes -- it's just that they occur in abundance at these levels.)

Once this is done, many of the bad moves will correct themselves.

Nope. Fixing big-picture moves is one thing.
Fixing local tactical moves is another.

[RobertJasiek]

Fixing big-picture moves is one thing.
Fixing local tactical moves is another.

No. Tactics is a requirement also for the former.

[RobertJasiek]

better yet, one simple and clear principle is better than 3 less simple and less clear ones, so:

1. Make correct moves.

Do you just try to jest or do you have principle doubts about other, more specific principles often being less simple and clear than the one universal principle (alternative: "Apply the game aim.")?

[tchan001]

Since we are trying to simplify things as much as possible.
My universal principle for the game of go: Don't lose.

[RobertJasiek]

"Win!" is simpler, but why would be trying to simplify as far as possible? Understanding demands spelling out details to at least some extent of specialised generality.

[daal]

When someone invades and you attack but then some of your attacking stones get surrounded and then are killed easily... is there a particular fundamental weakness in letting this happen...?

...as a general principle you shouldn't be letting your groups get surrounded. It sounds to me like you're attacking the wrong way. Start off by attacking him in one direction, but don't keep pushing in that direction if it results in one of your groups getting surrounded in the process.

If you are worried about a group, try to strengthen it. Never try to weaken it by playing so that your opponent will get stronger in the vicinity. In particular, never start another fight which is close by but leads to you creating a separate group.

If someone asks a general question without giving specifics, then chances are good that they are looking for a general answer. While such broad principles as those above will not be valid in all cases, they are so basic to the game that if one hasn't yet internalized them (and from the OP's question, this is a reasonable assumption) one will surely improve by attempting to do so, AND they will easily be referenced the next time the OP gets invaded.

Once this is done, many of the bad moves will correct themselves.

Nope. Fixing big-picture moves is one thing.
Fixing local tactical moves is another.

When one is aware that one should not be surrounded, the idea that a jump can be cut becomes relevant. When one is aware that a weak group becomes more vulnerable as the opponent's nearby stones increase in strength and number, ideas such as how one might defend a weak group in sente become relevant. I don't dispute that strategy needs to be backed up by tactics, but having a strategy to defend is a good motivator for finding a tactical solution. Does it also work the other way around?

[quantumf]

I don't dispute that strategy needs to be backed up by tactics, but having a strategy to defend is a good motivator for finding a tactical solution. Does it also work the other way around?

Interesting question. I suspect this is dependent on the learner. I think children can be drilled on tactics (shapes), and will synthesize enough strategy themselves to get by. I suspect they will be resistant to fuzzy principles. (Having not worked much with kids, however, I admit that I'm speculating). Adults, on the other hand, I think prefer strategic justifications and may be somewhat resistant to endless tactics. That, at least, is what I generally encounter at clubs.

My personal view is that at least for adults in the west, too much focus is given to strategic principles, and a resistance to tactics (borne out of moderate success from strategy) is a huge and somewhat insurmountable barrier to getting really strong. Still, if they enjoy the game, I suppose that's all that really counts.

[tchan001]

"Win!" is simpler, but why would be trying to simplify as far as possible? Understanding demands spelling out details to at least some extent of specialised generality.

To win eliminates the possibility of aiming for the purpose of eternal life and other superko possibilities which can make a losing game void Voiding a game does not gain a win.

[jts]

Just as a meta-comment: when a beginner asks a "what should you do when..." question, the subtext is normally "(how can I play better)". The problem with answers of the type "when he plays o9 you attach and then reply to the hane with counter-hane. You can't cross-cut because after o10 o11 his forcing move against the upper left corner breaks the ladder and so..." is that they answer the first question without resolving the second. These sorts of explanations are often bewildering, and even if they satisfy the student, it's unlikely that he'll ever encounter that precise situation again. The literal answer only helps with the implicit question (how to play better) to the extent that reviewing the sequence improves his reading.

So this creates a sort of dilemma. If you give very broad advice like "don't make broken shape" or "play efficient moves", advice that will be helpful in all sorts of situations, you seem to be ignoring the question of how to find the line of play that makes shape, or the line that uses stones efficiently. On the other hand, if you give the most practical advice and say "play more games, do more tsumego, study pro games - then this will seem easy", you can come across as equally unhelpful. But the problem is that it's actually very hard to find advice that is both generally applicable and also easy for the student to apply without being able to read better. (Making matters worse, the players who are in the best position to understand the student's perspective, and help him make conceptual breakthroughs that are well-matched to his reading ability, are the ones who are least able to offer sound advice.)

[skydyr]

Just as a meta-comment: when a beginner asks a "what should you do when..." question, the subtext is normally "(how can I play better)". The problem with answers of the type "when he plays o9 you attach and then reply to the hane with counter-hane. You can't cross-cut because after o10 o11 his forcing move against the upper left corner breaks the ladder and so..." is that they answer the first question without resolving the second. These sorts of explanations are often bewildering, and even if they satisfy the student, it's unlikely that he'll ever encounter that precise situation again. The literal answer only helps with the implicit question (how to play better) to the extent that reviewing the sequence improves his reading.

So this creates a sort of dilemma. If you give very broad advice like "don't make broken shape" or "play efficient moves", advice that will be helpful in all sorts of situations, you seem to be ignoring the question of how to find the line of play that makes shape, or the line that uses stones efficiently. On the other hand, if you give the most practical advice and say "play more games, do more tsumego, study pro games - then this will seem easy", you can come across as equally unhelpful. But the problem is that it's actually very hard to find advice that is both generally applicable and also easy for the student to apply without being able to read better. (Making matters worse, the players who are in the best position to understand the student's perspective, and help him make conceptual breakthroughs that are well-matched to his reading ability, are the ones who are least able to offer sound advice.)

I think there is some value to giving specific sequences, provided that they are not too complicated for the level of the questioner. For me, at least, one of the best ways to know what to do in a situation is to have seen several reasonable moves from it before, to help prune the decision tree away. Only if none of those work well or if there are compounding factors outside do I feel that I need to start reading outside.

[Bill Spight]

In a way, your problem -- in this case, anyway --, is not attacking fiercely enough. Ed Lee is right. is horrid. You must prevent Black from just pushing out, hell or high water.

What you are talking about is not uncommon. You attack, and your opponent cuts off one of your groups and there is a fight between that group and his. Often, if your attack was good to start with, you get a good result even if you lose the fight, because you can make a good sacrifice. I remember one game fondly in which that happened three times to me and each time I lost the fight, only to win the game by 5 pts. My opponent was shocked.

I have entered a number of variations, with some plays that may surprise you. OC, no guarantee that I have not goofed. But even when White loses the fight the result would probably be OK, because of the strength of the resulting White wall and the weakness of the Black orphans in the top right.