What do I have to do just to get to 5k?

hl782 · **#21**

Please don't take my comments the wrong way, but from what I see in your comments above - You think of reasonings per move but most of the time your reasonings are wrong.

This is why I think it's important to play stronger people, and get reviewed by stronger people. From your comments, you say 'I have no idea what to do'. 'I know this was a really bad move' - and yet you still play it. Stronger people are your guide to help pointing out your errors so that you can avoid those mistakes again.

Something that my teacher Justin told me was that each 'rank', is just equivalent of 1 stone. Aka, if you can cut out just 1 mistake out of your game permanently - you'll be a rank stronger.

Fedya · **#22**

Responding to Knotwilg's comments:

Knotwilg wrote:

Hi Fedya

You chose to cut. According to me this was not the right choice. My choice would have been to try and surround White (04) and keep up the pressure, meanwhile making territory at the bottom. Another choice would have been to connect (S5) but it's too timid connecting on the second line in an area which you control. Cutting at this stage allows White to sacrifice one thing and make the other stronger while doing so.

The move that was available for cutting was the wedge. You inevitably suffer an atari and next White's choice where to connect. Your stones end up in a clumsy shape. This is not a great result. Did you read out these 3 moves and evaluate whether this is what you wanted? Are the tactics underdeveloped (i.e. should you become tougher in doing the actual reading) or do you have poorer positional judgment (i.e. should you learn more about efficiency, equivalence, flexibility ...)?

I thought I was going to get a good position. Either white save the stone closer to the side and winds up with a bunch of stones without much eye shape, or saves the one closer to the center and winds up with a floating eyeless group in the center.

Quote:

When White next descended instead of connecting either side of the wedge, you didn't cut. Instead you shifted strategy and decided to protect your territory in the corner.

Such a shift in purpose can be called for when the original strategy turns out to be disastrous, but such was not the case here. Needlessly shifting strategies midgear usually results in stones not cooperating very well.

Perhaps you descended because you wanted the second cut to work. But there are several things wrong with that thinking
1) White can still connect
2) White can still connect the other side and let you eat those 2 stones, making your investment quite big for such a meagre return

White chose to connect the poor side and you cut the big side and indeed, all turned out quite well.

I would have connected that side too. Winding up with that eyeless bunch of stones in the center wouldn't have looked very appealing to me.

Quote:

2. Your message seems to speak of low confidence or self esteem. I have observed many people who publicly lament their sucking at whatever craft they aspire. In a weird sense this is a way of nourishing the ego, but then a bad, negative ego. The bad ego prefers to excel at being worse than everyone else they know, rather than being mildly good. And this is preventing them to become better, which feeds the bad ego.

I've tried to convince such people that really, there is no reason why they should be so special to suck at Go/Table tennis/Music ... but I've hardly ever succeeded. The devil on the shoulder is very very strong and keeps whispering "you're no good, you're no good, you're exceptionally bad".

Let go of that devil. He's no good. You're not special in being bad. And letting him go, you WILL become better. Your Go will become better. Your ego might too. (but don't expect to become exceptionally good at go).

One of the things I find frustrating is that I'm doing the same things that work for my opponents, but somehow when I try them they don't work for me. :mad:

Kirby · **#23**

Fedya wrote:

One of the things I find frustrating is that I'm doing the same things that work for my opponents, but somehow when I try them they don't work for me. :mad:

Sorry to be blunt, but something either works or does not work. So either:
1. That thing that works for your opponents does not actually work - you didn't punish them like your opponents punish you.
2. You are not doing the same thing as your opponents. What is different in your case?

Maybe it's hard to answer these questions during a game, but that is what review is for.

So how about an example we can discuss? Give us a specific board position where some "thing" worked for your opponent. Give us a second one where that "same thing" didn't work for you.

Let's figure out why.

Uberdude · **#24**

Fedya, do you enjoy playing Go?

Fedya · **#25**

Uberdude wrote:

Fedya, do you enjoy playing Go?

