Hi guys,
I thought I was winning this game by a lot but in the end I barly won by 2.5 points...
I'm black .
Any ideas what went wrong ?
Cheers,
Otenki
I was leading with a lot or not?
-
ez4u
- Oza
- Posts: 2417
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:15 pm
- Rank: Jp 6 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: ez4u
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
- Has thanked: 2352 times
- Been thanked: 1334 times
Re: I was leading with a lot or not?
First of all realize that if White had connected at G6 instead of effectively passing at 244, White would have been 2 points better off. If play continued as in the game, but White did not give Black a free point by throwing in at M7 as a ko "threat" in a half point ko (face palm!), White would have won by half a point. So one of the main things that went wrong was Black's assessment of the position. Far from being well ahead, he was probably behind. 
In general, however, Black failed to make make territory from the stones played. An excellent example was the invasion of Black 47. What did Black want to achieve here? Before the invasion there is a weak White group at the top and a wide White extension along the right. As a result of the invasion, White's weak group at the top links up to a new White wall in the center, making it safe. Meanwhile Black's new wall in the center accomplishes... not much. Black never finds a way to play against White's position in the lower right. It is too strong to kill. So Black's original invasion was suspect. Black's invasion stone and White's lone stone were both weak. In fact though, the White stone had somewhere to run to and in the process helped White a lot. Meanwhile, for all the sound and fury, Black really did not have a use for the invader once White's right side and top stones linked up.
Black has to learn to play more strategically and think more about where the territory is going to finally come from. It is not enough to continuously chase each other around the board. Although attacking is a huge part of Go, in the end it is a game of territory.
In general, however, Black failed to make make territory from the stones played. An excellent example was the invasion of Black 47. What did Black want to achieve here? Before the invasion there is a weak White group at the top and a wide White extension along the right. As a result of the invasion, White's weak group at the top links up to a new White wall in the center, making it safe. Meanwhile Black's new wall in the center accomplishes... not much. Black never finds a way to play against White's position in the lower right. It is too strong to kill. So Black's original invasion was suspect. Black's invasion stone and White's lone stone were both weak. In fact though, the White stone had somewhere to run to and in the process helped White a lot. Meanwhile, for all the sound and fury, Black really did not have a use for the invader once White's right side and top stones linked up.
Black has to learn to play more strategically and think more about where the territory is going to finally come from. It is not enough to continuously chase each other around the board. Although attacking is a huge part of Go, in the end it is a game of territory.
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: I was leading with a lot or not?
I mostly agree - white's weak group becomes strong, so that's not ideal.ez4u wrote: In general, however, Black failed to make make territory from the stones played. An excellent example was the invasion of Black 47. What did Black want to achieve here? Before the invasion there is a weak White group at the top and a wide White extension along the right. As a result of the invasion, White's weak group at the top links up to a new White wall in the center, making it safe. Meanwhile Black's new wall in the center accomplishes... not much.
However, maybe I have a misunderstanding, too. Like you mentioned, Go is a game of territory. While the wall does not accomplish much in gaining territory, it does accomplish something in that it prevents white from making as much territory on the right, doesn't it?
In this example, since white's weak group becomes stronger, maybe it doesn't make sense to invade - if you attack the group, maybe it'll be easier to invade later.
But in general, making territory is one way to achieve superiority in this game of territory, but preventing the opponent is another way, I would think.
Or is this line of thinking too single-purposed?
be immersed
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: I was leading with a lot or not?
I think that you had the lead for much of the game, but you almost frittered it away. Here is a place where you lost a few points.
White 154 was the descent,
. To which you replied at "a".
is correct. Now Black has 9 pts. in the corner. You ended up with 5.
Later.
Black 165 ( ) is an overplay.
White 154 was the descent,
. To which you replied at "a". is correct. Now Black has 9 pts. in the corner. You ended up with 5.Later.
Black 165 (
) is an overplay.The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
ez4u
- Oza
- Posts: 2417
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:15 pm
- Rank: Jp 6 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: ez4u
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
- Has thanked: 2352 times
- Been thanked: 1334 times
Re: I was leading with a lot or not?
Interesting position! Can White come up with something?Bill Spight wrote:I think that you had the lead for much of the game, but you almost frittered it away. Here is a place where you lost a few points.
...
Later.
Black 165 (
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: I was leading with a lot or not?
Very nice, Dave! Thanks. 
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.