Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Another thought.

$$Wc Black 6 connects
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . . X . . . X . . X . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , X . . . . , . . . . . 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a . |
$$ | . . X . O X . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5 . |
$$ | . O X . X O O . . . . . . . . X W 4 . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O . O . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . O X X . X . . . . . O . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Black 6 connects
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . . X . . . X . . X . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , X . . . . , . . . . . 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a . |
$$ | . . X . O X . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5 . |
$$ | . O X . X O O . . . . . . . . X W 4 . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O . O . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . O X X . X . . . . . O . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Katte yomi. at is really lame.

I agree with , BTW.

might not be best (maybe black can play 'a'), but does it mean that is wrong? Seems natural to me, but is there a better move?

My inclination is to tenuki. Reducing the top side looks pretty good. (If White were behind, maybe the play would be to invade there.)

Kirby wrote:Nonetheless, it was an interesting game.

Here is the game record:

General comment: you were inconsistent. This can make for an interesting game, but not necessarily a successful one.

At you have sente. At you are not necessarily retaining it; as you would if Black had played F16 rather than G17, probably now going to K17.

Consistent would be to play at F16, Black F17, White C17, Black C18, White D16, Black E17. Then you can make ko in the corner, so now you can play away to R10, the remaining big point.

If you are behind at , why? OK, komi. But Black has simply played solid, good shape. Can't you?

strikes me as submissive, so you can just leave it, for example to play on the right side. You shouldn't want to invade at , because looks better and better as you fool around on the lower side. Again, inconsistency. As you rightly comment, is uncomfortable.

After that, both sides get some inefficient shape (White in the centre, Black by approaching at O13 rather than on the other side). jumping to R9 would work better, even if you end up sacrificing three stones. Seems your opponent doesn't have to try anything much: you create your own difficulties.

Charles Matthews wrote: Seems your opponent doesn't have to try anything much: you create your own difficulties.

The story of my go life

Kirby,

I see that you are counting points early in the game.
counting is important but count correctly is more important.
I noticed that you were not behind but you thought otherwise.
overplay will only hurt you so please play YOUR game and wait for the chance.
variations you thought were bad for you ex.49 or 50 was actually good for you.

i reiterate OVERPLAY WILL ONLY HURT YOU!!

Magicwand wrote:i reiterate OVERPLAY WILL ONLY HURT YOU!!

Just between the two of us: (1) Kirby tries hard, and (2) does quite well given his general understanding of the game. But he thinks working on (1) is what he needs, when it may be part of the problem, not of the solution.

Charles Matthews wrote:

Magicwand wrote:i reiterate OVERPLAY WILL ONLY HURT YOU!!

Just between the two of us: (1) Kirby tries hard, and (2) does quite well given his general understanding of the game. But he thinks working on (1) is what he needs, when it may be part of the problem, not of the solution.

Trying hard is a problem?

Kirby wrote:

Charles Matthews wrote:

Magicwand wrote:i reiterate OVERPLAY WILL ONLY HURT YOU!!

Just between the two of us: (1) Kirby tries hard, and (2) does quite well given his general understanding of the game. But he thinks working on (1) is what he needs, when it may be part of the problem, not of the solution.

Trying hard is a problem?

It can be.

I think what Charles may be getting at, and I think Magicwand (maybe?) has actually articulated in the past is that Kirby sometimes seems to be trying too hard with his moves, being overly complicated, trying to get more than deserved (greedy) and so on when the stronger player reviewing the game would quickly see an alternative simpler "normal" move than is better. However, it's a bit facile to tell Kirby to just play the simple good move, as it is only simple for them because they are stronger and their greater experience and intuition means the moves is simple and easy to see for them, but it's not for Kirby. So how can Kirby improve to play these moves? Probably the usual diet of playing and reviewing, studying pro games and some psychological training.

Good explanation, Uberdude.

Regarding psychological training, do you have experience in this? The other items you mentioned (playing, reviewing, going over pro games) are easy to understand, but what do you mean by this "psychological training"?

I expect in some situations you will consider the good simple move but dismiss it for some reason. Perhaps you are angry with some previous perceived overplay from your opponent and want to punish him too much. Or you think you are behind so don't play the calm patient move. Or you panic in byo yomi and make retarded decisions. I'm probably not the best to tell you how to fix them as I'm pretty weak psychologically.

Uberdude wrote:I expect in some situations you will consider the good simple move but dismiss it for some reason.

This is perhaps the typical 1 kyu error, IMX. "I knew I should play there, but I thought I would just play somewhere else instead" is one version. Many years ago someone explained that he got to 1 dan by realising that if he didn't have to play a move, he shouldn't. Which is a helpful explanation of "onus", I think. It suggests that a steadier style, minimalist on clever stuff, can also be a bit stronger.

The italics on "kyu" and "dan" are a nice touch.

Charles Matthews wrote:This is perhaps the typical 1 kyu error, IMX. "I knew I should play there, but I thought I would just play somewhere else instead" is one version. Many years ago someone explained that he got to 1 dan by realising that if he didn't have to play a move, he shouldn't. Which is a helpful explanation of "onus", I think. It suggests that a steadier style, minimalist on clever stuff, can also be a bit stronger.

I am not sold on the general idea. It may make for a steadier style, but I think this mindset may also bring you to a more passive and slack style.

Being around the same level, I often find myself with the feeling that playing a solid shape move looks like the "bookstyle" play - the place I should play - but I can't find a good answer for my opponent if I played a much thinner move, or say a cut. I usually take the thinner path. My mindset is: first, I have to trust my reading, always; second, I will learn something if I'm punished, but with the more solid play I will be no wiser than before.

My point is - what is solid and what is slack? what is overplay and what is severe? Maybe if I try to focus on never playing overplays, I'll end up losing the severe moves as well - is it really good for my progress as a player? I see the situation as similar to the famous joseki advice - learn joseki, lose two stones - but isn't losing these two stones necessary to go further, and isn't playing clever stuff necessary to learn how to, and when not to, play clever stuff? In the end, don't you think it is all about better reading?

You are better players than I am, so I don't want to disregard your advice, but I would appreciate if you could lear up the confusion it gives me when I am faced to this type of situation in a game.

Personally, I think we are looking for generalizations too much.

Play a game. Review it. Sometimes, maybe I tried to make things too complicated, and the simple way was better. Other times, maybe I needed to do some tesuji, but I missed the chance.

Anyway, game by game, case by case, it can be different. The tricky part is to recognize the better way in the review.

Personally, I often try to be too fancy. I have been told this many times. So I should think about that during the game and review.

IIRC, you are a bit more passive, I think, Jhyn. Maybe you can be aware of this, too.

Both passive and aggressive are correct some of the time. Case by case, we need to double check ourselves.

Just the opinion of some guy not playing much go these days.

Since I'm actually looking at this site, I guess I'll post the last game I played.

I didn't really have time to play last week, so I didn't. But my car broke down on Saturday, so while I was waiting in the waiting room to get it checked out, I played a game. I guess it was the time of day, but it took some time to get someone to accept a game offer.

I played against KGS 6k, and gave 6 stones.



As you can see, I messed up in the middle, and had to give up some stones. Regrettably, I didn't think as deeply as I should have.

Anyway, I don't really have time to review. I'm just posting it for your entertainment.