sefo wrote:A question though, on move 32 and 98...
I understand the broken shape theory, but in this case it doesn't seem to make sense.
Good questions. You are confusing cuts with broken shapes.
See also
http://senseis.xmp.net/?SqueezingOutTheToothpaste[hide]
sefo wrote:can we talk about broken shape when I just have 2 live groups separated?
I think they are broken shapes when the groups are weak and you try to connect them.
Broken shape is
not about separating live or weak groups (although it
can do that).
Broken shapes are shape problems, not (necessarily) life-and-death problems (which is the point about cutting weak groups).
For the broken shape of
, see the variation of
.
If it was the upper left corner that you wanted (which it was),
then it was
that was the problem -- wrong direction.
The broken shape of
is hurting yourself first:
if
at F16 instead, then you're building a nice W wall -- in the game, B crushes your shape,
and suddenly your G16 group went from a source of strength (the wall)
to a potential weak group. This swing (from strength to weakness) is huge --
this is the damage of the broken shape.
To quote an L19 frequent contributor shapenaji,
makes my eyes bleed.
For
, once again the question is why do you want to hurt yourself first?
The
push, then
broken shape -- it's another story if it was
Black
who was weak and you were attacking B, trying to make B heavy.
But here, it's the R6 W group that was weak, and the broken shape just hurt yourself more.
Instead of
and
, you could've just jumped to P9 directly (instead of
).
sefo wrote:they're alive and I don't need to worry about the corner (
) or the side (
)
It's exact opposite: after the broken shapes in both cases,
you DO have to worry about the upper left corner and also your weak H16 and R6 groups![/hide]
