Can’t see a reasonable alternative

I decided to do the obvious to connect my stones.

I considered:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

to claim territory there and connect with the 10-4 (correct?) stone.
However, the consequences for my group seem bad.

I'm a bit confused about this myself.

With no Start (m)ove and no start color: $$: 1= , 9= , and 0= .
With $$B: 1= , 9= , and 0= (same as default).
With $$W: 1= , 9= , and 0= .

With $$Wm11: 1= , 9= , and 0= .
With $$Bm11: 1= , 9= , and 0= .

For all this to be consistent, here's one interpretation:
No Start (m)ove implies m=1.
No start color implies (B)lack .

'0' = (m - 1) +10.

For clarity, consider to use exact move numbers and coördinates.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , C T . . . , . . . T C , . . . |
$$ | . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . C . . . |
$$ | . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Notice on the top half:
4-5 = D15, E16, P16, Q15 ;
4-6 = D14, F16, o16, Q14 ;
( Two of each for the top right corner in question. )

For clarity, consider: "why was Q15 better than Q14 for ? "

I’d like to split up the board here.

Very common procedure.
( I just did it as at the coffee shop tonight in these handi games: 9-stone, 5-stone, 4-stone, 4-stone. )

@Kirby:

Imagine, I was opening your previous comment excitedly, expecting a wise analysis of at least 3 different moves...

@jlt: After being confused for a moment (wait, even more letters?) I appreciate that you are keeping variables and parameters separate

@EdLee: Sorry, I would have preferred to name the coordinates like that, but in a different thread someone objected. But it was a different scenario, there it was a tsumego, where rotational symmetry probably is the reason people don't want letters (I guess).
For a whole board/game, I'd prefer letter+number too.

@EdLee, latest post: Either I don't understand, or (given Kirby's move) you are quoting him?
If quote, it is not a real cheat, is it? I would not have known it is called "dividing", though.

But since I read it, I'm wondering how I can tell if a hidden comment is addressing one of my questions or the ongoing game?
(I'm honestly doing my best not to read game-/move-related comments before posting my move.)

From Kirby's explanation right at the start of this game, we all understood this is a teaching game, and that you may, but are not required to, read any hidden comments by Kirby ( or others addressed specifically to you, unless explicitly stated not for you to read; from my understanding, it seems all other posters so far also have this understanding, and we all assume you're free, but not required to, read any comments before your move. ) To divide is not Go lingo; it's just normal usage, but something you may not be aware of previously.

I'm sorry if I offended you!
I remember Kirby's post, because we exchanged PM's on that too.

I'm just trying to find a way for me not to be influenced by (anyone's) comments before I make my move.
I really appreciate all comments.
But I'm afraid I would learn less from the teaching game if I read the comments first.

Later, I read Kirby's comment and all comments on moves.

It just happened that, after receiving so many helpful comments from you and Bill on creating diagrams, I thought that next comment was on diagrams too.

So I'd better not read any comments the come after Kirby has played as long as I have not.

Again, sorry!

I'm not offended, at all.
Education is such a tricky, tricky thing!

It is extremely difficult to determine what works best for you, in terms of Go progress. I haven't spent hours on this, so this analogy just popped up, after a few moments; let's see if it helps you a little bit.

It's like you're learning to ride a bicycle for the first time.
And your friends are giving you lots and lots of advice, from the side.
However, none of us are on your bicycle.

Only you are on your bicycle. You determine exactly what happens to the bike.
We are not the ones falling; only you do the falling. We are not the ones going smoothly on the bike; it is only you.

At your current phase in Go, there is an enormous amount of knowledge missing in your tools bag. Whether you read the comments before or after will not make any significant change in this enormous knowledge gap between you and Kirby.

You can read all the comments. Or none. It really won't matter so much!
( That's why people have said this quite a few times: just enjoy and play! )

For certain things, maybe yes. Yes, and ( at least ) 2 nice lessons here for you:

• in retrospect, would you still say you needed all that watching ? I'd argue no, all the (over-)watching didn't help you so much; for example:
• how did you miss the fact that nobody was watching their feet from all your (over-)watching ? ( answer: you probably saw nobody was looking at their feet, but your brain still couldn't help it: this is because it was a subconscious decision from fear; and only when you were able to consciously realize there's nothing to be gained by staring at your feet and consciously override your subconscious fear were you able to break through and look far ahead at your path. ) You didn't learn this from watching others; you learned this from riding, which is direct personal experience to train your neural nets! ( Just like Go. )

Critical thinking/analysis has its place, certainly.

But in some areas, such as Go, riding a bike, over-analysis as a beginner can be extremely inefficient and ineffective: from my personal anecdotes observing adult beginners the past 15 years, I'd 95% of adult beginners fall into this trap. ( Kids usually don't have this issue, in Go. )

Very difficult for adult beginners to stop over-analysis and just trust the more experienced advice: just play ( "Finish your first 100 games ASAP." )

You are right concerning the bike.

However, after meeting someone on OGS who went from beginner to 15k within 4 months by just playing, I started making a list, going from 100 played normal time OGS-games to 100 lost games (which was identical with the exception of 1 game I won against a 25k).

I had the strong feeling I have not learned anything from them.
My stones were killed, killed, captured, killed, and it went so fast I could not see why.

Someone posted in an other thread "Do what you enjoy". I did not enjoy that above, but I will take up faster games again, because of your advice. Edit. "Hide"