Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote: "Knowing if a group needs a defensive move": I think the writer means us to infer that such a group would be a "weak" group.

It depends on your definition of "weak". Let's say a group is "weak" if it has weaknesses (=will need a defensive move some time in the future), and is "very weak" if it urgently (=now) needs a defensive move. Then my point was that knowing if a group is "very weak" or not requires reading skills. But I also agree with the main idea of your post: professionals see many weaknesses that amateurs are generally unable to see.

Here's a second example

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 47 to 47
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O O X X . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O X X X X . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . X X O O a X O X b c . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 O O O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X X . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O O . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the past I would have cut at A without even thinking. Interestingly I paused to consider B, taking influence at the top. I concluded this would be too soft and still went for the cut. KataGo recommends C and thinks A is a grave mistake.

Here too it was not a matter of reading but a decision not to read any further because I might conclude against my desire to cut. This desire is very strong.

3rd example

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Moves 88 to 88
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X X X . X . O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . O O . , . X O X X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O O X . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . X . X . O X X . X . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 1 O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . O . . . . . X . X . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O O O . O X X O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . X O . O , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . O X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O X . . . X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . O X . X . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . O X . X O . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . O O O . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This was a slow connection. In this case a lack of reading was definitely due.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Moves 88 to 88
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X X X . X . O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . O O . , . X O X X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . a 8 b . O O O X . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . X 7 X 6 O X X . X . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 9 5 3 2 O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . O . . . 4 . X . X . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O O O . O X X O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . X O . O , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . O X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O X . . . X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . O X . X . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . O X . X O . O X . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . O . . . . O O O . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Knotwilg, in second you should be overjoyed to make your opponent connect on dame, rather than cutting on dame, particularly with the heaviness of the 4 stones.

Played two practice games with focus on not cutting or connecting when the cut is dubious or the connection has little value. First game was funny as the opponent ended up with 7 groups. Second game I postponed a cut until I saw its value and then went for it. Easy victory again.

I also refrained from attacking a weak group from too close too soon in the opening. That also worked out well. Same with choosing to defend my own central group even if it allowed the opponent to make some territory.

1k-2k on KGS is probably too easy for me even with handicap. So now I want a couple of 1d-2d games in with the same focus.

Playing one game a day and review it seems to pay off. I may just have played the best game in my life.

OK it was a handicap game but soon I increased the 20+ advantage to 40 and kept it there or better.

In particular I feel like I did a good job of applying ijime.

Games 11-20, biggest mistakes

1) playing slow moves (7)
small connections 5
staying low i/o cutting (joseki)
live small in gote

2) missed opportunities (4)
omit sente shape
not exploiting aji 3

3) bad fighting, cutting, killing (6)
leave the fight for no reason
missing the fight
wrong cut
cut small scale
kill i/o connecting, allowing bullying
unnecessary invasion

4) technique/shape (9)
allowing hane at the head of 2
cutting in bad shape 2
missing vital point in whole position 3
bad shape 2

5) reading (5)
wrong choice in crosscut
bad reading
L&D mistake
failure to kill
no need to sacrifice


So slow moves and bad shape remain the big issues

How's it going on OGS? I think reaching 2D there might be harder than KGS.

Exploring OGS, I fooled around with a 1 kyu computer account there for a few games - and I think its a bit stronger than 1k KGS (at least in even games).

dust wrote:How's it going on OGS? I think reaching 2D there might be harder than KGS.

Exploring OGS, I fooled around with a 1 kyu computer account there for a few games - and I think its a bit stronger than 1k KGS (at least in even games).

I think the level is at leat 2 grades apart. As a KGS 2d I'm not yet at the rank limit of my current capability, as a OGS 1k I'm often struggling. An OGS 3k is still a tough opponent, who'll take advantage of my errors. A KGS 3k is easy meat for me.

This is why a stable KGS 3d and OGS 1d are kind of equivalent objectives, the former possibly being even easier.

Yes, KGS ranks are weaker than OGS ranks, especially in the kyu range. This was discussed here: viewtopic.php?p=262667#p262667

45 days into 2021 and 45 games played, I reached 3d. That's one. Now I have to confirm.

I can of course continue on the same rhythm, including daily reading training, but I'd like to do something extra:
- play a particular opening consistently
- review 3d games and get confidence I can beat them
- stabilize and play good endgame
- practice reducing moyos
- ...

The result of consistently playing and reviewing games really shows:
http://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=Artevelde

60+ games into 2021 and stalling, at least my level on OGS has dropped again. I have the impression OGS ranks are deflating again.

Persistent review with AI seems to have me play in general a better opening (often leading in the opening).
In a few games I managed to leave big one eyed groups unprotected and not over-defend (with a slonection for example) and win the capturing race from the opponent's attempt to kill it. But in general I lose my games due to wrong choices in that regard, leaving weak groups unprotected. So that's an effect of "learning" I guess.

I keep struggling with invasions and reductions, finding it hard to create resilient shapes that withstand subsequent attack.

Covered 170 Hitachi problems which is not much but at least I do them on an almost daily basis

Studied invasion patterns with Baduk Doctor. His lessons on middle game patterns are probably giving me the right information to find more stability in my middle game but they beg repetition.

I also lost one half stone on OGS (was weak 2k, now strong 3k). May be statistical noise though.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Mistake 1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . O . O . X X . X O O O O . |
$$ | . . O O X O O X O . O X X O O X O . O |
$$ | . . O X X X X X . O O O X X O X O O X |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . O O X X . X X X X X |
$$ | . . O O X . . . O X O O O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . X X X X 1 X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . O . X . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . X X O . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . X O O . . X X O O . . |
$$ | . . O O X . . . X X O O . O O . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . X O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X . . . . . X X O . . . . O . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . X O . . . . X O . . |
$$ | X O X O . . . . . X . O . O O O . O . |
$$ | . X X X X . . . . X O O X . X X O . O |
$$ | . . . . . . X X X O . O X . X . X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . X O O O O . . . . X X O . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

in response to is a mistake, losing 10 points. Why?

Not sure I get it in the right order.