One of the big reasons I love Go is its complexity and deepness. However, in my actual games I was sometimes feared to play more complex moves, relied on standard joseki and so on. Besides I have a problem with using my time. I often play a move on instinct and then realise there would have been a better move in the opponents thinking time. Finally the game ends with me only using a half of the time the opponent used. Therefore I picked two goals for me:
1) Get yourself to play the more complex moves, but don't overplay them. Find the correct mix.
2) Using the time more effective.
Normally I would have played a or b, but in this situation I thought a high pincer works better with the bottom corner. And yeah, I was pretty happy with the result:
After B saved his group I had a nice wall and got sente to play at a. The complete game:
I'll keep you updated with some of the more intresting stuff that might happen during this training and hope it's also intresting for you!
edit 26.7.: I realized that it would be nice to have indexes for my diagrams here to reference them. I'll do it like the following: [Number of the situation].[Number of the diagram within the problem]. So for example 43.2 will be second diagram of the 43rd situation which is post. You're welcome to index your own diagrams this way as well, but only if you want. If I don't mention a number I always refer to the last diagram within the current post.
For the first focus area, I'd recommend you simply use your time to explore up to 3 alternatives per move. This will allow you to get away from automatic play and find some new moves, while sticking to basic technique most of the time.
Good luck!
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:42 am
by Loons
I had a thought in a similar vein, I think, while reading Master of Haengma. That while playing I will often look for a move until I see "a move that works" and immediately play that, when really one should find multiple moves that work, complex, subtle or non and make the decision between those paths.
With that said black was significantly weaker than you. For one example, black played C7.
Thanks the article looks great! However, most times I struggle with even getting into overtime (e.g. in the given game we played with 10 minutes + 3x30 secs and I only entered overtime at the end of endgame). Maybe I'll make a goal next time like entering overtime in the midgame to train on using my periods.
Loons wrote:I had a thought in a similar vein, I think, while reading Master of Haengma. That while playing I will often look for a move until I see "a move that works" and immediately play that, when really one should find multiple moves that work, complex, subtle or non and make the decision between those paths.
For me it is more like sometimes a point on the board "shines" and looks like the have-to/natural-move. Sometimes that is correct but sometimes I realise that there is something more tricky possible than I thought.
Loons wrote:With that said black was significantly weaker than you. For one example, black played C7.
That is something one should clearly keep in mind: This game was played on Tygem and I registered there as 1k before reading that the ranking is that much of on this server.
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:57 am
by Knotwilg
Celebrir wrote:
Thanks the article looks great! However, most times I struggle with even getting into overtime (e.g. in the given game we played with 10 minutes + 3x30 secs and I only entered overtime at the end of endgame). Maybe I'll make a goal next time like entering overtime in the midgame to train on using my periods.
It is much harder to manage a big amount of time for a large number of moves, than a small amount of time for one move. Therefore I recommend to first experiment with something like 1m + 5x30. Once you have trained yourself in using a full overtime period and consuming all but one of them, you can move on to the more comprehensive systems like Canadian overtime or major amounts of main time. You could also actively seek opponents who are willing to play at such a pace.
There are a few more tricks to use the time you have:
* sit on your hands
* shout out the coordinates of three places you could go next
* hum the first verse of your favorite song before playing a move
I know that also can be at a, but this variation was shown to me by a pro and it worked for me quite well until now. B is normally expected to play at b . But throw me off. What is the best continuation? My try:
I neglected to play at a for sente here. I guess that was a big mistake because B later got b and my group was running. Would this have been okay if I had played a? Or would something completly different be correct?
Apart from that I'm working on time control, while playing with 5min+3x30sec. Sadly I already got a loss on time when leading with like 20 points while thinking about a semi-complex endgame without remembering the time (which I normally could do because I was still in main time or at least some more periods)
edit: Can someone tell me why the diagrams are not working? Copied the first from my post above and can't find a mistake
edit2: Found the error: Copying added leading space to every line which should not be there
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:16 am
by Loons
I kind of like O15 ? It tentatively seems okay. O15 R16? Is it slack?
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:34 am
by Celebrir
I realized that it would be nice to have indexes for my diagrams here to reference them. I'll do it like the following: [Number of the situation].[Number of the diagram within the problem]. So for example 43.2 will be second diagram of the 43rd situation which is post. You're welcome to index your own diagrams this way as well, but only if you want. If I don't mention a number I always refer to the last diagram within the current post.
Loons wrote:I kind of like O15 ? It tentatively seems okay. O15 R16? Is it slack?
This remembers me of the pattern after a in diagram 2.1, which is as far as I know regarded suboptimal because B got a big corner and W's wall looks bad. In addition here B gets sente and could lokally play at a or somewhere else on a big point.
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:46 am
by Loons
I would have tried playing tougher as white in that sequence, for example, I didn't read that white had to let black capture that stone.
A little further investigation: Josekipedia calls black's move a mistake(submissive) and suggests just connecting, which should be our instinct anyway. http://josekipedia.com/#path:qdttkcpgpjpdqe This is the only response seen in my database.
Eidogo suggests not playing the attachment against low Chinese.
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:51 am
by Loons
Given it may be a mistake, I would like to counter pincer before continuing locally.
With that said is also my intuition and I guess something similar could unfold:
[go]$$Bc 2.4 The cut I feared
$$ ---------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X X . . . |
$$ X . . O c O O 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . b 3 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . X . . |[/go]
What I thought was that if W ataris at a, B can cut at c and if W ataris from b, B can go to a and fight. But with enought time to go through it this fight seems to be good for W.
Loons wrote:
A little further investigation: Josekipedia calls black's move a mistake(submissive) and suggests just connecting, which should be our instinct anyway. http://josekipedia.com/#path:qdttkcpgpjpdqe This is the only response seen in my database.
Eidogo suggests not playing the attachment against low Chinese.
Sadly eidogo seems a little bit outdated and/or incomplete nowadays which is why I prefer looking at josekipedia.
But white will start speaking insufferably about lightness.
I like B here. W's stones might be light but the most of them seem to be to important to be sacrificed and W should have been able to do better.
Any comments on whether my variation in the game would have been okay if I played the shape point instead of tennuki?
Yesterday I did not make improvement in my target goals, but a lection about the right mindset:
In the first game I got a good start but got very sloppy afterwards to finally lose the game:
In the second game I did rubbish at the start of the game, but was able to climb back step by step to eventually win:
I realized once again that it is important to stay calm and concentrated even if you feel confident in your lead. Sounds easy? Well I already realised that so often already... I hope it finally sticks xD
Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:59 am
by Uberdude
Block like OtakuViking was my instinct too, Loons's kosumi looks very slack to me. You want to connect and fill black's liberties so your corner hane has more power. As for Celbrir's worry of the cut, this seems easy:
Uberdude wrote:Block like OtakuViking was my instinct too, Loons's kosumi looks very slack to me. You want to connect and fill black's liberties so your corner hane has more power. As for Celbrir's worry of the cut, this seems easy:
also can be at a, but this variation was shown to me by a pro and it worked for me quite well until now. B is normally expected to play at b . But 
throw me off. What is the best continuation? My try:
is also my intuition and I guess something similar could unfold:
desirable?
directly at b I had the read now. I feel like the right side is more intresting, therefore I would like to take the decision from B.