Life In 19x19 http://lifein19x19.com/ |
|
256, MinjaeKim v Elom http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=12531 |
Page 2 of 4 |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Ladder doesn't work, so seems to be the only move. |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
The game has come to this point, and I've often found positions in which I see no clear direction quite challenging.
This doesn't seem to have any real strategy. White's position in the lower left betrays the normal direction of such an enclosure, and if white plays on the bottomside next move, it almost rubs salt on the would of playing in this area of the board yet again.
As mentioned earlier, a seemed narrow-sighted. Playing around b seemed a better possibility, however, I wasn't sure that moving upon another point on the board wouldn't far outweigh the value of b. Actually, I'm starting to believe (atQ9) may have caused the position to sway in white's favour So considering options c to l, I discarded i, believing I couldn't create a group strong enough to truly neutralise the lower left influence-- which could the make in into an object of attack. c didn't quite satisfy me because of a possible pincer at d, d didn't make sense because of k, despite seeming a more effective option for the lower left than i, e didn't appear to make the most directional sense, and after spending some time reading out the results of h and g,it just didn't seem possible to avoid the amount of influence white would get. Therefore, j seemed a good try, however it let white use both his upper right jonseok and influence on the left side of the board by pincer at l; I never thought of l as a move. f may have been better than j, but the m17 group also created a directional issue.
|
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Black eventually has to go back to lower right to make his last move meningful, so why not just play thick and secure? |
Author: | Elom [ Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
30pts. That's the territorial difference within blacks framework I calculated after white invades at a in response to , compared to if black defends around a, allowing white a cap at b in the diagram below.
I was worried that it would transform L3 into a liability, tempting black to defend it once more (a waste of initiative?). White having a stone at b may have a negative effect on deciphering the intent of black's stones to the right, it seems that there is a major enough difference in potential for black in the center and a significant enough effect on the potential of white in the center left/left of the board to make moving around 27 a viable path. Is it worth over 30 points? If I could answer such questions, the opening would be less of a mental marathon workout.
Some may feel the need to take advantage of forcing moves before a placement such as However, as a rule of thumb, if ther is no good reason for a peek, it better be left unplayed, however it's hard to say if there really is no benefit to this. |
Author: | Kirby [ Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:09 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
FYI, you can put a space prior to "Prisoners" in your diagram code. The way it is currently, since there's no space, the code parsing tries to interpret "Prisoners" and lists it as text that's part of the image. So use "$$cm21 Prisoners" instead of "$$cm21Prisoners". It will look like this:
as opposed to this:
Note that I'll be making some improvements to the diagram code shortly, but maybe it'll be released sometime after the new year. Work has been a little busy lately, since I'm "on call". In the meantime, just use a space in your diagram code to avoid the weird text that's part of the image |
Author: | skydyr [ Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
@observers only Elom wrote:
30pts. That's the territorial difference within blacks framework I calculated after white invades at a in response to , compared to if black defends around a, allowing white a cap at b in the diagram below.
I was worried that it would transform L3 into a liability, tempting black to defend it once more (a waste of initiative?). White having a stone at b may have a negative effect on deciphering the intent of black's stones to the right, it seems that there is a major enough difference in potential for black in the center and a significant enough effect on the potential of white in the center left/left of the board to make moving around 27 a viable path. Is it worth over 30 points? If I could answer such questions, the opening would be less of a mental marathon workout.
Some may feel the need to take advantage of forcing moves before a placement such as However, as a rule of thumb, if ther is no good reason for a peek, it better be left unplayed, however it's hard to say if there really is no benefit to this. This is certainly a strong invitation to invade the corner for white, probably at 3-3. If white can come out with sente, white is clearly ahead. I'm not certain that white can't build his own position and remain in the game, though, particularly if black has to go back and cover the corner at some point. @Elom Could you elaborate on your counting of 30 points? |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Here feels like the most interesting area left on the board. Now black has some choices: to invade the upper side, left side, or solidify his lower right corner. |
Author: | Elom [ Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Kirby wrote: FYI, you can put a space prior to "Prisoners" in your diagram code. The way it is currently, since there's no space, the code parsing tries to interpret "Prisoners" and lists it as text that's part of the image... I came across this function by accident, and thought it may be interesting to put a little line there such as komi, but I'm not sure if anyone may find it slightly distracting
Move 29: L-13 An extremely hard position for me to process; feel free to giggle
It would be satisfying to make white respond to another black move in the center, however, I'm not sure that's the way to go because it is difficult identifying a move which threatened to surround territory with one more move. a appeared to leave the weakness at d, of course would be far contrived, I considered the move b rather intensely, as it could prompt white to secure the lower left area; but could black induce any significant effects within that area after another white move, or would it be pushing too far? In actual terms, it was basically holding stones for an invasion until just the right moment. If black came in at a point like e at this very moment, white could attack on f and start turning potential into territory. stems from wanting to limit one of white's areas, preparing for an invasion, while being flexible on areas that are hard to secure (O-14 looks like an easy weakness), as black's moyou seems smaller than white's in any case. "...Could you elaborate on your counting of 30 points?..."
The best variation I read for black, didn't seem to need to be a connection. The bad count of thirty points didn't take into consideration the territory white will control, so now it looks seems a reduction of well over forty points.
It appeared that if white were to move in the lower right corner, in response to , [i]a or b would allow white to creep into a very large amount of points. i] |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
It feels like playing with a time bomb in games like this. Someone will have to invade and a huge fight will likely happen, but who and when and where. |
Author: | Elom [ Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Move 31: D-11 These types of moyou games are among the most difficult for me to play, the time spent pondering this move and the one before are the longest of the game so far. I'm unsure of whether I could afford such a move, but black should probably go for a stretch in order to have a fighting chance. Hoping to strengthen the area around k10 as well as O14: the sacrifice is that it may become just that one step harder to dissemble white's territory, and it's possible that this move just went for too much... A lot from here on depends upon how white responds, I guess. |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
|
Author: | Elom [ Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Looks like black has no choice. |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
First, I don't feel like responding with H11 for example. My thick wall may become inefficient compared to black's light framework. If black plays H11 I'll play M9. If black plays M9 I'll play J11. |
Author: | Elom [ Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Move 35:
This was the type of move I expected; the only way for black not to lose seems to be to yield an incredible amount of profit from attacking. But it was still hard to come to a decision. Playing at a may mean white can move to , and it's not enough. Black also has to take into account the invasion at 5-4 corner and the weakness above. Black would like to play moves at c and d, so playing b right now looks out of the question. But how does black want to attack? It was impossible to come to a satisfying decision.
The marked exchange strengthens white considerably, which is why I originally planned to wait before finally extending to the circled point,, but tweaked strategy. Black wants to use the points a to c. |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Unexpected, but this exchange seems to help me a bit. |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
My apologies for the holiday delay;
Black's previous move was [i]probably[i] inadequate. Because of the imperfections within black's shape, I planned to reduce the white territory and decide on what to direction to go with my territory depending white's choices, however with every move black procrastinates, it would become harder. Now it's harder to use the peek at G6. Black's stones in the center seem flimsy, but I have what should count (hopefully) as a plan and not a dream to secure them. |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
|
Author: | Elom [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
If black initiates d18-e18-c18, I fear white has sente to impose a great deal of forcing moves upon black as I don't see any need for white to answer the c18 ladder threat. |
Author: | MinjaeKim [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
I want to enclose black in sente. |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 256, MinjaeKim v Elom |
Move 41: B18, Block
I hoped to play at , however I've now noticed A white move on the triangle point seems quite severe. |
Page 2 of 4 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |