mongus wrote:
I actually thought I was being clever, thinking if my opponent did take the stone it was ok because I could just cover it easily.
So, no point wasting a move on it.
Reflecting on this, I can see that this sort of mindset actually gets me into trouble an awful lot.
So, no point wasting a move on it.
Reflecting on this, I can see that this sort of mindset actually gets me into trouble an awful lot.
Actually, your basic argument is sound. The trouble is, you did not consider the effect of local weaknesses, indicated at "a" and "b".
In this case, without those weaknesses, it makes much more sense for Black not to connect at 1.
But even in this situation, the culprit is the hanging connection at "a". The solid connection,
, threatens "b" but leaves no weakness behind if White answers with 
.Quote:
It this game it actually did. My opponent was able to use the weakness I had left in the bottom right to ensure his fragile central group was safe. Had I not left that weakness I would have been in a much stronger position.
In that case, too, it is a problem of your own making.
threatens to cut the White in two, but it is an overplay. 
puts the question, do you save or 
?Quote:
It is very hard to know the difference between a strong move and a slow move. Perhaps it is one of those eternal Go dilemmas.
As you get stronger your judgement about that, and many other things, will improve.
It's often more valuable than it seems to have three stones on the second line rather than two for this reason; you have time to capture the cutting stone when Black makes that cut. You will also often see first-line throw-ins to set this up.
at