It gets more interesting. I finally sat down again and played another serious game. I thought I did OK at the beginning, then played a tenuki I possibly shouldn't have, thought I fell behind, was able to get a bunch of territory in the center, got into a position where was I probably winning but was having trouble counting up the score under time constraints, and then... blundered. When I probably could have won by playing a few simple moves.

(There are a few empty triangles toward the end of the game, but those are endgame moves for making eyeshape.)

Somehow I can't download your game - the server tries to reestablish the connection each time.

It wasn't obvious to me that you're losing at the end. I counted and you're down by ~5 points, so you should have played it out anyway.

This game went pretty well and you should have won it by at least 20+ points. The blunder seems to be caused by the fact that you were not sure about your winning status, which made you unnecessary nervous. Thus, an important hint from that game is to practice more on counting.

After move 138 you were apparently unsure about the count and started some speculative attack on the lower right white group which ended in gote. In such situation it is IMHO better to first focus on the clear sente endgames (A9, D1 and probably D15). Even if you are unsure about the count, if w needs to reply (and there's no important aji getting eliminated) it can't get worse.

Sometimes it feels that you let certain shapes uncompleted, however detailed comments on shape should be done by stronger players.

Finally:
Are you really, really sure?

Hi Fedya,

I think you need to work on your idea of the value of stones, groups and exchanges.

In the game against pagni, after move 7, white pincers, black plays B4, there should be no doubt in your mind, you play at C3.

Quite simply, When white plays at C3, it is bad for black, black has no eyes, and has to run to the middle, white gets a strong formation at the lower side.

But most importantly, if white plays elsewhere and black plays at C3, his group lives, takes the corner, and now white's 4-4 stone is really damaged.

If we examine the two outcomes from this exchange, C3 is an urgent move to make.

The result of the exchange in game is really bad for white. Where it could have been a massive benefit for white if white gets the stone at C3, it turned into a loss for white.

You mention in your game that you think maybe you should have played at C3, I think it should have been your first thought, not even that, it should be played without thinking, C3 is a big point. If you are missing moves like this you need to focus on what the actual value of moves you are making is, so you can make the better moves.

So the first question I would ask is how do you feel about the C3 move, is there a reason you wouldn't want to play it in the game? What responses from Black would you be worried about?

Do you recognise that black is in trouble with a weak group at this point in the game?

Do you know what good moves Black should make in response to your pincer? Rather than the bad move Black played? (3-3, or double pincer at F3, both give OK results for black.)

If this was the normal 4-4 kite joseki, when black makes this move like B4, do you understand why this move is sente, and should almost always be responded to with C3?

How many points did your move at G3 get you, how many would C3 get you, which would be bigger?

One of the most important things I think you should look to develop is your way of interpreting the board. To try and improve your judgement of the game try the following.

Try some lateral tsumego solving...

Examine some tsumego, without looking at hints, instructions, what colour to play first, or anything about what the tsumego is about. Look at the situation, examine the stones and shapes, count liberties, and work out, if white can kill, if black can kill, is it a life and death, is it a connection, is it a tesuji problem? What should white do, what should black do?

Doing a full reading out of simple tsumego is really useful, when you read out the opponent's moves, don't assume the 'strongest' move, in a shortage of liberties situation, its no good trying to save all the stones, the opponent should only try and save some of them, or maybe, none of them. Is there a less obvious move that gets the same result but results in a better shape?

After solving a simple tsumego, consider the results. Locally the results may be pretty obvious who wins or loses out, but does the opponent gain something else, thickness that globally could be important? If he does, is there a different way to play the tsumego, which might not kill the opponent but leave less thickness or more weaknesses that can be useful later?

Another thing to try is an alpha go technique.

Find a game, any game, and pick a random point in it. Then count for both sides.

Then using your count, plus your interpretation of the board, decide who will win.

Then find out who wins.

Was your choice correct? If not then look a bit further to what happened, was it that your count was poor, was it that you didn't interpret the strengths or weaknesses of groups correctly?

This is kind of how alphago trains it's value neural network. The biggest breakthrough of alpha go is it's ability to accurately value the board positions, and from that possible moves and so on, it is an essential skill in go, so you should also work on that.

Give it a go and see how it works out.

Good Luck.

Same observations:

Problem 1 - shifting plans in early middle game
Problem 2 - some wrong techniques, in particular answering angle plays
Problem 3 - you played a very good game; don't focus on that 1 blunder (but your review was already more positive)

Full review:

This thread is growing fast. But no one is address the issue I raised in one of the first replies. The MUST get a mentor.

Few can point out your errors consistently unless they know you through repeated exposure to you games. It takes several games against you to see the patterns of the errors. I very strongly recommend that you start playing games again some one between 6 and 9 stones stronger than yourself. Play slow games where discussions are permitted.