Yes. And I do have games where I lose but still enjoy the experience. I think it was the first time I got to KGS 6k and tried my hand against 5k players, I had several games where my opponents played about as slowly as I do, I thought a lot, and still came up several points short. It felt like a good mental stimulation, even though I had lost.

By the same token, I'm taking part in a DGS tournament right now where I've got a couple of even games against stronger players. There's one with a 1k where I'm getting slaughtered, I think. I feel like I tried hard, but the 1k has had an answer for everything and I haven't had an answer for the things he's tried. There's another game with a player two stones stronger than I where he let me get what seemed like a bunch of territory, but when I try to count the territories I get the distinct impression I'm actually about 5 points behind. I'm trying to find moves to keep sente, and the biggest ones at that; we'll see whether it's enough.

What's frustrating is playing players of even strength, and again and again facing an uphill battle that doesn't feel like an even game at all.

Fedya · **#26**

Kirby:

I've actually got a game from the past week or so where my opponent invaded my moyo at a point I had no idea was a weakness, and the game quickly went downhill from there. I'll find the game in question, go over it again myself, and then post it here.

Edit:

Here's the game:

Bill Spight · **#27**

Fedya wrote:

I've been playing go for 15 years, and have been stuck bouncing between KGS 6k and 7k for years. I think once I got promoted to 5k for about half a dozen games three or four years ago; a couple of times I've been demoted to 8k but the last time was almost two years ago.

It seems as though nothing I try works: my moyos get invaded; any attempts to deal with my opponents' moyos end in disaster. My opponents pincer me and I end up with a weak group; I pincer my opponents and I end up with a weak group if not two. I constantly fall behind early. And so on.

I am going to respond to your answers to my questions, but for now I will address your original post.

Assuming that your opponents are about the same strength as you, how can it be that what they try works against you, while what you try does not work against them? In that case, wouldn't they be stronger than you? If you constantly fall behind early, then you must be catching up later.

For all your weaknesses, you have strengths, as well. I understand your frustration, but you often express pessimism about your game. Get some perspective.

It is likely the case that you are not playing up to yourself. Hardly anybody does. You are making mistakes that you know better than to make. In this game you overlooked the danger to your group in the top right. And, as you say in response to my question, "As for :b75:

, it's terrible and I don't know why I didn't play anything better." I don't know how strong you are when you play up to yourself, but I would not be surprised if it is 5 kyu. If so, you can play as 5 kyu in a matter of weeks or months. I have told the story of how I went from 3 dan to 4 dan in 6 weeks, just by deciding to play at 4 dan level. OC, playing up to yourself is not so easy. If it were, everybody would do it.

(And I had been 3 dan for more than a year and a half. I doubt if I could have done it one year earlier.)

Quote:

I go over my games, but that clearly doesn't help because it's like the blind leading the blind.

You have a point, and here is where getting a teacher could help.

But you should also be able to learn from you own self review. If you are not, then maybe there are better ways to do reviews. (Unfortunately, reviews by better players do not always tell you how they reached their conclusions. Sometimes they are just expressing their opinions.

) IMO, thoroughness is a virtue in a review, and at your level that means analyzing relatively small regions of the board. It is important to play around with positions.

Also, why not review your games with your opponents? If they are better than you at invading moyos and you have made an unsuccessful invasion, ask them how you could have done better.

Quote:

I do problems, but the problems I do don't look like the positions that show up in my games.

That is one reason that it is important to study your own games.

From what you say it seems like you start with some goal, such as attacking an opponent's stone or invading a moyo, but then you do not achieve a satisfactory result, even though your peers seem to do so against you. Taking that at face value, that suggests that your peers have learned some basic techniques that you have not. If so, there should be some basic problems that would address your shortcomings. These problems should be set in positions that you should be able to analyze thoroughly. (I don't mean in your head, I mean with a board and stones or a computer.) I have not seen the books myself, but I have heard good things about Graded Go Problems for Beginners. Get a thorough grounding in the basics.

