Life In 19x19

I like your house building example.

I don't think I'll ever "give up" on go. First of all because it is not some kind of a project for me but a game I enjoy.
I may retreat from intensely trying to get better though - but not just yet. I still think I'm in (if however slow) motion after years of stagnation.

My life may become so that I won't have time (or eagerness) to play for a few months or even years. But as long as there are GO servers available I'll eventually return.

As I have stated many times, for those who know me, "Lessons in the fundamentals" is a great book to read but it doesn't really teach you anything about the fundamentals. It talks about fundamentals a whole lot in the sense of using the word "fundamentals".

It was only when I read Minue's "Haengma tutorial for beginners" that the fundamentals of Go became clear to me, rooted deeply in the rules of the game:

- why straight is better than diagonal (almost the same efficiency but not the same strength)
- why urgent moves come before big moves (or "stability before development" stemming from the fact that it requires less work to defend stones than to attack them)
- what thickness really means (and why amateurs who are bread with territory scoring always underestimate the value of making a group of existing stones safe)

You can read this article at Sensei's Library: http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorialForBeginners

I remember I was thrilled when reading it and thought "this is what Kageyama should have told us".
Before that I collaborated on an article myself called "Basic instinct" which explains basic moves and their fundamental reason.

It is somewhat provocative to dismiss Kageyama, I know. I think he wrote for a Japanese audience, who somehow was already past the first level of the fundamentals, so that referring to them without really explaining them was sufficient.

And last but not least, Robert Jasiek definitely tries to explore moves and sequences beyond the colloquial "good shape" and all. I haven't read enough of him though to really judge the merits of his books.

Knotwilg wrote:As I have stated many times, for those who know me, "Lessons in the fundamentals" is a great book to read but it doesn't really teach you anything about the fundamentals. It talks about fundamentals a whole lot in the sense of using the word "fundamentals".

{snip}

It is somewhat provocative to dismiss Kageyama, I know. I think he wrote for a Japanese audience, who somehow was already past the first level of the fundamentals, so that referring to them without really explaining them was sufficient.

When I was 2 kyu I bought a set of slim volumes by the Nihon Kiin on the fundamentals. They were eye openers for me, as my grasp of the fundamentals was pretty bad. Really elementary stuff. For instance, the first example of a basic tesuji was the solid connection.

Kageyama is an entertaining author, but I have not read "Lessons in the Fundamentals" nor the Japanese version. The straightforward translation of the book is "Amateur and Pro". I suppose that in the text he talks about fundamentals, which would explain the Engish title, but the Japanese title does not convey the idea that it is about fundamentals. I would guess that it was aimed at players around shodan or low digit kyus.

I'm really fascinated by haengma. Thx for mentioning Minue's article! I've also read the haengma parts (not the advanced yet though) of the Baduk Made Fun and Easy series.
I started to read Attack and Defense from the Elementary series but I'm only at the beginning of that.

I'm trying to become more thickness oriented from territory oriented (though in reality I think I'm rather moyo oriented then territory oriented - but I'm not sure).
For one thing my games are becoming more interesting this way (but I'm not seeing the improvement in strength yet). I play many close games nowadays and many which I ought to win but I make some trivial mistake and I lose them.

My question: why did I lose this game so badly? I was feeling good throughout the game and though I thought maybe I was going to lose because of the two big white corners nowhere did I anticipate a 20+ points loss. I play black (I thought I'd play a mini Chinese but I didn't prepare - I'm not very familiar with it).

- I didn't want to strengthen white's wall so I tenukied there. I thought the B-5 stone is not dangerous because it's already shoulder-hit. I played many (probably too many) tenukies in this game.
- I should have played B-17, right? I went for the potential of development on the top side but maybe I should have pressured those white stones instead.
- doesn't feel right. I should have put more thinking into playing this move. I was like "3 stones of wall >> 4 spaces of jump", there.
- - I didn't want to make that white group strong so I think I was too afraid to go near. It ended up developing way too easy. At the end I tenukied, not knowing what to do.
- - "shouldering" that space for myself on the bottom seemed a good idea. I'm not sure it was good or bad.
- for some reason I felt a simple connection would not be enough there. I don't know why. So I played this fancy move.
- is ja-choong soo, right?
- at : ok, white has two big corners, but black has a big corner too and all the influence in the world. How did I end up losing?
- was clever
- maybe :b125: should be at N-5 but I still managed to make good points
- :w142: was big, so was :w150: (thanks to my stupid shape)
- :b199: I thought this was worth more. I'm still not sure which one is bigger. (:b207: was stupid)

peti29 wrote:why did I lose this game so badly? I was feeling good throughout the game

