Page 7 of 51
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 6:23 pm
by Violence
Not approved.
$$Bc Move 35B - W: 18, B: 15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 35B - W: 18, B: 15
I think it's clear why I can't let this move go.
$$Bc Move 35B - W: 17, B: 15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 35B - W: 17, B: 15It's because I feel this fight is very bad for black, and our heavy group comes under attack. Removing the liability of this group is our biggest concern.
$$Bc Move 35B - W: 17, B: 15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 35B - W: 17, B: 15This move seems key at first glance, but much reading is necessary to support it. I don't think white can resist this move without getting an unsatisfactory result. The outcome I predict is the following sequence:
$$Bc Move 35B - W: 17, B: 15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 35B - W: 17, B: 15And then white will approach the upper right corner at A. This is fine for us because we gained territory, have thickness in the center, exploitable aji on the left, and there is still play on the top. I feel that black is still playable, and in fact, comfortable here.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 9:49 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Joaz Banbeck wrote: ... I think that black's best move is F15, and I will be very happy if Violence does not choose it.
Violence wrote: Not approved.
$$Bc Move 35B - W: 18, B: 15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 35B - W: 18, B: 15I'm not happy. I do hope that Shapenaji has some clever tactical trick up his sleve, because our position looks strategically inferior to me.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:12 am
by Chew Terr
Okay, I've been looking at this for a bit. Violence, you are scary. That move is intimidating. Also, congratulations on graduating!
$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 15Heh, being part of an open Malkovich game confused me. I almost forgot to hide my comments here. =D
Okay, so we have options here. The most obvious response, G16, will be cut.
$$Bc If I try to kill the cutting stone and connect, we die.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc If I try to kill the cutting stone and connect, we die. E18 looks at a glance like we might make a ko, but I feel like that would go against us, even if there is a ko.
$$Bc However, if we force the cutting stone out, we live small.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc However, if we force the cutting stone out, we live small.I'm not big on this because it gives black a lot to work with at the top, and cuts off our stone to float in the middle.
Well, when the normal things are unsatisfying, consider the weird stuff. Let's consider the plan that I'm tentatively calling 'Those stones are ugly, and I don't like them anyways'.
$$Bc Wow, this is actually really tempting...
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Wow, this is actually really tempting...It exchanges five weak stones for one stable group. It gives more strength to two black groups, but one is alive and the other is strong already. Ah, but I think the flaw in my plan is that black wouldn't respond with 1 (because this diagram looks so okay for us).
$$Bc After something like this, we can extend from the wall to attack the corner
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc After something like this, we can extend from the wall to attack the corner$$Bc The prior diagram is probably better, as it looks similar but has more ko threats and such.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc The prior diagram is probably better, as it looks similar but has more ko threats and such.In conclusion
Well, topazg, your point looked shiny and critical. I think I want it, if Violence doesn't.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:21 am
by Joaz Banbeck
Chew Terr wrote: ...when the normal things are unsatisfying, consider the weird stuff. Let's consider the plan that I'm tentatively calling 'Those stones are ugly, and I don't like them anyways'.
I think that I have just encountered the Hunter S. Thompson school of go.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 11:37 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
I do not approve.
$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17
I don't know what Shapenaji has in mind here, so I'm playing this on faith. Either he wants to live solidly but small up top and engage in a running battle with the fragments, or he wants to sacrifice the upper group and leave black overconcentrated in gote. Conveniently, I don't have to choose between those two right now; they are completely different strategies but the first move of each is the same.
If we want to live up top, it has to be done like this:
$$Wc
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$WcIf we want to sacrifice, it should be done like this:
$$Wc
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$WcNote that we do not play 'a' anywhere in this sequence, for the stone that it captures is a goner anyway. After 3 and 5, that black stone is too close to our newly built strength, and it is not worthwhile for black to try to save it. So by the logic of tewari analysis, if we don't need move #7 at 'a', we don't need move #1 there either.
When all is said and done, the first move is the same.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 2:27 am
by unkx80
Not for players.
Joaz Banbeck wrote: $$Wc
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$WcNote that we do not play 'a' anywhere in this sequence, for the stone that it captures is a goner anyway. After 3 and 5, that black stone is too close to our newly built strength, and it is not worthwhile for black to try to save it. So by the logic of tewari analysis, if we don't need move #7 at 'a', we don't need move #1 there either.
$$Wc
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$WcIf the aim is to sacrifice, then I think this sequence is better. Now, where should
be played?
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 10:04 am
by shapenaji
Approved
See previous comments, I find the life here to be fine, we get a running fight in the center against their stones, but they still need a fix around "a", and 8 leaves us with great potential to reduce later on (they really don't have time to fix it)
$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17EDIT: I guess I should explain in more depth why I'm not particularly worried about those 3 stones. Are they floating? sure, but they're actually surprisingly difficult to attack without hurting either the left or the right side.
$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17next, if black plays "b", we play "a"
$$Wc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wc Move 36A - W: 18, B: 17and then we play "a" and are solid. There are many, many more variations here, but it seems like in every one we can get out and do damage.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 7:58 am
by Gresil
$$Bc Move 37A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 37A - W: 18, B: 17
I see two urgent aims: pre-empt a white approach on the top right, and develop the center group. This move allows both:
$$Bc Move 37A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bc Move 37A - W: 18, B: 17 might also be at the circled point.
Edit: I just realized that I didn't investigate the reasoning behind Violence's move at all—I merely looked at the present board and saw unappetizing shapes in that part. I'll try to be more attentive in the future.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 8:11 am
by Joaz Banbeck
Gresil's move is aji keshi.
It is also, of course, not what Violence intended.
F15 has to be followed by F16 eventually, or it is a wasted move. Topazg also wants to play on the top side.
It will be interesting to see if this gets corrected. In my estimation, it is not a loss of 2 points, and Topazg should let it ride.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 8:15 am
by topazg
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 9:48 am
by Dusk Eagle
This is a case of the 1-2-3 principle: Why not directly play Gresil's move
instead of making the
exchange which is clearly beneficial for white?
I'm not saying that
is necessarily good, but if it is going to be played, it should be played without this weird
exchange first.
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 12:31 pm
by Violence
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 2:46 pm
by Chew Terr
$$Wc Move 38A - W: 18, B: 17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wc Move 38A - W: 18, B: 17
Move #38B
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 4:06 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Re: Big Brother Malkovich # 1 (continued)
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 7:50 pm
by shapenaji
be played?
might also be at the circled point.
F15 has to be followed by F16 eventually, or it is a wasted move. Topazg also wants to play on the top side.
instead of making the 
exchange which is clearly beneficial for white?