My Fuseki

snorri · **#21**

This is a good opening for you if your opponents keep playing moves like :w6:

in your third example.

However, in this case, I would not treat the upper right and lower right corners as miai so rigidly, and would prefer to block at 'a' rather than play :b7:

as in the game. Is there a reason you rejected that play?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c6 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 7 , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X a . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Just curious, but what is your planned response if white simply makes a sanrensei with :w6:

?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c6 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I also propose another move for white that you might need to prepare for:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c6 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c6 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c6 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Finally:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c6 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . 6 . , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

That should keep you busy for a bit. Good luck!

snorri · **#22**

ParadoxGo wrote:

Plus, white never approaches the bottom right, because that's too dangerous.

Or so your opponents to date think. This is why it is so hard to develop your own opening. If you can't test it against stronger players, it just becomes a matter of a bag tricks against players of your own level. OTOH, if you do test it against stronger players, you may find that tactical mistakes overwhelm what you are trying to understand about the opening.

When I was about your level, I tried out this opening. The position of :b5:

may seem odd, but is designed to provide certain advantages in ladder breaking variations that no one wound up playing against me anyway.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . 3 , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I also did not win much with it, but it is not so much because white found a killer refutation so much as that I never spent the required amount of games and analysis by stronger players to develop it. Also, as EdLee mentions, most games at this level are simply not decided at this point anyway, so it's very hard to draw conclusions from the few bits of data associated with win/loss records. Much later I discovered that there were some high dans on Tygem that played this way. I felt vindicated, but still did not continue to use this. It was hard to find professional examples to compare to my own games, so I concluded that the well-beaten path held more promise than the path not taken. I could be completely and utterly wrong and there are days I regret not going further down this rabbit hole.

ParadoxGo · **#23**

Thanks for all the responses everybody! Wow. There was a lot of helpful information posted.

I do think a major issue of mine is misreading fights and situations. I can usually set myself up pretty well, but then fail during the actual battle.

As far as variations for white's response to this, I think I will need to think of different responses to different approaches. I was using my miai too rigidly, as I can see now.

EdLee · **#24**

ParadoxGo wrote:

I do think a major issue of mine is misreading fights and situations.

Yes. It's in your basics.

ParadoxGo wrote:

I can usually set myself up pretty well, but then fail during the actual battle.

Exactly. This is why your first 3 opening moves (or even the first 10 or 20) don't matter so much,
unless you make some bad moves (like opening at 1-1, or 2nd line too early, etc.),
or like :b9:

in game 1 -- it's mostly in your basics.

ParadoxGo · **#25**

EdLee wrote:

ParadoxGo wrote:

I do think a major issue of mine is misreading fights and situations.

Yes. It's in your basics.

ParadoxGo wrote:

I can usually set myself up pretty well, but then fail during the actual battle.

Exactly. This is why your first 3 opening moves (or even the first 10 or 20) don't matter so much,
unless you make some bad moves (like opening at 1-1, or 2nd line too early, etc.),
or like :b9:

in game 1 -- it's mostly in your basics.

What do you suggest I do? I read Sensei's Library quite often and practice on Go Problems all the time. But I continue to mess up basics like the ones in my game.

SmoothOper · **#26**

EdLee wrote:

ParadoxGo wrote:

I do think a major issue of mine is misreading fights and situations.

Yes. It's in your basics.

ParadoxGo wrote:

I can usually set myself up pretty well, but then fail during the actual battle.

Exactly. This is why your first 3 opening moves (or even the first 10 or 20) don't matter so much,
unless you make some bad moves (like opening at 1-1, or 2nd line too early, etc.),
or like :b9:

in game 1 -- it's mostly in your basics.

It's par for the course you will get a lot of non sense approach moves that aren't in the book for while, until you figure out how to punish them, at which point you will learn about whole new sets of problems. I'm curious what is the strategy, build 3-4 5-4 shimaris or moyos? I would think mini-Chinese formations from the 3-4 would interesting.

jts · **#27**

Well, one thing to think about is time use. In the first and third game you're using about 6 seconds per move, in the second, what, 12-15 seconds per move? Some people swear by blitz, but I would say (i) choose time limits appropriate to your playing speed to improve your focus, and (ii) experiment with playing more slowly. Personally, I can't imagine how I would improve if I didn't think about my moves before I played them.

Take game 1, :b21:

- this seems pretty bad to me, abandoning cutting stones in a way that also strands two other stones in a valuable area. Should you always save your cutting stones? No, definitely not. Is it possible that n4 leads to disaster? Sure - I've only read out a couple lines. Should you play :b17:

and then immediately abandon it? Definitely not; this seems inconsistent. :b45:

seems slightly slow. It seems that you might be unaware that these sorts of endgame moves are more meaningful when they threaten a weak group's base, which is a basic concept, but probably I'm reading too much into it... you only took three seconds on the move. :w46:

is an interesting defensive move that doesn't actually threaten to do anything. But again, you connect in three seconds.

Do you see what I mean? It's hard for me to assess what your various moves mean if they were mostly played reflexively. If you took two minutes to think before connecting with :b47:

, I would say, "Aha, there is some basic concept here about when to save stones that Paradox is missing - if only we can figure out what that is, he'll make huge strides!"