Znosko-Borovsky gives some pertinent advice in his classic book, How Not to Play Chess which generalizes to go. A major point of his is to make a plan and to stick to it. He says that a poor plan well executed is better than a good plan poorly executed. Whether that is always so or not, it illustrates the importance of basic technique. Znosko-Borovsky also emphasizes analysis. He states: "Unless you analyse the position, you will achieve nothing." Now, analysis takes time, and you won't perform one for each move. Analyzing the whole go board three or four times is enough, as a rule. But you should also analyze local positions. Analysis precedes reading. For instance, in a life or death situation, where are potential eyes? Where are escape routes? Can some stones be sacrificed? What about shortage of liberties?

Bridge great Oswald Jacoby had a checklist for planning the play of a bridge hand. Let me adapt it for go, with the acronym, ACH. (Achtung!)

Analyze. Analyze the whole board or a local position. Where are the strong and weak points? What are the possibilities for each player? What are the threats?

Count. Count points. Count liberties. Count eyes.

How? How can I achieve my objectives? Here is where reading comes in. The reading is informed by the previous analysis and counting. It is the how that allows you to execute your plan well.

To this mix let me add discipline. Tournament bridge players are big on discipline. Discipline helps you to play up to yourself.

A lot of players wait until the position is difficult to start thinking. By then it may be too late. Discipline allows you to plan ahead and anticipate problems, also to create problems for your opponent. It allows you to keep your head and stick to your plan when the going gets tough. (And against a worthy opponent it will get tough.

) As Znosko-Borovsky says, making a plan, sticking to it, and carrying it out well will not guarantee victory, but if the victory goes to your opponent, he will have earned it.

Let me also add faith: Faith in yourself, faith in your plan, faith in your reading. OC, you will make mistakes. We all do. But faith will help you to play up to yourself. Self doubt leads to inconsistent play, which is guaranteed to include mistakes. Of two inconsistent plays, one (at least!

) must be a mistake. They can't both be right.

Kirby · **#28**

Fedya, I assume you are referring to move 57. It's a nice move for your opponent to consider, I think, since your shape is loose in that area. White has several options for forcing, so there are a lot of variations to read out.

I'll admit, I don't know what is optimal for your response. You could consider a move like J16 if you want to try to kill, but I'm not sure if it works or not. You could also consider something like F17 To fix your loose shape on the left, force black to live inside your area, and make a wall.

It's true. It's difficult to know what is optimal (at least for me) here.

If black can unconditionally live here, it probably means that black played a good move. If nothing else, the move probably annoyed you.

Now that you've seen it, if the colors were reversed, would you be able to consider move 57 as a play against your opponent? If it annoyed you, it would probably annoy some of your opponents, too, right?

If the only thing you get from this game is to be able to consider a move like 57 and the followups in the next game you play, surely you've grown a little bit.

Or do you mean that this type of move won't occur to you?

Calvin Clark · **#29**

Hmm. (Comments on are on 1st game.)

White 8 confused you, but did you try to look it up? It's not as rare a move as you might think. One thing you might try is doing more database searches in pro games, even if it's just very local shapes. You may discover something interesting about your choice of black 9.

It appears you don't study joseki much. (My apologies, but it's pretty clear to me just from this one game.) May I ask why not?

You took 33 seconds to play move 81. I know that's a stressful position, but how's your reading? Would you play that move in a problem your were doing off the board? In general if you can add a couple of stones to your reading ability (easier said than done!) it will translate directly in improvement over the board. But there's a catch: you have to bring it and read over the board calmly as you would when doing a problem in private.

I agree with those who say a strong teacher can help, but you have to have a lot of time to help yourself, too.

Oh, and don't take advice from anyone weaker than 5 dan.

EdLee · **#30**

schawipp · **#31**

In your last game, I find your move :w10:

inconsistent: First, you pincer the black approaching stone with :w8:

. The usual purpose of a pincer is (IMHO) to make it more tricky for the opponent to establish a base and initiate some messy fighting. However by then letting black easily establish a base just one move later feels somehow pointless.

