Life In 19x19
http://lifein19x19.com/

Revisiting Go
http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10448
Page 4 of 5

Author:  Loons [ Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Not go

Yesterday spent the entire day rebranding myself as a Python programmer. Numpy, Scipy, etc, opencv! I feel like I should wear cooler clothing.

Author:  Loons [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Read the first, nirensei vs nirensei section of Way to Play for the 21st Century.

It's an interesting exploration of a tightly bound even opening, with professionally tempting diversions that turn out to be bad. I shall try and net some games with openings from the book, or at least openings inspired by. Go Seigen's presentation of the need for balance reminds of games where my moves seemed good but were impossibly daunting by the end of fuseki.

Go Seigen, A Way to Play for the 21st Century wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm11 Study of Nirensei (2) Figure 2 (11-16)
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . 1 5 X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


I desperately want to be the kind of player who will find and play :w14: , though I don't think I have even ever played :b13: !

Author:  schawipp [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Quote:
I desperately want to be the kind of player who will find and play :w14: , ...


Could you explain what is so special about :w14:? My thoughts so far: If white later invades at M3 there will be the miai of jumping out or connecting to :w14:. But I'm not sure if :w14: needs to be played first or if omitting :w14: is more flexible. Maybe I've missed the real point about it(?).

Author:  Loons [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Edit :

If black defends bottom too loose, O3 or Q3 will threaten to live on bottom or take the corner.

Author:  schawipp [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Loons wrote:
If black defends bottom too loose, O3 or Q3 will threaten to live on bottom or take the corner.


Yes, :w14: forces black to solidify his corner/bottom, so why not play :w16: right away and leave the corner undefended and wait for a better moment? Or did you mean that black needs another move at the bottom after :w16: making :w14: kind of sente'ish?

Author:  Loons [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

What next moves are you imagining? Implicitly black will play S6 next. I'm not really aware of white M3 invasion? I thought that was typically a mistake.

Author:  Loons [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Right, in greater detail, 14 is the typical invasion in that shape. At 14 any answer other than connecting the peep would be trying too hard/be terrible. White could wait for later, but black is trying to build a moyo on bottom that white must address. Later, black could respond at 15, O3 or Q3 and has a better idea if the corner or moyo are worth more.

Author:  Uberdude [ Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

The reason for playing 14 now is that black cannot resist it now, for example if black plays o3 or q3 then s5 s4 q5 r4 p4 connects to p3, breaking black's shape in half. On other hand if you play it later, after black has got s6 say and the p7 tesuji, then black may be able to answer differently (though the s5 tesuji might still exist).

Author:  Loons [ Sat Jul 18, 2015 6:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

For some reason I failed to mention that Go Seigen is specifically weighing in on Schawipp's suggestion. He does not like what was (is?) the standard line.

I got a nirensei v nirensei game! Naturally my opponent played 13...push Q8 etc instead of kick. I am getting more comfortable with these 4-4, one space pincer, jump joseki. My opponent also decided to make a heavy group and die that game.

Read the first few sanrensei variations.

I often get lost playing this invasion, perhaps partially because I think about the ladders too late:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm17 Sanrensei vs Nirensei, diagram 2
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . 4 1 . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . O 3 2 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


I guess Go Seigen's book is slower going since it's very theoretical, whereas Master of Haengma was very intuition full board problem readingy, fundamentally a problem book. Still, enjoying the book a lot!

Author:  Loons [ Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go


Terrible game by me as black, though my opponent managed to give it away so a terrible game all round. A little bit of very bitter self review.

Attachments:
Loons.sgf [6.74 KiB]
Downloaded 243 times

Author:  skydyr [ Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Loons wrote:
For some reason I failed to mention that Go Seigen is specifically weighing in on Schawipp's suggestion. He does not like what was (is?) the standard line.

I got a nirensei v nirensei game! Naturally my opponent played 13...push Q8 etc instead of kick. I am getting more comfortable with these 4-4, one space pincer, jump joseki. My opponent also decided to make a heavy group and die that game.

Read the first few sanrensei variations.

