Life In 19x19

I just played a game as white where black was very aggressive, approaching on black 3 rather than taking an open corner. All of his approaches were very unconventional, and I think I ended up with very suboptimal positions as a result.



Some thoughts and questions:

• 1. I think taking an open corner before responding to his approach on black 3 was the right move, right?
  
  2. Top left, I'm not sure if my result was satisfactory. I think I should've killed with B15 instead of C15, and then expanded on top.
  
  3. White 16 seems really wrong in retrospect. Either that or white 18. What should I have done about the top right?
  
  4. E16 by black seems wrong. Seems to help me more than it helps him, but I don't know how to punish here. Same with black 41 at N3.
  
  5. White 52 seems slow, but I think maybe even 44 and 46 were too slow.
  
  6. White 54 seems really wrong now. Either I should've cut directly at K16 or played closer to the black stone at F16.
  
  7. White 80 I was considering N11, but that seemed to leave too many cutting points, and O11 seemed too slow and heavy.
  
  8. 86 should've been at C10.

Anyway, by that point I think I was too far behind to catch up. Any feedback would be welcome.

Hello,

Here are some comments. I hope they make sense (if not a stronger player will surely correct me)

1. Answering the approach is fine too, I guess.

2. C15 seems better but it doesn't "kill" everything. Black cuts at C15 and takes a stone. Connecting at D16 instead of playing D18 seems to give a nice result for white.

3. White has made a nice wall so maybe approaching at 14 wasn't the best place. Playing around k17 might have been better.
After 15, maybe pressing down at P16 would have been good. may end up being too close to the other black stones to be really efficient.

is terrible and gives black a very nice result because his corner is now very strong while white's group is baseless. The shape is to play at 21 (same for ).

4. I don't think there's anything to punish here. Black could not cut because of the geta, so peeping seems ok (especially since it removes white's potential eyes).

There's is a ko if played at B19.

without stones around C3 and C10, this looks dangerous. Black can shut white in by playing imediately at E5. White's two stones can live but black will become very strong on the outside and build the bottom by attacking P3. I think would be better at E5.

At this point, if we look at white's stones, none of them are working together or doing anything really interesting.
Top left corner: this wall does not seem to have much potential for building a moyo or attacking a weak black group. Moreover, it could even become a target if black gets a few more moves in the area.
Bottom left corner: after 34, the two stones will be sealed in the corner and won't contribute to the rest of the game. They are not making that much points either.
Upper right corner: the S15 group is baseless and can be attacked at any moment by black.

So, while white could have improved the result by playing better moves locally (8, 20, 28, 34), it seems having a plan for your stones would also have helped (how to make use of the D18 wall for instance).

digbybare wrote:I just played a game as white where black was very aggressive, approaching on black 3 rather than taking an open corner.

Hi digbybare,

I wouldn't characterize it as 'aggressive', let alone 'very'.
He simply offered you a trade ( very normal in Go ):
if you take an open corner, then it's up to him to either:

• reply there;
• take the last open corner;
• play another move at your corner;
• or, tenuki.

If you reply to him locally, then again it's up to him -- he'll either:

• take an open corner;
• continue to reply locally;
• or, again, tenuki.

Moreover, it's so early ( only ! ) -- except for obviously strange moves (like A1, etc.),
it's actually difficult (for you or your opponent) to play 'bad' moves -- simply too early.

It's all just trades. In other words, very normal.

Hi digbybare,

Top left: very good result for W.
B jumped in too early (and badly).

Agree with Shenoute: P16 seems OK.

Push R16 -- basic shape.

After hane, (a) and (b) are two local vital points:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Basic shape
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . a . . .
$$ | . . X , 2 3 . .
$$ | . . . b 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------[/go]

Consider (a) and (b) miai:
If B takes one, you take the other:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Variation 1
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 . . .
$$ | . . X , 2 3 . .
$$ | . . 6 5 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Variation 2
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 5 . . .
$$ | . . X 6 2 3 . .
$$ | . . . 4 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------[/go]

In the game, you let B take BOTH vital points:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White missed BOTH vital points
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 5 . .
$$ | . . X , 2 3 . .
$$ | . . . 6 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ ------------------[/go]

Hi digbybare,

This also hurts your N17 stone.

digbybare wrote:4. E16 by black seems wrong. Seems to help me more than it helps him, but I don't know how to punish here.

