Small point.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . 2 4 . . .
$$. . . O 1 3 . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .[/go]

Generally, is not good, because is allows , which forms a hane at the head of two stones shape, which is good for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . 2 3 . . .
$$. . . O 1 . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .[/go]

The hane back is often best. The point is, if Black is concerned with being connected, she should not normally start with the attachment, .

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think I'm going to give up on this little endeavor, if, for no other reason, everything I say is apparently wrong.

Granted, I know some of it was wrong, and I had intended only to demonstrate a situation where the move could possibly be used, not necessarily that it was the best move, or even a good move.


But, given that almost every diagram I've posted has been picked apart by those stronger than me, I'm going to chalk this one up to, why bother, and give it a miss.

I told myself I wasn't going to respond to every posted diagram that I had posted to try to demonstrate a concept, which someone responded to by showing how that wasn't the strongest move.

But I can't resist.



You're right. Next time I'll use...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Not connected
$$| . . . . . . .
$$| . . . . . . .
$$| . . . 1 . . .
$$| . . X O . . .
$$| . . X O . . .
$$| . . O X X . .
$$| . . O . . . .
$$| . . O . . . .[/go]

to set up the shape I wanted to demonstrate. Or I would if I felt like there would be a next time, but I'm just not that interested any more.



While this is true, it's hardly a simple thing to explain to a beginner, and, ends up with a worse shape for black if white cuts, though a better result than simply running in the long run.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . 7 2 3 . . .
$$. . . O 1 4 . . .
$$. . . 6 5 . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .[/go]

the results of this fight depend largely on the rest of a board that doesn't exist, and are hard to explain to a beginner. This little article wasn't meant to demonstrate the best moves, or good shape, but to talk about connections just a little. 3 in my diagram is solidly connected, but slow, and that's why I chose that diagram.

Whether it's a good idea for black to attach or not, what sort of fight develops from 3, and where to go from there is far more advanced than I'd intended my discussion to get.



Again with the, this isn't the move I was trying to demonstrate. Nor was I trying to demonstrate the best move. I suppose a better diagram might have been...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . O . 1 . . .
$$. . O . X . O . X
$$. . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . .[/go]

Though why on earth white would play in this manner is beyond me.

In short, you're all right. The diagrams don't include what I would think of as 'best play' or necessarily 'good shape', but I was trying to demonstrate concepts, not analyze positions.

Gosh. You need more stress tolerance. An advice to beginners emphasising the importance of staying connected is perfectly welcome. Capturing cutting stones when possible is one way to do so. To point this out is neither nitpicking nor suggesting you do not know nets, changing one stone in the diagram isn't too much work either. But using bad examples does hurt beginners, who do learn as much or more subconsciously from the diagrams as from explanatory texts that may be perfectly fine. Many on this forum can probably tell stories about that.

P.S. If you care you can look at EndgameTesuji16 on SL, where literally the same happened to me. A mistake shockingly pointed out by a weaker player.

I agree completely with Tapir, and I've tried to be as constructive as possible in what I have said.

I'm not even suggesting you use or respond to anything - you are quite within your rights to ignore everything everyone says and do what you want anyway. If there are things that you read and go "Oh yeah, that would make my article better", then by all means adopt them, if you feel they've missed the point / tone / idea, don't take them as personal criticisms of your Go knowledge, rather as things of possible interest yet of little relevance to your article, and steam ahead anyway.

CSamurai, actually this has been a good learning experience for you.

I somewhat sympthize with CSamurai though.

It's like being hit with 20-volume encyclopedia when you're trying to say something much simpler than that.

Simplicity, correctness, and a good explanation are three different things.
In fact, often some things that appear simple are very difficult if not impossible to be easily explained, let alone explained well.
As we have seen in this thread.

I am sorry if I discouraged you. I know from painful experience how difficult it is to compose a good problem, or even an example.

As a 5 kyu you are well qualified to advise DDKs. You are playing a different game from them, and what you say can open eyes. At the same time, you are close enough in strength to them that you can understand their thinking.

If I may make a suggestion, take examples from real games. As I said, it is very difficult to make up a good problem or example. It is too easy to get some detail wrong, often something that is peripheral to the point you want to make. That happens even in books by pros. But if you see a mistake in a DDK game, odds are good that you really understand it, and it will make a good example. OTOH, if you see an example of a good play in a pro game, odds are that it really is a good move.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I agree. Well put.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Also, beginners focus on weird things. Example: the first time I didn't Cho Chikun's elementary L&D problems, I spent way too much time thinking about whether or not W could escape by crawling along the edge, which is never, ever the point of any L&D problem (unless they actually show some stones outside that W can escape to). Better to make problems and diagrams where the move you suggest is both a good illustration and indisputably the best move.

You don't know it's weird, stupid or silly unless you have first considered it.

As a beginner, you need to have every stupid idea there is, and then reject each one.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that time was well spent.

For what it's worth, I think I learn more faster from reading these squabbles (cough) discussions between stronger players than any of the Go books or practice against the computer I've had. So, CSamurai, please feel free to post more articles. (And everyone else, quibble away!)

My sentiments exactly. I enjoyed your article, CSamurai.

_________________
<(^.^)>

*joins chorus*

I think I used to be better at explaining things to beginners/DDKs. Nowadays, I honestly can't for the life of me understand what they are thinking. I think people just a few levels above you are likely best at explaining what you need to know, because it's information they themselves have recently learned and they haven't had time yet to make it unconscious knowledge. So don't give up.

Of course, it is a fact of life that only the strongest go player in the room is correct, and anything anyone else says will invariably have some flaw. And the internet is a very big room.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com