Joelnelsonb wrote:Here's a recent game I played.
Any comments on it would be much appreciated.
General comment, for both players: go is a game not just of what you do, but of how you do it. This game is replete with technical mistakes (the "how" is wrong). One way to get stronger is incremental, by getting slicker.
By

White has fallen behind: no proper organisation of the position.

- for me, the logic of the game is not to make a third unsettled group on this side. N4 is a key point for shape and fighting. You can still invade if White answers at M3 (which is heavy). If White at M4, you can cut and settle the group on the right that way. But before anything I would feel that A3 is urgent. White has no good answer (fighting the ko is a kind of bad joke).
So

should be at A2 (base of two groups), to punish Black.

is good for territory, but White seems to have gained ground overall.

turns out well, because Black has become involved with a weak group, unnecessarily.

is out of focus. O11, simply, is much better (and there are other choices.

No - play on the fourth line. This is a dud shape.

One line lower is more about shape: wait for it.

and

is a 1-2-3 mistake. If you play R2 first, White S3, you would play S2 next, not R3.

But the world doesn't consist just of problem-type plays. If White plays S1, this is a loss.
By

,

looks very slow. One of my key principles: let go of
trying to show you could have played the position better and next time
try to get into a better position. Why is the right-side group shut in? Because of your taking time off to play on the left, which was non-urgent.
You should
want to play

one point to the right.
At

, D10 is bigger than E5. Black can build territory, rather than just wrecking White's.
B105 is a typical technical mistake, since B11 is actually less helpful to White.
In this game Black consistently underestimated the value of routes to the centre.