ParadoxGo · **#28**

jts wrote:

Well, one thing to think about is time use. In the first and third game you're using about 6 seconds per move, in the second, what, 12-15 seconds per move? Some people swear by blitz, but I would say (i) choose time limits appropriate to your playing speed to improve your focus, and (ii) experiment with playing more slowly. Personally, I can't imagine how I would improve if I didn't think about my moves before I played them.

Take game 1, :b21:

- this seems pretty bad to me, abandoning cutting stones in a way that also strands two other stones in a valuable area. Should you always save your cutting stones? No, definitely not. Is it possible that n4 leads to disaster? Sure - I've only read out a couple lines. Should you play :b17:

and then immediately abandon it? Definitely not; this seems inconsistent. :b45:

seems slightly slow. It seems that you might be unaware that these sorts of endgame moves are more meaningful when they threaten a weak group's base, which is a basic concept, but probably I'm reading too much into it... you only took three seconds on the move. :w46:

is an interesting defensive move that doesn't actually threaten to do anything. But again, you connect in three seconds.

Do you see what I mean? It's hard for me to assess what your various moves mean if they were mostly played reflexively. If you took two minutes to think before connecting with :b47:

, I would say, "Aha, there is some basic concept here about when to save stones that Paradox is missing - if only we can figure out what that is, he'll make huge strides!"

It's weird, because looking at the game now, I can clearly see why :b47:

was a bad move. I don't know why I played it. Maybe it is me playing too fast. I actually hate blitz. I only play 15 min + games. But I still end up playing fast I guess.

ParadoxGo · **#29**

SmoothOper wrote:

EdLee wrote:

ParadoxGo wrote:

I do think a major issue of mine is misreading fights and situations.

Yes. It's in your basics.

ParadoxGo wrote:

I can usually set myself up pretty well, but then fail during the actual battle.

Exactly. This is why your first 3 opening moves (or even the first 10 or 20) don't matter so much,
unless you make some bad moves (like opening at 1-1, or 2nd line too early, etc.),
or like :b9:

in game 1 -- it's mostly in your basics.

It's par for the course you will get a lot of non sense approach moves that aren't in the book for while, until you figure out how to punish them, at which point you will learn about whole new sets of problems. I'm curious what is the strategy, build 3-4 5-4 shimaris or moyos? I would think mini-Chinese formations from the 3-4 would interesting.

Was this a question for me? I don't completely understand.

Loons · **#30**

I'm not a fan of saying the first [five] moves don't matter much.

The fuseki seems like playing an extension before a shimari, which is conventionally a mistake.

Of course, more detail is probably in order.

I think the extension (q10) is just a moyo building move, and your two corner stones don't want a moyo yet. The bottom right is free for the taking (no points there) and the top right can be flattened. You say you can make the other shimari, but white has already spent moves spoiling/limiting a moyo on the right, so then spending more moves building a moyo on the right is less good.

I think sanrensei and Chinese are better. What are some reasons for that? I think it's to do with white's options for 6.

SoDesuNe · **#31**

ParadoxGo wrote:

What do you suggest I do? I read Sensei's Library quite often and practice on Go Problems all the time. But I continue to mess up basics like the ones in my game.

What do you read on Sensei's Library and what problems do you solve?

Regulary posting lost games, which are difficult for you to understand can help as well as replaying professional games to get a feeling for good shape and the flow of the stones : )

ParadoxGo · **#32**

Loons wrote:

I'm not a fan of saying the first [five] moves don't matter much.

The fuseki seems like playing an extension before a shimari, which is conventionally a mistake.

Of course, more detail is probably in order.

I think the extension (q10) is just a moyo building move, and your two corner stones don't want a moyo yet. The bottom right is free for the taking (no points there) and the top right can be flattened. You say you can make the other shimari, but white has already spent moves spoiling/limiting a moyo on the right, so then spending more moves building a moyo on the right is less good.

I think sanrensei and Chinese are better. What are some reasons for that? I think it's to do with white's options for 6.

I think I understand actually. I've stopped using this fuseki, and what you say makes sense. I really prefer an enclosure shimari, giving myself moyo in the corner.

ParadoxGo · **#33**

SoDesuNe wrote:

ParadoxGo wrote:

What do you suggest I do? I read Sensei's Library quite often and practice on Go Problems all the time. But I continue to mess up basics like the ones in my game.

What do you read on Sensei's Library and what problems do you solve?

Regulary posting lost games, which are difficult for you to understand can help as well as replaying professional games to get a feeling for good shape and the flow of the stones : )

I just go to random pages on SL, look at good shapes, common terms, stuff like that. For Go Problems it's similar; I just do random problems. So Life and Death, Tesuji, etc.

But I'll start doing those bottom two suggestions! Thanks, that's a good idea.

SoDesuNe · **#34**

ParadoxGo wrote:

I just go to random pages on SL, look at good shapes, common terms, stuff like that. For Go Problems it's similar; I just do random problems. So Life and Death, Tesuji, etc.

