And now, here are my questions:

1.) This sequence was given:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

with the comment:


I don't understand this way of playing. I would consider two variations:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 3 . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I understand there may be pros and cons between these two, but I am really inclined to kick if I don't cover. Is this bad because it makes the pincer stone weaker? While I'm writing this, I guess I am starting to think that the white stone gets lonely this way:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . W . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Since the kick doesn't secure the corner, maybe that's why it is bad here? The pincer stone isn't right for attacking the stones?

How about if the pincer is higher:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . W , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Is the kick appropriate here? Any other thoughts?

---

2.) Under "The Micro-Chinese Opening", Diagram 6, it says:


So with as is, this is acceptable:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . d . c X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But if were at C, it'd be okay to do this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

What's the deal here? Presumably, this means that white can't do this with the original placement. So this would be bad for white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

But this is good:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Why? Because black has more potential in the bottom right? I don't get it.

---

3.) In variation 15 of "The Micro-Chinese Opening", the commentary notes that it's difficult to attack the white stones given the flexible horse-head shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I still can see it might not be a great idea to go this route since white profits on the left so easily, but could black attack white's stones more strongly with a peep? I peep too often, though, so maybe this is one of those cases:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . 1 . 2 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 6 5 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Maybe my thought that white will connect with is naive? Or maybe it makes white too thick? Thoughts?

_________________
be immersed

Another idea that occurred to me was to make an Anki deck with he variations discussed here. A lot of the stuff in the opening includes common shapes, and the lessons could be worth remembering.

_________________
be immersed

Reading a bit of the upcoming week's material and one thing that strikes me as interesting is that the commentary seems to evaluate the game in a different way than I do. He points out that white has more points, but black is more powerful - so the game is balanced.

When evaluating, I always count points, and don't have many techniques in quantitying "power". So in the current game, I'd evaluate white as winning and feel behind as black.

Perhaps this is a reason for my thin play at times.

_________________
be immersed

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 3 . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is playable, I believe. It might be considered slightly slow for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

5 must be high here, or it's too easy for Black to settle (why?). In any case 1 is a bit too close IMO.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . W . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Since the kick doesn't secure the corner, maybe that's why it is bad here? The pincer stone isn't right for attacking the stones?

How about if the pincer is higher:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . W , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Still need one-space jump instead of knight's move. I prefer Black's position.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . W . X . a . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . W . . X . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Compare the invasions.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . 1 . 2 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 6 5 . 8 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What's your plan next for Black? You need to explain a little more.

With the low pincer, the kick just looks dangerous for white. While the enclosure isn't quite the right direction, black can still extend from the lower right to rob white from a base while getting almost as many points in the corner. Then, as the game shows, white still has to spend quite a few stones to capture the two black stones. Alternatively, black can sacrifice them and turn the lower left corner into a ko at worst.

The high pincer looks a little better because white isn't counting on making territory on the bottom, but it still seems he might be in danger of creating a floating group.


My justification based on the different placement of the stone in the mini/micro Chinese is that the low stone risks being in the wrong place if it can't become useful in an invasion of the bottom right. I don't think I can come up with a sequence to prove it, though.



Does this cut work after white connects?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

The problem with this variation is that White's corner is still open at ''a'', Black can still wedge at ''b'' and Black can decide to play on the left side. The White position has netto two stones, but has much more aji than the Black shimari.



Black can ignore after having been pincered at . Later, White will have to add another stone at to capture Black and will have spent netto 3 stones there. Of course, if Black adds then White can play and this reverts to the ideal situation.

In all cases the Black approach will have served the purpose of slowing down White's development.

I agree that high is better with the kick. I just don't see how the proposed variation is good/better:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
be immersed

The proposed variation is still open to invasion, right? How is there less aji?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
be immersed

Black can ignore here even more easily:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

My thinking is that white's response to the kick must be more valuable than black's kick?

_________________
be immersed

No, because White is wider now and more efficient.




I don't get this sentence.

Assuming tenuki, we can compare this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 5 . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . 3 X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

to this (I think is a natural followup):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 5 a . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I agree that the latter is wider, however, it does have more aji. For example, the hane at 'a' could come into play later more easily than in the first diagram. I suppose all other things being equal, I probably prefer the second diagram, so I can see your point.

