Life In 19x19

Although they are two sides of the same coin, I have the feeling that I am significantly better at killing than at living. This is noticable in the early stages, where I'm often planning to surround an opponent's group and not thinking about how my opponent might shrink one of my groups to a killable size. When the fight to the death actually breaks out, an eerie calmness comes over me while my opponent is struggling to escape and breathe, while in the reverse situation, I'm like a chicken in a slaughterhouse. I suspect this is not a good sign, and in general just another symptom that I'm not thinking enough about what my opponent is up to. How about the rest of you?

as it ends up, the way i play i rarely go all out to try to kill a group unless its absolutely necessary, and as a result i never do. added to that where i end up living a lot, preferring to settle rather than get in big fights, i guess im better at living

I don't understand the options.

I find both equally difficult . But I think there are several possible reasons why OP may find it easier to kill than to live:

• He may have done more "Black to kill" tsumego instead of "White to live".
• He may be the type of player that likes to play thick and force the opponent to enter the lion's den / framework, so more experience in killing (the invasion) could come from that.
• Killing can involve bloodlust and excitement, whereas living can involve fear and stress - so emotional response can play a role.

Gresil wrote:I don't understand the options.

Don Vito, a mafiosi is a killer
McGyver, a TV series character famous for his escapes
Bruce Willis often plays characters that blow away their enemies with ease and never die themselves. Perhaps Chuck Norris would have been a better choice.

Araban wrote:I find both equally difficult . But I think there are several possible reasons why OP may find it easier to kill than to live:

• He may have done more "Black to kill" tsumego instead of "White to live".
• He may be the type of player that likes to play thick and force the opponent to enter the lion's den / framework, so more experience in killing (the invasion) could come from that.
• Killing can involve bloodlust and excitement, whereas living can involve fear and stress - so emotional response can play a role.

Mostly the third option, partly the second, but certainly not the first. I specifically look for and do many "white to live" problems, but it's still not my forte.

Gresil wrote:I don't understand the options.

Me neither, but that didn't stop me from voting.

daal wrote:Bruce Willis often plays characters that blow away their enemies with ease and never die themselves. Perhaps Chuck Norris would have been a better choice.

Chuck Norris lives and kills. I can't say it'd be a poor choice (I fear for my life) but Bruce Willis, with a reference to the "Die Hard" serie, is a better one

aah, I thought it was a reference to Bruce Willis in Unbreakable where he, you know, can't be broken.

Killing is more fun, but living is probably easier... Except when I get greedy and invade a small area.

I've found that killing is really hard, and can only be done under special circumstances. I mean... everyone lives much more than they die per game, right?

Jedo wrote:aah, I thought it was a reference to Bruce Willis in Unbreakable where he, you know, can't be broken.

I thought it was a reference to Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense where he assumed ***SPOILER*** even though ***SPOILER***.

I'm definitely better at living than killing. With living, it is easy to develop an intuitional "with this move, this group will have good eye shape". With killing however, it seems you must consider a lot more moves from your opponent than you have to do when living.

Araban wrote:I find both equally difficult . But I think there are several possible reasons why OP may find it easier to kill than to live:

• He may have done more "Black to kill" tsumego instead of "White to live".
• He may be the type of player that likes to play thick and force the opponent to enter the lion's den / framework, so more experience in killing (the invasion) could come from that.
• Killing can involve bloodlust and excitement, whereas living can involve fear and stress - so emotional response can play a role.

I think the 2nd option there seems quite likely though perhaps with other effects than the one stated. If you and your opponent typically play solidly, it may be that a large number of the invasions are unreasonable and should die (hence they're easier to kill). There also might be a selection bias as to what is being qualified as a life and death situation (e.g. if a weak group runs out to the center and lives you don't include it, if the same weak group gets cut off from the center and the opponent plays a gote defensive move to ensure life, you don't include it...it's only when both of these options have been ignored you begin to think of it as a "life and death" situation, hence it's easier to kill).

From my experience I'd be inclined to agree with Violence, groups seem to live quite a bit more often then they die, and can often live in surprisingly small spaces (though whether it's a good idea to necessarily make something live just because it can is another story...)

I Live Free or I Die Hard. Usually the latter, and usually in a blaze of glory!