Your game position after :b11:

looks like follows:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc B has a solid corner with more than 10 points. White has some(?) points at the center lower bottom. $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . O . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

You can also look at in in another way. It seems that the white 4/4 stone has more or less lost its purpose as can be concluded from the next position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Would you think that playing (a) in the given position is a good move? $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X . a . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X . . . O . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And please note further, that in your game, you defended this purpose-less stone lateron with :w18:

!

I do not understand what's wrong with 3/3 at :w10:

. Usually, in such pincer situation a black move like :b9:

is considered as a mistake since - with :w10:

at 3/3 - it eliminates the possibility for black to jump to 3/3 lateron. The outcome of the "standard" 3/3 play may look like follows:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . 1 . O . 4 . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Here I see two important differences to the actual gameplay:

- Most important: The black stones at lower left are still unsettled. This means that black will sooner or later need to spend more time on these stones. In this time you can play big moves and black cannot easily interfere with your plans.
- White has the potential of much more points at the bottom (well b may think of invading at H3 but then he will have to take care of H3 and B4 simultaneously!).

A typical follow-up joseki could result in a position like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X . O . O . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Here, it becomes apparent that the B4/C3 exchange initiated by black is a bad idea. If black continues in a "standardized" way, white can play the wedge-cut, and there is no option left for compensation for the marked stones:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . Y . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . Y . O . O . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In such position your pincer :w8:

would have done its job in the most impressive way, and I would clearly prefer playing white, here.

Finally, in your embedded move comments you are referring to a similar situation in another game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X O . . O . X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , O . . O . , . . . . C X C . . | $$ | . . . . . . X O . X X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . O . O . . . . . . a . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Here, I would say there are the following important differences to the actual game:

- The black stone :b1:

is not pincered, i.e. even when you reply at 3/3 black can reply with a two-point extension to the left and is still easily settled.
- There is a good approach (a) for the upper right corner available. In the corresponding situation of your actual game, black has a 3/4 - 5/4 enclosure there (see open circles), which makes a further approach unattractive.

Thus, in general it should be checked if the moves fit to the overall position. They should be not played/avoided just because someone has told you so in a "similar" position.

Two final comments:
- I could not find any empty triangles in your actual game, if you keep that going this will pay off on the long term!
- I am not yet 6d, so please feel free to ignore my whole comment. ;-)

Uberdude · **#32**

schawipp wrote:

<blah blah c3 important>
- I am not yet 6d, so please feel free to ignore my whole comment. ;-)

I am 4d and I endorse this analysis ;-)

Calvin Clark · **#33**

A few comments. Take them with a big grain of salt. I can't read your mind, but is it possible that you are sometimes playing hopeful moves? By this I mean do you see the opponent's refutation for some move, but hope that they don't see it?

I wish you good luck in your future games!

Fedya · **#34**

Kirby wrote:

Fedya, I assume you are referring to move 57. It's a nice move for your opponent to consider, I think, since your shape is loose in that area. White has several options for forcing, so there are a lot of variations to read out.

Yes, that was the move I was referring to.

Quote:

Now that you've seen it, if the colors were reversed, would you be able to consider move 57 as a play against your opponent? If it annoyed you, it would probably annoy some of your opponents, too, right?

If the only thing you get from this game is to be able to consider a move like 57 and the followups in the next game you play, surely you've grown a little bit.

Or do you mean that this type of move won't occur to you?

That's a good question. Certainly, during the game the only weakness I thought I had was on the other side. During games, I try to think about where my opponents might have weaknesses, and what weaknesses I might have that my opponents can exploit. Obviously, I don't always get it right: I play attacks that don't work at all, or defensive moves that are unneccessary, to fix weaknesses that aren't.

I'll try harder to find my opponent's weaknesses.

Fedya · **#35**

Calvin Clark wrote:

Hmm. (Comments on are on 1st game.)

White 8 confused you, but did you try to look it up? It's not as rare a move as you might think. One thing you might try is doing more database searches in pro games, even if it's just very local shapes. You may discover something interesting about your choice of black 9.

It appears you don't study joseki much. (My apologies, but it's pretty clear to me just from this one game.) May I ask why not?

I have to admit that I don't study joseki anywhere near as much as I probably should. My strategy has always been to learn through error: that is, when I get a bad result in a game, look up the joseki to see what I should have done. I actually looked up :w8:

on josekipedia, and it didn't have much.

There's the problem of moves that aren't in joseki dictionaries and figuring out how to respond to them, but there's also a similar problem: I've played games on the turn-based servers where I use a joseki dictionary, only to get to the end of the joseki line and be stumped about what to do next, or with the result.

Quote:

You took 33 seconds to play move 81. I know that's a stressful position, but how's your reading? Would you play that move in a problem your were doing off the board? In general if you can add a couple of stones to your reading ability (easier said than done!) it will translate directly in improvement over the board. But there's a catch: you have to bring it and read over the board calmly as you would when doing a problem in private.

I think there are two big problems with my reading. One is that I read out a variation and think it looks good, and then when the stones are actually on the board it doesn't look quite as good as I thought when I was doing reading. :mad:

The other, much more frustrating one, is to read out a variation, conclude that it works, and then find out once the stones are put on the board that there was an atari that I didn't see when I was trying to read without the benefit of stones on the board. :oops:

Knotwilg · **#36**

This might be a case of too many doctors making the patient even sicker, but ...

... I'll continue on my original post:

1. Have a purpose (strategy)
2. See available moves for the purpose (technique/early pruning)
3. Read out the consequence(s) (tactics)
4. Evaluate the result: is the purpose met?
5. Don't switch purposes halfway if there is no pertinent reason to do so

I'll try to identify your "problem" as you perceive it by indicating which of these 5 go wrong (most)

Perhaps we'll identify another "problem" in the process

---- See review for first 25 moves -----

In conclusion, when looking back at the 5 aspects that could be poorly developed:

a) your purposes are mostly well defined
b) the techniques you choose are good when stones don't touch, but in close combat you pick bad moves
c) I cannot judge your reading, but I sense you don't read very far, maybe 3 moves. That's not a big problem for now
d) the evaluation of your reading is also hard to judge but I think it gets blurred by the technical choices you make underway in your reading
e) by far the biggest problem however seems to be that you change purposes midgear and this makes your stones add up awkwardly

All the moves that have little or no purpose at position 25 are the consequence of inconsistent plans. The most obvious place where a White stone should be is also empty due to inconsistent plans.

But I've observed something else: most of the time you make good strategic and technical choices. There is more confidence to be taken from your game than distress. I really think you should simply have more confidence in yourself. You may end up at the other end of the scale: stubbornly carrying on with a bad plan. But this will teach you things and in a more concerted manner.

Good luck!

Bill Spight · **#37**

Fedya wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

A few questions.

Why did you play S-04?

I thought it secured the corner, and gave me a good result after :b15:

Let's look at :w12:

, which was a surprise.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Descent $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a O b . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O 1 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

You had considered "a" and "b" to be miai, but White played the descent at 12 instead.

When the opponent makes a surprising move, it can throw us for a loop. Under stress we may revert to early bad habits that we have overcome, or we may forget our plan and lose our way. It is a good idea to take some time and analyze the surprising move and new situation.

:w12:

threatens to reduce the Black corner, to crawl, jump, or slide into it. At the same time it protects against the cut at "b", because White can capture the cutting stone in a ladder. It may also be better for eye shape than the solid connection at "b".

But because it does not make a solid connection, it leaves a weakness behind.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Black cuts with a threat $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 O 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O 1 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

threatens the atari at 15. After :w16:

connects, White is in pretty bad shape. This suggests that Black should keep to the original idea (not quite a plan, as it was) of treating the two cutting points as miai. How might that work?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Variation 1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . a . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 O X O 1 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

We may project the sequence through :b15:

. Note that this leaves the slide to "a" for Black, an eye stealing tesuji.

