Men are notoriously bad at multi-tasking but I'll give it a go.
I aim to address all the following at once:
1.There is a current thread here on group tax
2. There is a current thread here on group tax on ladders
3. There is too much on AI here - human foibles need to be restored to their rightful place
4. Lockdpwn balm is still needed for some.
Being a mere male, I will cheat (thus addressing another current thread) and combine all these tasks into one doable effort.
I therefore offer an old Chinese game from the 19th century which really does my job fore me. All I have done is to translate the ancient commentary.
Before you embark on this game you need to grasp, not as a rules maven but as a go player, that it is governed by group tax. There is far, far more to this than counting. It affects strategy from move 1. There are strong reasons for avoiding 3-3 invasions and for keeping the opponent separated, or yourself connected. For the same reason the 9-3 points in each quadrant (e.g. J3 and C9 in the lower left "ping" 平 quadrant) take on overwhelming significance. The theory of the 9-3 points was developed over several centuries, and reached in its massive tome "Yili Zhigui" on go theory by Shi Dingan (this is the original Yili Zhigui, not the tiny appendix which has been translated into English). Old Chinese go theory differs from Japanese theory nit just in content but in the amount of words written about it: almost a 100:1 ratio.
Because of the different strategies available in old Chinese go, terminology differs radically. I won't go onto that here (knotwilg breathes sigh of relief?
) but will make the point that to be true to the old Chinese commentaries we need to use new terms as here. To give one example, invasions were often a no-no (making an isolated groups loses two points) and so more emphasis was put on encroachments from the side (i.e. reducing while staying connected). For reason connected with the 9-3 points great emphasis was put on splitting moves on the side, which include what we could call kakaris. Thickness as a concept by
shi or power, which very often manifests itself as an emphasis on spheres of influence, which was handy in that moyos were rare and so rarely identified as such, but it also mean that power could be used for connecting or separating as well as for attacking. There's a huge amount more that could be said. The commentary will highlight a few more things.
To show respect to the Chinese origin of this game, I have also adopted several of their terms to give Achinese favour, e.g. glide instead of knight's move.
The players here are (White) the monk Qiu Hang and Shen Jiezhi. Qiu had a bit of reputation of his own but he is perhaps best known as the teacher of Zhou Xiaosong, the Japanese Shuwa.
No result is given. That is an irritatingly common feature of old Chinese games. The harsh words about individual players are by no means rare. Snowflakes beware!
10 should not be the slant here. It should be the press at O16.
11 should be the three-space extension to R10 to be the first to take control of the overall game.
12 is a common bad habit. It should be the splitting move at R9.
15 and 17 are very bad. If he wanted to take the corner like this, why was 11 not at the 3-3 point? 15 should have been the brace at O18.
18 is a knee-jerk move. It shoukd be the connection at Q17, White plays R15, Black only then pushes in at 18, and with the change in the order of moves the deficiencies of White’s overplay are exposed.
19 is very big.
20 is another bad move and should be the splitting move at R6.
21 is inevitable.
23 is an overplay and should be the large glide at G17.
28 is vulgar. If he had it in mind to make a base with a ONE-space extension, then why did he not play the Double Gliding Swallows opening with 22 at F1? He should now hane at G13. It is more important not to lose his shape,
29 is shallow thinking. Up to 45, not only does his play lack any deep meaning, but also what he gains does not compensate for what he loses. He ought to have blocked at E5. The meaning then would be to retreat in order to advance.
47 shows a poor understanding of substance and lack of substance. In this position he ought to make the extension to J3.
52 should also be an extension, to H3. This glide attack of 52 – what on earth was its real meaning?
58 is very weak-spirited. He should hit at H7. 56 before that should have blocked at E5. He already has an important hane there so the meaning lies in that rather than in 56, and to retreat as he does increases the feeling that he is going astray.
61 lacks oomph. It should be the cap at L5.
62 should likewise make barrier at L5. Now is not the time to be thinking about invading.
63 is correct.
65 is not a serious attempt to capture. It should be the wedge in at P3.
66 is a knee-jerk move. This too should be at P3, connecting.At a juncture when they ought to be weighing every step, why are both sides being so rash?
74 is very weak. He should connect at O4. From his willingness to cede the cut his lack of true strength can be inferred.
Aftet the hit at 79, the game should have already been decided.
Later, Black stretched out at 96, but White 99 to 111 managed to find a way to put on pressure from the left. However, because Black 112 hit once too often, he inflicted a defect on his own base. If we assume 112 was connection underneath at T14 directly, White’s walling-off plays [in the centre] would be deficient, and so the outcome of the game would still be uncertain.
117 lacks precision. We already know he has the skilful cut at N12. He should therefore first hit at T12 and only then play out the ladder with 117. This reduces Black’s options. When, as here, he ladders without hitting, Black could have played instead of 130 the cut at K8, and the subsequent trades might not have been so convenient for White.
In this game, both Black and White made many mistakes, and it really should not have been recorded. But simply because it was a game between the venerable Qiu and Jiezhi, I have left it in in order to show some variety.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
John Fairbairn
Even then the reviewer knew what bots "proved" to us now: More often than not this kosumi is "weak". I remember learning it in handicap games. Not because it was necessarily the strongest move but because White often did not have any immediate moves to force a fight. Aside from that I often err where to attach...
Guilty, would have done the same. O17 stone feels weaker to me than R14, so... defend your weakest stones?
Another handicap trauma: Sensei's stones never died after cutting the Keima. Mine often did : (
and onward - reviewer's comments make sense to me. Cutting R13, then playing R11 and still having a lot of aji certainly feels bad.
I struggle with center plays and would definitely played this at F17. Double approach cum extension, getting safety after White got a solid group in the top right. Furthermore, after getting swindled on the right at least I get the initiative?
A move I would applaud, if it weren't for the review and the recommended follow-up (I guess E15 instead of E5 was meant?).
Funnily enough I would have liked this move. Black's stones on the left feel very dominating towards the center, so jumping up instead of making a base seems more enterprising. My "fear" after making a base with J3 would be that Black shoulder-hits and presses me down while building the center. Lost many a game this way (mostly giving handicap).
H3 would have also been my move.
Atari H7 would feel strong but I am concerned about White pushing through at D5, cutting off the corner. Probably White has to get back and defend the Atari or Ponnuki would be too good but what does I know?
Such intricacies! Earlier this move was the best for Black, now it's not enough for White to defend...
I agree with the reviewer.
Connecting, seriously? A stick of three does not feel like a fighting shape, but on that note: The way Black plays it locally does not indicated fighting spirit, too. Just connecting at 
does not sit well with me.