( Emphasis added. ) Were you counting (assessing the situation) periodically, throughout the game ?
Either way, it means at some point in the game, your assessment was quite off (departed from reality).

peti29 wrote:My question: why did I lose this game so badly? I was feeling good throughout the game and though I thought maybe I was going to lose because of the two big white corners nowhere did I anticipate a 20+ points loss.

I think a key situation is at move : white has 25 pts in lower right and 18 pts in lower left corner. Black has 25 points upper right, about 10 points at the bottom and maybe 8 points at left side. Thus - except for upper left corner, where white has some additional points, the secured amount of territory is more or less equal.

BUT: Thanks to your influence oriented play and some passive white moves ( , and look especially bad) black has a very huge influence zone comprising the center and the whole left side. If you played e. g. K13 etc. on move in order to further enclose the white groups from the center, white would be more or less forced to invade, if he doesn't want to lose by 50+ points of territory. After his invasion, you can harass his weak groups, thereby secure a lot of territory and use your momentum to either kill a group or create weaknesses in one of his other groups.

In the game, the opposite happened: with you invaded in a white zone, which was still open to the right and could eventually be converted to 5 points later. Within the next moves, you created a "toothpaste" shape ( !) and let white fill in your moyo with a strong group. I think this is the sequence, where the game turned.


Edit: If you look at the end of the game, the white territory at upper-left amounts almost exactly the final difference in score (~20+ points). At move 68, the situation about the already-secured territory was almost the same: All black and white territories cancel out each other except for the white area at upper-left, which also could be already estimated to about 20+ points. In other words: your huge influence zone in move 68, which should have been a big advantage, was completely neutralized at the end. Thus, a high priority for you should be how to use thickness more effectively...

How about atari at C14 ?

The early play was lackluster, by both players. The game went south at the large endgame stage.



Go to move 125.

BTW, B109 was careless. Take the stone.

So it was dull, eh? (yeah, I noticed B109 when I went over the game for myself)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I was not very fond of that game but I wanted to know the whys and hows. I've played some flat out terrible games too but there I was able to tell where I failed.

Here is a more creative game then. Just to show what I meant by saying I'm playing more interesting games lately. It's probably full of mistakes too, but I enjoyed it (especially the jumping across the board). I almost won but then I didn't notice an atari...

seems strange to me: W jumps into your area, and your first reaction is to run away ??

Well, I got pincered and there was an open corner, so I jumped into the corner.

It's true, the white stone is pincered too, but I don't see overwhelming strength for black in this situation (The F-3 stone seems weak to me as well as white's H3).

I can't really read this situation.

If I jump to F-6 white will close the corner (maybe D-3 or E-3). Then I can H-4 but then white can link under around F-2?

Or I can H-4 right away but then white will G-4, and then F-3 will be in trouble.

Jumping into the corner whenever I get pincered has become a reflex to me. I should learn other responses but right now I don't know any better.

peti29 wrote:Jumping into the corner whenever I get pincered has become a reflex to me.
I should learn other responses but right now I don't know any better.

Hi Peti,

peti29 wrote: If I jump to F-6 white will close the corner (maybe D-3 or E-3). Then I can H-4 but then white can link under around F-2?

I would rather jump to F5 (more solid) and - if white closes the corner - play F2. Of course, white could now try to rescue his single stone, but then you can continue splitting it from white's left side. Either you capture the white stone (which seems likely) or your splitting stones could cause significant damage to white's left side in the following. In any case, you can get profit (big territory or damage white's left side), while white is kept busy.

Hi Peti,

peti29 wrote:Jumping into the corner whenever I get pincered has become a reflex to me.

Does this discussion help you understand a little better why you want to
improve from your current "reflex" ?