However, if the board is such that you'll tenuki from the first diagram, I'd say there is still a good chance of tenuki from in the second diagram, too.



I mean that, in many cases, I don't think pros will tenuki from the kick - they will probably extend up. So the question becomes, is the exchange of kick+extension good for black or white? And at least with a close pincer like we're discussing, I'd say it's probably good for black, since white's pincering stone is so close.

_________________
be immersed

Just something I've seen (since I've been interested in this position since I often try to play the micro / mini chinese and will play the shimari instead of following up if they pincer my approach) - In your last diagram, from what I managed to make of pattern searches and databases the (much) more common follow up is to 5 - kick instead of 5 - cover. Also, white plays the knights move (3) before any kick or cover instead of any other local follow up by an order of magnitude. Why that is I'll leave to you far stronger players, but to me doesn't it come back to asking for more? White entices black to draw out the stone by greedily enlarging his area so that if black doesn't move it the profit will become too big if white decides to quash the aji?

Not much discussion on this week's material, but I'll post next week's "assignment" anyway. I'll also post some of my own notes and thoughts about this week's assignment shortly (I'm still finishing up).

Anyway, let's aim to cover the following by next week.

October 3, 2016

1. Hunt for Weaknesses
2. Sacrifice Stones to Gain Sente
3. Find Balance Amidst Chaos
4. Appearances Can Be Deceiving
5. The Cunning Rabbit Has Three Holes
6. Greed for the Win Takes the Win Away
7. Strike While the Iron Is Hot
8. Can't Capture? Think Endgame
9. Lee Sedol Chalks Up His First Win

This will complete the first game between Lee Sedol and Gu Li. Maybe after that, we can use the next week to review the entire game to see if anyone has any unresolved questions or discussion that they'd like to cover.

_________________
be immersed

I think that "current session: week 1" has caused some confusion and delay.

Okay. I forgot to update the title. For now, I've removed the "Week 1" part. Would it be good to make separate threads for separate weeks, or do you prefer to keep using this one?

_________________
be immersed

I have a mild preference for separate threads. If nothing else, it gives people a little kick to contribute again.

Since there is still no sign of the PDF edition, I finally gave in and ordered the paper version, which just arrived. That's a hefty book!

Okay. Since we've already started with this one, let's consider this first thread to cover the "January" material. That would conveniently encompass the topics we've covered so far.

From next week, I'll make separate threads for each week.

_________________
be immersed

I had to catch up from the beginning and got sick last week, too, so I had to struggle quite a bit to study up, which I did yesterday. I did take notes while studying, too, but I didn't have the time to type them and post them here.

I'd like to go on a little bit more leasurely. The time alotted for reading the material is fine, but I have difficulties finding the time then to type my notes or even discuss the game here (although I do check for posts here on a daily basis). Two or three days for discussion after each reading period would be nice, but one longer discussion period after each game would be fine for me, too.

All in all I have to say that I really enjoy studying the first game so far and I already learned quite a bit (have nearly 3 DIN A4 pages of notes so far). Especially the micro-Chinese fuseki and playing wide are new and interesting concepts for me, I already had good results with the 3 space extension - but then no one yet dared to jump right in, so that remains to be seen. You have to take small steps and right now I try to find more moves with multiple purposes, which is quite hard for me. Weak reading abilities might be the key to improving here.

I especially enjoyed variations 109 & 110 from this week's reading portion: This is a really clear and well-explained example on direction of play and I think a lot of people can use this information - I'll not post what is good or bad, I think the diagrammes speak for themselves (or am I wrong..?):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . |
$$ | . . . , . 0 . . . 6 . 7 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . 3 . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . 9 . . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 8 . . . X . O . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . X . . O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . X . O . , . . . . . , . c . |
$$ | . . O . . . X O X X X . X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . O . X O O X O X . X O O O O O . |
$$ | . . . O X . O O O O X O O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . O X X O O X O X . X . . |
$$ | . O O X X . O X X . O X X . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X O . X O X O , O O . . O , X . . |
$$ | . X O . O X X X . O . X . O . X . X . |
$$ | . X O . X O X . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . O . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . 3 5 7 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 1 2 4 . 6 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . O . . 8 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . X . . O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . X . O . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . X O X X X . X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . O . X O O X O X . X O O O O O . |
$$ | . . . O X . O O O O X O O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . O X X O O X O X . X . . |
$$ | . O O X X . O X X . O X X . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X O . X O X O , O O . . O , X . . |
$$ | . X O . O X X X . O . X . O . X . X . |
$$ | . X O . X O X . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . O . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