Another thing that might help is to focus your approach a bit. Visiting random pages and reading some bits here and there seems not very beneficial to me.

If you are misreading fights, I can recommend Tesuji problems because they often deal with shape and exploiting weaknesses in such. I also can recommend Attack and Defense for a more theory heavy approach.
Furthermore there are Get Strong at Attacking and Invading but I don't own them so I can't say whether they are really useful.

For the opening in general, I can recommend Get Strong at the Opening and 501 Opening Problems. Both books favour a teaching by example approach and don't explain in depth why the correct move is the best one, the books show some variations though. My experience is that you intuitively grasp the concept behind it and when you repeatedly solve those books you become faster and better with every try.

jts · **#35**

Have you done an actual tsumego set? For example, tsumego.tasuki.org has three sets, each of ~900 problems. Try those, see how it goes.

judicata · **#36**

Loons wrote:

I'm not a fan of saying the first [five] moves don't matter much.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "don't matter." I am assuming your responding to comments like those EdLee has made (and I have elsewhere).

I don't think we'd suggest that someone should just throw the first 5 moves or so on the board without thinking about them. Or that someone could just pass for the first 5 moves and it wouldn't affect the outcome. In that sense, I completely agree--I wouldn't say the first 5 moves "don't matter."

But, as EdLee said, aside from playing something like the 1-1, amateur players aren't going to lose because they played an unconventional opening. Of course, the same thing applies to pros--just ask Go Seigen, Takemiya, or O Meien. In addition, a lot can be learned by playing "strange" openings. I'm still confident that games are not won or lost in the first few moves, especially at our level.

I also suspect that some people (not necessarily you) are not comfortable with that statement because they believe it suggests that all the time they've spent studying opening theory isn't useful. But that's not what it suggests. In fact, I think that proper study of the opening would, if anything, give you an advantage in games with an unconventional opening--whether it is you or the other player who is on the "weird" side.

What my statement does suggest, however, is that simply memorizing different branches/sequences of the Chinese Opening/Shusaku Opening/Orthodox, etc., while not a waste of time, can be can be rendered less useful quite easily. In fact, one reason I sometimes open with points like the 5-3 or 6-4 is to get my opponent out of his/her comfort zone, or to prevent a "favorite" opening (mostly to perhaps avoid a trick move I don't know, get a slight psychological advantage, and just for fun). Of course, when we talk about branches/sequences of an opening, we're no longer talking about the first 5 moves, either...

Just for fun, here are the first five moves of one of O Meien's games.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B O Meien (b) Cho Chikun (w) $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

(Just an interesting side note, white resigned after 75 moves.)

ParadoxGo · **#37**

SoDesuNe wrote:

ParadoxGo wrote:

I just go to random pages on SL, look at good shapes, common terms, stuff like that. For Go Problems it's similar; I just do random problems. So Life and Death, Tesuji, etc.

Another thing that might help is to focus your approach a bit. Visiting random pages and reading some bits here and there seems not very beneficial to me.

If you are misreading fights, I can recommend Tesuji problems because they often deal with shape and exploiting weaknesses in such. I also can recommend Attack and Defense for a more theory heavy approach.
Furthermore there are Get Strong at Attacking and Invading but I don't own them so I can't say whether they are really useful.

For the opening in general, I can recommend Get Strong at the Opening and 501 Opening Problems. Both books favour a teaching by example approach and don't explain in depth why the correct move is the best one, the books show some variations though. My experience is that you intuitively grasp the concept behind it and when you repeatedly solve those books you become faster and better with every try.

I think right now I need to learn how to attack and defend better. So I'll look into Attack and Defense, because I think I really need to work on those skills.

jts wrote:

Have you done an actual tsumego set? For example, tsumego.tasuki.org has three sets, each of ~900 problems. Try those, see how it goes.

I have done a lot. I also have SmartGo Kifu on my phone. But I'll go to that website too!

SmoothOper · **#38**

judicata wrote:

Loons wrote:

I'm not a fan of saying the first [five] moves don't matter much.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "don't matter." I am assuming your responding to comments like those EdLee has made (and I have elsewhere).

It means Ed Lee isn't comfortable discussing relative merits of the opening, and really doesn't like playing non main stream openings, so he is going to denigrate them by trying to render them irrelevant, contrary to volumes of text on the subject.

Dusk Eagle · **#39**

SmoothOper wrote:

judicata wrote:

Loons wrote:

I'm not a fan of saying the first [five] moves don't matter much.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "don't matter." I am assuming your responding to comments like those EdLee has made (and I have elsewhere).

It means Ed Lee isn't comfortable discussing relative merits of the opening, and really doesn't like playing non main stream openings, so he is going to denigrate them by trying to render them irrelevant, contrary to volumes of text on the subject.

Where on Earth do you get this stuff from? Ed Lee has been supportive of experimenting with this opening in this thread. He just rightly points out that the wins or losses ParadoxGo experienced in the games he tried with this opening were probably caused far more by later mistakes than by any deficiency in the first three moves.

Frankly, your post comes across as rather rude, and I don't appreciate that towards one of the most helpful and polite contributors to this site. You can express disagreement with him without the snark you expressed above.

My Fuseki

Who is online