Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://www.lifein19x19.com/
Thanks, Bill.Bill Spight wrote:Some comments on the early play.
...
Sounds right. The pincer after his pincer certainly feels wrong. I didn't know there were pro games with approaching the top right. I think Bill's idea is also kind of cool.Uberdude wrote:Nothing wrong with approaching the top right, indeed it's the most common pro move in that position and has a good win rate. It's the pincer after his pincer that's problematic. You go into an area you made smaller and harder by exchanging the approach for a pincer.
Yeah, I definitely feel 'o' is wrong. I kind of like the idea of 'a' out of these. Seems like a very nice place to start.Loons wrote:I found this position interesting: On similarish boards, professionals tried a-d in my database. My instinct was to start at 'p' instead of 'o', which I can see was also a mistake.
'o' is wrong?Kirby wrote:Yeah, I definitely feel 'o' is wrong. I kind of like the idea of 'a' out of these. Seems like a very nice place to start.Loons wrote:I found this position interesting: On similarish boards, professionals tried a-d in my database. My instinct was to start at 'p' instead of 'o', which I can see was also a mistake.
. Go Seigen. Yes, I agree. I think I said a couple of posts ago:ez4u wrote:White really was trolling around and getting into trouble on the bottom right. But once again we can see the truth of the adage if we can't be good, be lucky!
These days, the only way I can win is by luck. I don't know how to win by actual strategy, anymore.Kirby wrote:I should have lost. Lately, my "wins" are should-be losses... At the end, I was very, very lucky.
Maybe not, then. I guess 'o' is correct if Go Seigen played it (but maybe still wrong if I play itBill Spight wrote: 'o' is wrong?
...
See
).I think that these days you exhibit quite a lot of negative thinking in your games. At present your Go is all about stopping your opponent rather than building a winning position. As soon as you play a move with a disappointing follow up you begin to feel behind and then desperate.Kirby wrote:Yes, I agree. I think I said a couple of posts ago:ez4u wrote:White really was trolling around and getting into trouble on the bottom right. But once again we can see the truth of the adage if we can't be good, be lucky!These days, the only way I can win is by luck. I don't know how to win by actual strategy, anymore.Kirby wrote:I should have lost. Lately, my "wins" are should-be losses... At the end, I was very, very lucky.
Maybe it is lack of time these days. If you have to rush to fit a game in, it is difficult to take a calm view. Also you're playing too fast again! 
I was a bit surprised that you did not playKirby wrote:@ez4u:
I think I've often been this way. Unless I have some sort of an attack, "building a winning position" always seems gote. In the example you gave, I actually have some reluctance to play there. It's a big spot, but gote. I don't like gote.
in the next diagram.
It sounds like you do not play reductions much. Is that so?Kirby wrote:I have a question about this one... This way is certainly easier for white, in that I feel no risk of dying or anything like that. But if this situation came up in a future game, at the moment, I would still have difficulty playing it, because before the sequence:
Black has weaknesses in the shape around 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'd'. After the sequence, those weaknesses are totally gone, and black gets significant solid territory. It's true that I can put pressure on the marked black stone, above. But I feel like I paid a price to get this.
On the other hand, the sequence does look safer, and much easier than trying to invade directly. But it's hard for me to realize this vs. the cost of solidifying the black corner.
Do you have any comments that might make me less fearful to play this way in the future?