I often get lost playing this invasion, perhaps partially because I think about the ladders too late:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm17 Sanrensei vs Nirensei, diagram 2
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . 4 1 . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . O 3 2 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


I guess Go Seigen's book is slower going since it's very theoretical, whereas Master of Haengma was very intuition full board problem readingy, fundamentally a problem book. Still, enjoying the book a lot!


Perhaps you could salvage it by turning it into a reduction/moyo expansion using the point below :w18:?

Author:  Loons [ Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

19 : 23 is Go Seigen's suggestion, sorry ;p

Author:  Loons [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

I tenuously still exist.

I seem to be able to play still (I'm black):


Black getting 10 points bottom left in sente was too good.

I think white became slack around 50 and should have looked for trouble to use all the thickness, though the game did become quite close.

Attachments:
asdf.sgf [4.32 KiB]
Downloaded 213 times

Author:  EdLee [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:38 am ]
Post subject: 

Hi Loons,

Welcome back.

:b21: I wonder if helping your K4 floating group would be better ?

:w22: K10 ?

:w32: H5 ?

:b51: o14 double hane ?

:b53: - :w54: good exchange for W ?

:b57: Q17 ?

:b67: E15 ?

Author:  Uberdude [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

q5 was soft and white l5 in response would have made things considerably tougher for you. One point jump to k6 would have been simple and good.

Author:  skydyr [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Out of curiosity, why did you abandon the cutting stone at N10? It seemed like keeping white separated or later using it to squeeze white could only have been good.

Author:  Loons [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

The reason I never saved N10 was that I wanted to secure a big top like white already had a big left. My original plan for :b63: was to split the still kind of unsettled top right, potentially heavy right and hopefully bottom right. I got cold feet because if somehow the fight went well for white and white also got the next move top left, black would have no way of winning. So I took a trade (that my opponent seemed happy with, yes).

Author:  skydyr [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

Loons wrote:
The reason I never saved N10 was that I wanted to secure a big top like white already had a big left. My original plan for :b63: was to split the still kind of unsettled top right, potentially heavy right and hopefully bottom right. I got cold feet because if somehow the fight went well for white and white also got the next move top left, black would have no way of winning. So I took a trade (that my opponent seemed happy with, yes).


I thought even at :b51: black could extend out, threatening to capture the two white stones, before he had to worry about the cut that was protected by the game move. At that point, at least, I feel there is enough invasion potential on the left that black doesn't need to start panicking as yet.

Later, once the upper white stones are more settled, there's less point, to be sure.

Author:  Loons [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

So my question is, in this case was it safer to attack white on the right v. building top and reducing left? I suspect both white and I were counting ourselves ahead around this point.

Author:  Loons [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting Go

On some level I appreciate that I played soft here somewhere, but I have a lot of trouble seeing it.

After :b57: black top is more secure as points. I thought :w56: was an overplay, though I think I missed playing good sente when I tenukied to top left.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm51
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . X O . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . . X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . X . O X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . X O O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . . |
$$ | . . O O O O O . . X . . O . . O X . . |
$$ | . . X X . X . O . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


This seems risky to me:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm51
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . c 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . b X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . a X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . X . O X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . X O O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . . |
$$ | . . O O O O O . . X . . O . . O X . . |
$$ | . . X X . X . O . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Because I was worried white might be as crazy as I am:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm51
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . 6 5 X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . 4 X O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . X . O X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . X O O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . . |
$$ | . . O O O O O . . X . . O . . O X . . |
$$ | . . X X . X . O . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


The reason I'm interested in 63 is because:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X W . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . X . . . . X O W . . |
$$ | . . . O . b . . . , . . . . . X B W . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . Q . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X @ a . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X @ . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . X @ . @ . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . . X @ . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . X . . . X . O X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . X O O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X . . |
$$ | . . O O O O O . . X . . O . . O X . . |
$$ | . . X X . X . O . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Top right might be a tripod + 1 group, centre right is just heavy and bottom right might live small(er). However for this reason I thought white would respond to my 'a' at 'b' and leave black overconcentrated.

Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/