The games by Chinese and Korean players I replayed before seemed much more.. violent und uncomprehendible to me (one reason why I didn't follow the jubango although both players are undoubtedly great), so I was pleasantly surprised with the game so far. And the commentaries are really very thorough, too. I'm very glad I joined this study group and bought the book!

_________________

In general, I find the middle game fighting in professional games a little hard to follow. This is especially true of Lee Sedol's games; he often plays moves that are nearly incomprehensible to me. I did find a portion of the middle game challenging here, but it was more with regards to how Gu Li played. Lee Sedol's punishments look so obvious in retrospect that it's hard to believe Gu didn't see them.

Observations

• I found the corner sequence from 31-40 interesting, especially since it seemed it was basically to get an extra sente move on the outside and leave a little aji for later. I'm glad they showed the sequence for the other block for move 32, since I considered that when playing through the game without commentary.
• After move 44, I was surprised to read the game was still well balanced. I preferred black, though I guess white does more solid territory at that point.
• A move like 46 without an immediate follow up surprises me. I have very little concept of when to play moves like that.
• The key to this game for Lee Sedol seemed to be to figure out how to stay on the offensive without weakening his dragon too much.
• I really appreciated the commentary pointing out the difference between extending or jumping for 59. This is a decision that has to be backed up by reading, but I often play the jump by habit without making sure it really works.
• At 60-65, I can see why pros often evaluate who is ahead by looking for mistakes. Small mistakes carry so much weight when the opponent is able to exploit them!
• The variations for 79 show how awful it is to have 3 weak groups.
• By the time white was squeezed into a lump at 82, it just seemed so painful. I'm kind of surprised the game went on for as long as it did after this point.
• The comments about direction of play on 94 were interesting. They seem obvious in this context, but I make mistakes in this area in my own games at times.

Quotes that stood out

• "When your reading shows that a fight will lead to a bad result or will become difficult for you, you should search for another path."
  This seems like obvious advice, but I often do not follow it in my own games!
• "The side which knows when to fight and when not to will win"
  Again, I can see the tendency to fight when I shouldn't in my own games.
• "If you have to run, bring a friend"
  I like this advice quite a lot - if I must create a weak group, it makes sense to ensure my opponent has one too.
• "When the tactical prospects of a position seem dim, you should consider playing elsewhere."
  Too often I make my stones heavy by playing in an area I can't hope to make much profit.
• "If your stones are going to be separated anyway, you mustn't move them towards each other, otherwise you're playing the opponent's game for them."
• "If you can confine a group to the center, you can usually take profit while it slowly makes life."
• "Games are often reversed when we focus obsessively on capturing a group."

Questions

• 53, 61, and 67 all seem obvious in retrospect. (Not that most amateurs would come up with them, of course.) How did Gu miss these moves? I guess what I'm really wondering is how a strong professional goes through when evaluating his weak groups and deciding to play elsewhere.
• Why didn't Gu resign sooner? I suppose this will be answered in the rest of the commentary, but the position at the end of the section we read this week looks hopeless for white. I'm surprised the game went on for 150 more moves. (Note: peeked ahead. Yep, Gu thought it may still be playable because he could complicate the game after strengthening his weak group.)

Lessons to apply in my own games

• When moving out into the center, take time to read what will happen with a one space jump instead of assuming it's the best move.
• Don't move forward with moves that seem like they may leave me in a dubious position. In other words, work on more effectively evaluating whether the position that results from a fight will be in my favor. (I think there was a similar lesson in week 1, but this is still one of the areas where I feel there is room for immediate improvement in my game.
• Don't leave too many weak groups.
• If I must run to the center, make sure my opponent has a comparable weak group.

Why this one? I went ahead and checked this against the SmartGo pro games database and while it has been played, it only appears in 10% of games with this position. So there's something that pros must not like about this one?