Greedy. already helps you, and you still want more ?!

Agree with Shenoute: E5 -- get out and split W.
( What were your reasons for 3-3 ? Was it "just to live" ? )

E5.

Same mistake as . Re: Posts 2 & 4.

Shenoute wrote: 2. C15 seems better but it doesn't "kill" everything. Black cuts at C15 and takes a stone. Connecting at D16 instead of playing D18 seems to give a nice result for white.

Yep, that looks a lot better with my bottom stone.

3. White has made a nice wall so maybe approaching at 14 wasn't the best place. Playing around k17 might have been better.
After 15, maybe pressing down at P16 would have been good. may end up being too close to the other black stones to be really efficient.

That's really interesting. I think I was too focused on making good use of my wall and so was trying to attack too much (without really thinking about how the attack actually benefits me).

is terrible and gives black a very nice result because his corner is now very strong while white's group is baseless. The shape is to play at 21 (same for ).

Yep, someone else I asked about this game pointed that out as well, and it seems so obvious when someone else points it out. At the time I was just thinking "hey, hane at the head of two stones! That's got to be good for me!"

There's is a ko if played at B19.

Yea, I felt like I should've been able to get a better result in this corner, and I had to take a couple attempts to play this out and find the ko continuation but now it makes sense. I think I should do more tsumego. =P

without stones around C3 and C10, this looks dangerous. Black can shut white in by playing imediately at E5. White's two stones can live but black will become very strong on the outside and build the bottom by attacking P3. I think would be better at E5.

This was also pointed out by others, and I was worried about losing the corner (since I barely grabbed any territory at this point), but should've paid better consideration to how this impacts nearby groups.

So, while white could have improved the result by playing better moves locally (8, 20, 28, 34), it seems having a plan for your stones would also have helped (how to make use of the D18 wall for instance).

Yea, I definitely see this now. I think I was kind of flustered and ended up just following him around the board "attacking" without a good global plan.

Thanks for taking a look!

EdLee wrote:

digbybare wrote:I just played a game as white where black was very aggressive, approaching on black 3 rather than taking an open corner.

Hi digbybare,

I wouldn't characterize it as 'aggressive', let alone 'very'.
He simply offered you a trade ( very normal in Go ):
if you take an open corner, then it's up to him to either:

• reply there;
• take the last open corner;
• play another move at your corner;
• or, tenuki.

If you reply to him locally, then again it's up to him -- he'll either:

• take an open corner;
• continue to reply locally;
• or, again, tenuki.

Moreover, it's so early ( only ! ) -- except for obviously strange moves (like A1, etc.),
it's actually difficult (for you or your opponent) to play 'bad' moves -- simply too early.

It's all just trades. In other words, very normal.

Our understanding of what constitutes reasonable, aggressive, overplay, underplay (soft) will change over time.

Yep, at the time I felt like his and corner invasion on the top left were really aggressive, but in after more reflection, he was playing very territorially and settling his groups and I was the one following him around and attacking blindly.

And, yes, I'm sure a lot of this is just due to my inexperience. His play just seemed odd to me at the time and made me flustered, and it's great to get some perspectives from much stronger players.

EdLee wrote: Push R16 -- basic shape.

A lot of people have mentioned this already, but this in depth explanation for the reasoning behind it is super helpful.

EdLee wrote: Agree with Shenoute: E5 -- get out and split W.
( What were your reasons for 3-3 ? Was it "just to live" ? )

I felt like I was already way behind on territory (having not played any territory focused moves), so I thought I better at least secure this corner. Also, I remember playing someone in the past and he played 3-3 against me in the same position and it worked out very well for him, so I thought that was just a pretty standard response. (Although now I'm sure that was more due to my mistakes).

digbybare wrote:I remember playing someone in the past and he played 3-3 against me in the same position and it worked out very well for him, so I thought that was just a pretty standard response. (Although now I'm sure that was more due to my mistakes).

It would be very helpful if you happen to have the other SGF, too. Then we can figure out the similarities and diffetences.

EdLee wrote:

digbybare wrote:I remember playing someone in the past and he played 3-3 against me in the same position and it worked out very well for him, so I thought that was just a pretty standard response. (Although now I'm sure that was more due to my mistakes).

It would be very helpful if you happen to have the other SGF, too. Then we can figure out the similarities and diffetences.

I wish I had it, but it was a long time ago and on a different account. =/