Not one of the player's comments so far includes a diagram. My impression is that most stronger players use diagrams fairly often. My guess as to why is that these players are spending less thought about possible sequences in response to their moves than stronger players would.
It hadn't occurred to me to post diagrams during a game like this. The idea is to learn from one another's strategies, not to aid one another in reading. Just my thoughts.
Author:
EdLee [ Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:
For those unclear on the concept:
Hidden comments, such as daal's, posts 32 through 39, are NOT meant for the players, unless otherwise noted.
Not one of the player's comments so far includes a diagram. My impression is that most stronger players use diagrams fairly often. My guess as to why is that these players are spending less thought about possible sequences in response to their moves than stronger players would.
It hadn't occurred to me to post diagrams during a game like this. The idea is to learn from one another's strategies, not to aid one another in reading. Just my thoughts.
As EdLee said, hidden comments are hidden from the players for a purpose, and that also goes for the hidden comments the players themselves make. The learning you speak of is designed to take place after the game is over, not during it, so hidden thoughts about moves should not serve to aid the opponent.
As to my hidden post, now that the is out of the bag, the point I was making was that in Malkovitch games, we often see the players show their thoughts in diagrams as well as words. This serves to show their specific thoughts as to what might take place. I guess my point might be moot if the reason you were not posting diagrams was that you didn't want to help your opponent, but my impression from the comments is that specific responses to your moves is not what either of you are focusing on. In contrast to Malkovitch games by some stronger players, both players here seem more interested in the general strategic flow than in specific sequences, and this difference might be an important one to note on our path to becoming stronger.
Author:
daal [ Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:56 am ]
Post subject:
Re: Saint Ravitt vs Darev
I hope I didn't derail this game ...
Author:
rev [ Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Saint Ravitt vs Darev
Daal, don't wory about it. You didn't derail the game. I've been busy with classes recently, and need to contemplate my reply. Concerning hidden comments, generally, my opponent and I would be in agreement with keeping comments hidden. However, the two of us discussed in a PM before the game began, and we agreed that we would read each others comments on the moves. This is more of an open learning game for the both of us than it is a serious competition. We play more competitively on OGS. I realize this is not the usual course for a Malkovitch game to take, but we're doing it this way this time. I hope to post a move this evening to continue the game, and I hope my opponent is around.
Cheers.
Author:
Joelnelsonb [ Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Saint Ravitt vs Darev
Your opponent is patient, Darev. You didn't actually think that I would let you off the hook with abandonment, did you???
Author:
rev [ Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Saint Ravitt vs Darev
Yes, thank you for your patience, gracious opponent. It's finals week. BTW, I haven't seen you around OGS recently, everything good?
The ladder is what it is. I want to make life in the bottom left as my top priority. Threatening the cut futhers this goal. If I do get to cut, then extend, I threaten the two stones of the D7 group.
The ladder is what it is. I want to make life in the bottom left as my top priority. Threatening the cut futhers this goal. If I do get to cut, then extend, I threaten the two stones of the D7 group.
First, let's just look at the surrounding 3x3 region. After the hane White has 3 stones to 1 stone for Black. That's a sign that White might be overconcentrated. Getting one stone ahead in a region is generally fine, but getting two stones ahead may well be inefficient. Note that White also gets two stones ahead in the surrounding 5x5 region.
First, let White play the inside hane and then let Black make the solid connection. The connection gives the Black stones 5 dame. By Bruce Wilcox's "five alive" heuristic, that is very good for Black.
In real life Black is more likely to atari at 2 first. Now there is a fight with multiple weak stones. But White should take heart in the fact that White can sacrifice the cutting stones to good effect, even if that is not the best play.
White secures the corner and prevents the ladder at 5 in sente. Not too shabby. White does not have to read all this out when making the cut; it is a worst case scenario. White just has to realize that the sacrifice is a possibility.
Even if White misses the loose ladder, sacrificing the cutting stones is again not too bad. After White has 5 dame (five alive). secures the corner and threatens Black's dumpling, if not to kill it, at least to force it to run on the second line.
In short, the hane is not go, the cut is.
Author:
EdLee [ Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:26 am ]
Post subject:
Hi Bill,
Quote:
After the hane White has 3 stones to 1 stone for Black. That's a sign that White might be overconcentrated. Getting one stone ahead in a region is generally fine, but getting two stones ahead may well be inefficient.
This comparison of local stone counts as a heuristic is interesting. For the common shape on the right, locally for the 3x3, B:W is 3:1 ; ( since this is true for many 3:1 ataris, we need other criteria to evaluate the situation ) and if we zoom out a bit, it's back to 3:3, and after connects, 3:4. The other criteria are interesting.
Author:
Bill Spight [ Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Re: Saint Ravitt vs Darev
Ed, et al.
I discovered this heuristic after studying pro games 20 years ago looking for local shapes (probably not named). I originally classified them according to the number of stone of each player, but it soon became apparent that a better classification was by the total number of stones and the difference between the number of stones of the two players. I found that the two most frequent moves were playing to a difference of zero (catch-up) and playing one more stone than the other player (moving ahead), the next most common moves were almost catching up and going two stones ahead, the last being the least frequent of the four. You can't make a rule of not going two stones ahead, as there are too many exceptions, but it should be a consideration. IMO it is something that DDKs should learn. It would have helped Darev to avoid the hane in this case. BTW, Sonoda 9p has proposed a similar idea, and even applies it to quite large regions.
Author:
EdLee [ Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:47 am ]
Post subject:
Hi Bill,
Bill Spight wrote:
IMO it is something that DDKs should learn. It would have helped Darev to avoid the hane in this case. BTW, Sonoda 9p has proposed a similar idea, and even applies it to quite large regions.
Very interesting.
Bruce Wilcox has some similar introductory heuristics for contact fights concerning liberties.
These two, combined with Mr. Yoda's recent (?) book about his "new" theory of shapes... Hmm... probably good to go back and study these basics...
, W has two good follow-ups, (a) and (b).
stones with only two dame, a fact that White can exploit by a play at "a" after 
. 
and 
threaten a ladder at "a". After 
White can take kikashi with 
and then take a big corner with 
.
to threaten the cutting stones, White has a loose ladder. Note that Black has to worry about the cut at "a".
. 
captures. 
connects, 3:4.
