Enjoy.

[sgf-full](;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8]AP[CGoban:3]ST[2]
RU[Japanese]SZ[19]KM[0.00]
PW[Ota Yuzo 7-dan]PB[Kuwahara Shusaku 5-dan]
;B[qd]
;W[qo]
;B[dc]
(;W[do]
;B[ce]
;W[dq]
;B[od]
;W[pq]
;B[kq]
(;W[ic]
;B[kc]
;W[fc]
;B[hq]
;W[qi]
;B[cm]
;W[cn]
;B[dm]
;W[di]
;B[qg]
;W[oi]
;B[nq]
(;W[mc]C[GS: this is premature. variation preferable. ]
;B[ld]LB[fc:B][mc:A][di:C]C[I love B's play from here. over the next 100 moves he subtly harasses these 3 groups to lead to a decisive victory. ]
;W[oc]
;B[pc]
;W[nd]
;B[oe]
;W[nb]C[Where should B move?]
;B[lf]C[nice and steady]
;W[pb]
;B[qb]
;W[md]C[Again. How should B play?]
;B[ee]C[elegant.]
;W[ie]
;B[ig]C[cap. followed by another W mistake. ]
;W[qa]
;B[ra]
;W[pa]
;B[gd]
;W[jg]C[W counters.
]
;B[jf]
;W[if]
;B[hg]
;W[jh]
;B[je]C[next 7 moves are a clever way for W to live. although B gets power.]
;W[ge]
;B[gf]
;W[hd]
;B[fe]
;W[gc]
;B[he]
;W[eb]
;B[db]
;W[jd]
;B[le]
(;W[ib]C[if W omits. B kills. B has sente what would you do? I'd probably play around f10. ]
;B[lh]C[nice]
;W[jj]
;B[ii]
;W[ji]
;B[lj]
;W[jl]
(;B[gk]C[GS: correct shape. H9 allows a peep at j9 ]
;W[jp]
;B[jq]
;W[mg]
;B[kh]
;W[lm]C[W is turning the game into an attack on m12 group. ]
;B[nh]C[B can't let that happen. ]
;W[ck]C[D11 can live?!?!?]
;B[dk]
;W[dj]
;B[ek]
;W[bk]
;B[bm]
;W[cg]
;B[bf]
;W[bg]C[Is W alive? see var. ]
(;B[pn]C[I find this very clever. ]
;W[mh]C[W trying to make something happen. ]
;B[mi]
;W[ni]
;B[nj]
;W[mf]
;B[oj]
;W[oh]
;B[qj]
;W[qh]
;B[rc]C[and b needs to live.]
;W[qn]
;B[nf]
;W[ng]
;B[me]C[W seperated but alive. B can connect groups. ]
;W[go]C[W tries to strengthen middle and possibly escape path after d12. ]
;B[hn]C[not so fast
]
;W[ip]C[peep. ]
;B[jn]C[not so fast. ]
;W[kp]
;B[lp]
;W[lo]
;B[mp]
;W[io]C[protects cut]
;B[in]
;W[mk]
;B[mj]
;W[lk]
;B[ko]
;W[gq]
;B[ik]
;W[jk]
;B[gr]
;W[fq]
;B[lb]
;W[mb]
;B[nm]
;W[il]
;B[hl]
;W[ij]
;B[hj]
;W[hi]
;B[gi]
;W[ih]
;B[hh]
;W[kn]C[If B connects can he kill w in the center?]
(;B[dh]C[So B doesn't connect. Instead he wins the game. Cause e13 doesn't work as well as it did in the variation shown earlier. ]
;W[ch]
;B[bi]
;W[cf]
;B[be]
;W[ci]
;B[bj]
;W[fg]
;B[eh])
(;B[jo]
;W[hk]C[B can't fight this ko. anything will be ignored to capture h10 and cut off B's group]
;B[gj]
;W[hm]
;B[gl]
;W[gn]C[W lives]))
(;B[dh]
;W[ch]
;B[bi]
;W[ci]
;B[bj]
(;W[fg]
;B[eh])
(;W[eg]
;B[eh]
;W[fh]
;B[ei]
;W[ej]
;B[fi]
;W[fj]
;B[gi]
;W[fk]C[W not alive but can break out. so B tenukis.])))
(;B[hk]
;W[ik]))
(;W[ck]
;B[jb]
;W[ib]
;B[hb]))
(;W[ee]))
(;W[hq]
;B[nq]LB[oo:A]C[If W plays this way B has a follow up at A. This is one reason B played at L3 instead of K3. ]))
(;W[df]
;B[fd]
;W[dp]C[Go Seigen comments that this in more common in modern go. (although that comment is a bit dated.)]))[/sgf-full]

My final comment doesn't seem to be coming through. W resigns because he can no longer escape after mv 133. I hope you all enjoy this game. It's the first one I've memorized and it comes with the realization that commented games that end in resignation before move 150 are much easier to memorize and also learn from. And I'm generally impressed by how assured Shusaku's play seems.

Of course I'm indebted to Go Seigen's commentary in "Invincible: the games of Shusaku"

Thanks!

I enjoyed both your and Go Siegen's comments.

_________________
"When you are learning, it is not so important whether you are right or wrong." - Bill Spight

Early in the fuseki, this situation shows up, and w elects to play a instead of b:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . b . . X . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The reason concerns this type of corner position, in which you mention that x is a strong follow-up for the marked stone (In the game diagram, White wants to avoid inducing the black approach at O3, and enable his own approach at F17).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . Q . . O . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . x . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I was wondering if you or anyone else could elaborate on the value of this follow-up. In the game itself, it doesn't end up getting played, and instead, in the top right, it is prevented by black when black plays there himself (move 33), and on the bottom right, black chooses another move instead (move 79, which you called clever).

_________________
"When you are learning, it is not so important whether you are right or wrong." - Bill Spight

i think it would be pretty dumb for me to comment on their game but..i will.
what i have noticed about their game and comment is that they play soft easy game.
modern professional game are more aggressive and fast.
comment said "elegant, nice and steady".
i do not agree on elegant. i will say they are slow.

also premature invasion is too obvious to me. i was surprised that they play such move at that level.
i am thinking their strength is much lower than current professional.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

but still, a lot of professional players study Shusaku.

_________________

yes they do and many professionals commented that they made many obvious mistakes.
it is good studying material because it contains many mistakes that they can study.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

so what do you think, how strong was he, and other players of his period?

_________________

i think players now are much stronger than that period.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

In the sense that magicwand means this I think it is rather obvious. Each generation that studies go adds more to what we know of the game. Very few joseki from this period survive in modern play. And clearly the lack of komi influences what Magicwand calls "slow play" by black.

However, my goal here was not to provide the most complicated game I could find, nor was it to find the most competitive game in this scheduled 20 game series between Shusaku and Yuzo. (This is the shortest of the games and probably the most embarassing from Yuzo's perspective).

I just wanted to share a game where B models how to take advantage of an early overplay, not by playing harshly, but with calm steady moves, and brings the game to an early resignation.

Magicwand: perhaps in the future I will post a game from this era that is more highly regarded, maybe one where white, through agressive play, overcomes the advantage of B's first move to win.

I don't think anyone would use this game as a shining example of how strong players of this period were. But it is useful for studying purposes.

Also, as far as strength goes, looking at someones record against their contemporaries is probably the best measure and in this regard Shusaku, outshines most modern pros. He also played several games that lasted longer than 10 hours so it reasons that his mental endurance may have been stronger than modern pros. Not that that means much, just saying.

Obviously any measure is going to have to be very crude, but for pre-komi players I suggest a better one would be to assess their scores as White. In that respect Dosaku comes out well on top at about 57%. Shuei, the most highly regarded player among modern pros, has 52% and Shusaku has 51%. I think these are the only major players who score over 50%.

You need to factor in, I suppose, whether a player had a close rival who downgraded his score (e.g. Genjo-Chitoku). My assessment is that Dosaku didn't and should therefore be downgraded. Shusaku likewise, but not so much. Shuei, however, can probably stand tall. That would agree with modern pro assessment, where he is called Meijin of Meijins or is quoted as the one old player they really learnt something from.

I don't believe many modern pros study Shusaku. He's the poster boy for go because of his filial piety. But Shuei is studied by many.

The general pro view as to how strong oldies were (it's a commonly asked question) is that the big names as above would have no trouble playing at the top level today provided they were allowed a short period of adjustment to cope with new fuseki and joseki ideas. That's unprovable and so possibly meaningless, but they are certain that the top oldies were tactically just as good, and to some degree that is provable.

To say modern go is fast and aggressive and therefore better seems like dubious logic to me. More likely modern players are better simply because the pool is bigger.

I'm also suspicious of the claim that oldies made many simple mistakes. Their games have been studied by many generations and so we'd expect a lot to be known about them. If modern games at Mickey Mouse time limits were subjected to the same degree of scrutiny, I'd expect to see rather more mistakes claimed.

before submitting: John Fairbairn was faster than me, so i am now effectively repeating some of his thoughts. however, our posts were written independently

this has two sides - his mental endurance may have been stronger than modern pros (although some japanese titles are played with time allowance 4 hours each, in one day, so they are not really shorter, including byoyomi), but he also had more time to think and to make his moves more brilliant. actually, those days were no time limits at all, so i think your statement "longer than 10 hours" is still too weak. i remember reading about a Jowa's game where he thought about one move for 3 hours and then his opponent took equal time to answer. or not so old, Game of the century - each player had 24 hours of time and white could adjourn the game anytime (and he did, 13 times), effectively getting much more time.

so i believe we cannot (unfortunately) really compare players from present and from past. modern players are surely equipped with better opening theory and josekis, players from past had big advantage in a much longer thinking time

it is a bit pity that nowadays most games is played so fast (in comparison), and so restrained in their perfection.

and yet another thing was absence of komi - if Shusaku was really the strongest player of his era, its too bad played majority of his games with black stones, not having to show his best. (for this reason i can't enjoy his games so much)

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

These games are still worth studying.

Yes, modern pros have found mistakes, almost invariably in opening and joseki, but the play is still quite sound.

However, the middle game fighting and endgame between the top players of the pre timed game periods are often flawless, and always very, very good.

i would never make a statement "oldies are full of mistake"
i said it because some professional who studied their game said it.
i really dont remember who it was but he was a professional who never had title.
but he found many mistakes by oldies. only to prove that they were weaker.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I don't know what you guys talking about. I have Invincible the book, and all the commentaries are by Pros, and I know Pros don't waste time on something useless. So that means Shusaku is very good to learn from. I remember Michael Redmond also said that he studied endgames from Castle games.

and that he considers them almost 100% correct

_________________