Can White do better?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Variation 2 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 . 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W X O 1 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White may cover his weakness with :w14:

and

, leaving Black to worry about the marked stones. :b17:

is big, and :b19:

takes care of the :bc:

stone. (:b17: - :b19:

is a good combination, good choshi. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?Choshi ). But still Black may be concerned about :wc:

.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Variation 3 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 6 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 O 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X W 1 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X B . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black may try the counter atari at 15 and connection at 17. This gives White a ponnuki, but White has lost an extra stone on the right side. Whether to play the counter atari is a judgement call.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Game continuation $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a O b . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O 1 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X 2 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

is not out of the question. Blocking White out of the corner is by itself a large yose, but it also reinstates the miai between "a" and "b" by destroying the ladder. How might that work out?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Sacrifice $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O 4 6 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O 1 8 | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X 2 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

sets up a profitable sacrifice when Black cuts. Black is overconcentrated in the corner and the :bc:

stone is cut off. Compare this result with the one where White connects at 14 immediately.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm12 Immediate sacrifice $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O 2 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O 4 . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In this sequence Black has a threat to connect underneath at "a". This is plainly better for Black than the later sacrifice.

Regarding the two cutting points as miai is a plan if Black plays one when White connects the other. But blocking off the corner as in the game effectively abandons that plan by making the sacrifice too good for White. To carry out the plan Black needs to cut at P-06 instead. Your call.

{I'll get to the other questions later.

}

Fedya · **#38**

Calvin:

Yes, I did read at move 60! Black extended, as I expected, and I split the black stone at the top. I thought at that point that I got a good result. Shows the quality of my positional analysis. :oops:

Knotwilg:

Quote:

b) the techniques you choose are good when stones don't touch, but in close combat you pick bad moves
c) I cannot judge your reading, but I sense you don't read very far, maybe 3 moves. That's not a big problem for now

Regarding b) I would have thought it was the other way around. I generally feel more comfortable with tactics, and at a loss with strategy.

Regarding c) I should add one other problem I have with my reading. I read out a sequence that looks good and play the first move in it, and somewhere along the way my opponent plays a move I never considered, that seems a lot better than whatever moves I had expected my opponent to play. :mad:

Bill Spight · **#39**

Fedya wrote:

I should add one other problem I have with my reading. I read out a sequence that looks good and play the first move in it, and somewhere along the way my opponent plays a move I never considered, that seems a lot better than whatever moves I had expected my opponent to play. :mad:

Egoistic (hopeful) reading. Discipline can reduce that, and doing so could be worth a couple of stones, maybe more.

Knotwilg · **#40**

Fedya wrote:

Quote:

b) the techniques you choose are good when stones don't touch, but in close combat you pick bad moves
c) I cannot judge your reading, but I sense you don't read very far, maybe 3 moves. That's not a big problem for now

Regarding b) I would have thought it was the other way around. I generally feel more comfortable with tactics, and at a loss with strategy.

Regarding c) I should add one other problem I have with my reading. I read out a sequence that looks good and play the first move in it, and somewhere along the way my opponent plays a move I never considered, that seems a lot better than whatever moves I had expected my opponent to play. :mad:

Please reread my full review and you should come to the same conclusion as me, based on the 25 first moves:

1) your strategic ideas are good
2) BUT you switch strategies midgear
3) you indeed have a problem picking the best move for a given strategy, also when calculating the tree following it. Therefore you need a reading on basic technique
4) you must be more confident in yourself and not anticipate on screwing it up again (to prove you suck at Go). You don't suck at Go, you are just trying to get better, like all of us. But while most of us celebrate our successes and are susceptible for positive feedback, it seems you are feeding negative things back to your system.

What do I have to do just to get to 5k?

Who is online