Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:OK, so you may lack confidence in your ability to attack. The remedy is simple. Attack! Attack! Attack!

I've been in this mood for some time... as long as there is something to attack. Otherwise, I just expand my moyo further, until eventually my opponent feels forced to do something.
Using the five shapes for attack, as described by Davies and Ishida (pivot, eye-stealing tesuji, cap, keima, and peep (first the peep, according to In-Seong Hwang)), and also the strategy of the leaning attack, was my favorite tactic.

But after some time I found that it leads to unstable games. All-or-nothing situations. "You try too much to kill", say my reviewers.
Reading again my books, I realized that I didn't care enough about making profit from the attack ("Attack for a Reason", say Janice Kim and Jeong Soo-Hyun), and also that sometimes, one or two moves were enough to make profit, then we can let the opponent live.

Now I'm trying to focus on getting just enough profit, then stabilize the situation. To win the game with the minimal margin.
No effect on my rating yet, but we shall see...

Pio2001 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:OK, so you may lack confidence in your ability to attack. The remedy is simple. Attack! Attack! Attack!

I've been in this mood for some time... as long as there is something to attack. Otherwise, I just expand my moyo further, until eventually my opponent feels forced to do something.
Using the five shapes for attack, as described by Davies and Ishida (pivot, eye-stealing tesuji, cap, keima, and peep (first the peep, according to In-Seong Hwang)), and also the strategy of the leaning attack, was my favorite tactic.

But after some time I found that it leads to unstable games. All-or-nothing situations. "You try too much to kill", say my reviewers.
Reading again my books, I realized that I didn't care enough about making profit from the attack ("Attack for a Reason", say Janice Kim and Jeong Soo-Hyun), and also that sometimes, one or two moves were enough to make profit, then we can let the opponent live.

Now I'm trying to focus on getting just enough profit, then stabilize the situation. To win the game with the minimal margin.
No effect on my rating yet, but we shall see...

Sound good. Good luck!

BTW, when I was 4 kyu, instead of all out attacks, I shifted to the idea, picked up from Takagawa, of large scale attacks. Large scale attacks put the question to the defender, do you want to sacrifice your group, or make small life in exchange for thickness and sente? Often neither choice is appealing.

People call my attacks invasions and say they're entirely the wrong idea.

Fedya wrote:People call my attacks invasions and say they're entirely the wrong idea.

Invasion is going into the opponent's realm of influence, so it's likely that *you're* the one being attacked when you invade.

daal wrote:I will however show you my most recent game. It seems not untypical, and shows what kind of gaps we're dealing with.

Judging by this game I'd say you need to work on good shape and reading. That empty triangle in the upper left corner served no purpose. It didn't protect the cut or make territory in the corner. You could have simply dropped down at E18 and solidified the corner without worrying about the cut. You're also too worried about influence. You did a good job nullifying black's influence with C14 at beginning of the game (I see the same move from pros in games quite often) but that cap of your cap was a terrible move.

You always had that bottom group to jump into the center with or run to the left side if you wanted. You didn't need to worry too much about the center. I've noticed in pro games that almost every time a pro makes a moyo, the other pro always makes sure there's at least 2 ways into that moyo to reduce. They usually leave it that way as well until later. You could have probably dropped a stone in line with your bottom group and stones on the left and ran to either. Black couldn't really stop you and if he spent 2 moves to cut you off from those groups, you'd have the ability to make eye shape and live.

At move 98 in the notes you said you thought you did a good job of mitigating black's influence, but you didn't just mitigate it you had a lot more influence towards the center than black. It just wasn't worth much because when two players have influence in the center it becomes difficult to make any territory. However, your opponent attacked your shape and made you worry about living while creating a little moyo in the center.

Also think a little bigger. instead of a diagonal move try to see if a knight's move would work. Instead of the K11 J10 exchange. Think of instead jumping to G11 to make eye shape. Stuff like that. G11 also puts a little pressure on black's left group, because you could have possibly cut it forcing it to have to connect.

I just want to give an update on my thinking regarding this matter. I am coming to believe that Knotwilg is right to focus on soft skills, and the proper attitude that John Fairbairn occasionally mentions plays a bigger role that I had previously thought.

My realization came recently when I was thinking of posting a rather interesting game that I had won, and changed my mind, thinking it might be better to show a game that I had lost. So I started looking through my lost games, and kept finding games that were marred by some excessively stupid move that any ddk could have avoided, but I didn't due simply to playing without thinking.

Many of these games were close had I not blundered, failed an easy life and death problem, let important stones get cut etc. These aren't games I'm losing because of some concept I don't understand, I'm losing them because I am rushing along relying entirely on my instincts, which have a good track record of leading me astray.

Also, I am noticing that many games are won or lost depending on my emotional reaction to getting behind. This is a big part of one's attitude. If I get self-critical and despondent, I lose. If I think about how I can turn it around, I often do.

I've also seen my attitude playing a role while I am studying. Whether I am memorizing pro games, doing tsumego or reading books, there are two possible ways of doing it: thoughtfully and absentmindedly. Despite wanting to learn from this studying, I still find myself studying absentmindedly more than half of the time. Soft skills, pulling yourself together and taking the necessary time to do something right makes a big difference. I think that my lack of these skills is the main reason I have not been progressing.

daal wrote:I just want to give an update on my thinking regarding this matter. I am coming to believe that Knotwilg is right to focus on soft skills, and the proper attitude that John Fairbairn occasionally mentions plays a bigger role that I had previously thought.

Terence Reese wrote:A man who plays up to himself is hard to beat.

daal wrote:I started looking through my lost games, and kept finding games that were marred by some excessively stupid move that any ddk could have avoided, but I didn't due simply to playing without thinking.

How much thinking did it take to see those moves? What kind of frame of mind were you in?

Bonne chance!

daal wrote:I just want to give an update on my thinking regarding this matter. I am coming to believe that Knotwilg is right to focus on soft skills, and the proper attitude that John Fairbairn occasionally mentions plays a bigger role that I had previously thought.

And confidence.

My realization came recently when I was thinking of posting a rather interesting game that I had won, and changed my mind, thinking it might be better to show a game that I had lost.

You see?

How about posting games you won. There's nothing against that. On the contrary, I think you need some self pumping.

So I started looking through my lost games, and kept finding games that were marred by some excessively stupid move that any ddk could have avoided, but I didn't due simply to playing without thinking.

Many of these games were close had I not blundered, failed an easy life and death problem, let important stones get cut etc. These aren't games I'm losing because of some concept I don't understand, I'm losing them because I am rushing along relying entirely on my instincts, which have a good track record of leading me astray.

Realizing this is good, indulging in it is not. My "coaching" aims for people to consciously train skills that help them avoid blunders. The aim is not for people to acknowledge how stupid they often are and leave it there.

If I think about how I can turn it around, I often do.

Aha! I see some positivism here.

I think that my lack of these skills is the main reason I have not been progressing.

OK. Now what's the plan?

Some people also have a problem with the concept of winning in a competition. I know a player who is 3k on ogs and in club games and 16k EGF.

Gotraskhalana wrote:Some people also have a problem with the concept of winning in a competition. I know a player who is 3k on ogs and in club games and 16k EGF.

Something else has got to be going on there. Nerves cannot account for a 13-rank difference.

Knotwilg wrote:
OK. Now what's the plan?

Actually, I already have a plan, one that I've been following now for around 6 weeks: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 64#p210764

Essentially it involves using some of my go time to study instead of play, and when I am playing, to take my time and not blunder. Like I said above there seems to be a direct correlation between taking my time and doing something well (learning while studying, winning games) and rushing along and doing something poorly (wasting time).

I am not sure why it is that I still spend some of my go time absentmindedly, but I think that being aware of it is probably the first step in fixing the problem, and it is in fact getting better. Just the simple step of resolving to check connections and count libs after an opponent's move has helped a lot to get me to slow down.

In any case, my results are improving. I feel like I'm on equal footing with other kgs 4ks, and one of my accounts even broke through to 3k. It's not shodan, but it's also not "stuck at 5k."

dfan wrote:

Gotraskhalana wrote:Some people also have a problem with the concept of winning in a competition. I know a player who is 3k on ogs and in club games and 16k EGF.

Something else has got to be going on there. Nerves cannot account for a 13-rank difference.

You are right, I made a mistake, the difference is less than 13, however, it is still very large.

Gotraskhalana wrote:

dfan wrote:

Gotraskhalana wrote:Some people also have a problem with the concept of winning in a competition. I know a player who is 3k on ogs and in club games and 16k EGF.

Something else has got to be going on there. Nerves cannot account for a 13-rank difference.

You are right, I made a mistake, the difference is less than 13, however, it is still very large.

Guessing more likely access to computer software...

oren wrote:

Gotraskhalana wrote:

dfan wrote: Something else has got to be going on there. Nerves cannot account for a 13-rank difference.

You are right, I made a mistake, the difference is less than 13, however, it is still very large.

Guessing more likely access to computer software...

Not at all, I have played this person in real-life, and he is definitely 3k in strength and it is also easy to see how he can be much weaker at tournaments. It is not "nerves" per se, but a lot of self-doubt and "move regret" even in friendly games, e.g. placing a stone and immediately starting to ask whether this was really a good move, totally out-playing me in the opening and explaining the moves but at the same time wondering if I will win against them whenever I play a move that seems slightly threatening.

It's because we are dumb, that's why