Do you have a DGS account? If so, look me up on there. If you don't want to do that then find someone else.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Outstanding opening! Much better than previously posted games. You should really be proud of this game, both the opening and the middle game strategy. And your attitude was much more positive than usual, leading to good play. Keep it up!

perfect jump to expand your upper framework while pressuring W.

perfect pincer to punish W for not making a base.

perfect direction, largest open area on the board. (Knotwilg prefers defending your large territory on the bottom, which is also quite good, since you can consolidate a lot of territory with one move, and W can reduce in sente if you tenuki. But you tended to play too many submissive moves in earlier games, so I think it is great to see you switch to this move here.)

is the first real problem. What is the purpose of this move? Breaking up the W lower position is quite small. W cannot make much more than 10 additional points around here, even if you give him a free move at F4. Approaching at C6 is much larger than that, as it prepares to make those same 10 points for you on the left side, plus eliminates W expansion possibilities in that direction, plus prepares to slide into the corner.

is certainly not necessary. Even if W could capture two of your stones here, that would be too small to be worth preventing. An approach at C8 would be perfect, expanding your territory and threatening to undercut W territory. Contrast that with a W approach at the same point -- the difference is enormous.

is a great move. Certainly the right strategy is to strengthen your weak upper group while attacking the weak W group. You would also like to make territory out of your framework on the right while attacking, so here I would consider the cap at N14. W will likely respond by pushing at M16, which will naturally force you to strengthen this group. Sort of an indirect strategy -- force your opponent to force you to play where you want to play. But I cannot really criticize playing directly where you want to play. And the sequence through was a spectacular success. Congratulations on some really nice strategy and tactical play here.

is very good. You have a big lead, so playing safe is good. A hane at the head of two stones is probably bigger, but this move should keep the game safely won.

is great, hane at the head of two stones. I am confident that if W had blocked at E8, you would double-hane, which would be even better.

But when W descended to B9, why answer locally? This was a horribly submissive move. Since W had earlier forced you to defend at B12, this group is completely safe, and W has no large local continuation if you tenuki. Extending to E8 instead would be magnificent shape. Even a simple endgame move like T8 would be larger.

is excellent, thick defense which also makes center territory.

may be an overplay, but W needs to try something like this to have a chance of winning. Your attack here was quite well executed, giving W no chance to cause trouble, and led to a kill. Very nice play.

You deserved to win from here. An accurate count should have shown you have a large lead. Consequently there was no need for speculative attacks or risky attempts to make extra points.

I would play D4 and many other pros will play D4.
edit: This is from old game.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

@Knotwilg: Your comment on move 133 seems a bit dangerous:

There are a lot of people to respond to.


It's not that I didn't want to play C3 so much as I just didn't think it was that particularly big that it's so much better than anything else. If there was one fear, it would have been the double pincer, with Black playing around G3 and me trying to get eyes for the stones at D4 and C3. That's why I played at G3 myself.

It was only afterwards with more stones on the board that I realized perhaps I didn't get such a good result. I also didn't realize during the game just how much C3 would have made Black weak.

Mitsun wrote:

As I said, I was trying to keep count of the score during the game. Obviously I was rather far off, which is what led me to play all those moves to try to continue reducing my opponent's groups.

Half-counting to see if I can get to 181 probably isn't the best idea, but I've always found it less difficult than trying to keep track of both players' scores and prisoners and the edges of territories, especially with the clock running. I usually wind up spending a fair chunk of my time on counting since my opponents play more quickly and I can't do it on their time.

Yes, I am on DGS. I've been meaning to put up a request for a teaching game for some time, but with all the replies here, and the fact that every time I go there I've got 10 games waiting for me to play moves in them, I haven't gotten around to it.

Edit: I just put one up.

Last time, I posted a game where I wound up with a winning position and blundered. This time I'll post a game where I felt I played badly, and won because my opponent blundered.

is a big mistake, but one that happened because I couldn't read out the ten-move sequence with some captures involved. I wouldn't be surprised if I missed some good moves for Black, too.

is, I think, another misread. This is another place my opponent erred and I wound up with a good position I think I shouldn't have.

is another really bad, just awful move. I see that move and get an image of all of you doing a facepalm.

I won't bother anymore making long analyses of your games as long as this devil is having fun on your shoulder



I can go on repeating that

1) you need to change your attitude in one that gets positive feedback while learning, instead of indulging in badness
2) don't switch strategies midgear
3) take lessons on basic technique

I don't think 2, 3 or other changes will make a chance if 1 remains in place.

But I can be wrong and I truly hope the rest of this forum can help you out because I give up.

Knotwilg I don't think fedya wrote that particular review of his move with a negative attitude - he was just reprimanding himself after a bad move.

But Fedya, your overall attitude does strike me as a bit negative as well - You seem to start games with a 'hopeless' feeling - that you will lose no matter what.

Try taking a week or two off, or read some books to introduce new ideas to you. I always read Kageyama's Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go when I'm tilting - and I find it to be pretty helpful in giving me a reset.

_________________
My Baduk Journey

OK I take back my words.

I looked at the game and it was very positive spirited.

Sorry for the paternalist comment earlier.

I apologize for taking so long to reply, but after Knotwilg's first comment, I wanted to take the time to measure my words.

One of the things Dr. Straw mentioned in an early comment in this thread is about the value of having somebody look at a bunch of your games, so that they can see the type of mistake you're making over and over. When I played during the game, I didn't notice that it was a mistake, but when I went through the game it was obvious, and a, "How could I have missed that this is a bad move" error. This as opposed to some of the other moves I made (my approach in the top left, for example, might be a mistake if there are bigger places on the board like the bottom right to play). And when I saw again, I also thought of what everybody here would think when I put the game up -- he's making the same mistake again?

I'll probably have more later in the day when I'm not so pressed for time.

It is nice to see so many people pitching in. It just goes to show, Fedya, how well liked you are, and how we want you to do well.



As for , it makes an empty triangle, which is a big clue that it may not be the best play. But it does carry threats, even after Black's (strange) reply. In your comment you mention two, D-05 and A-03, but there are others. Where are they?

In fact, if you go to the position at the end of the game, there is an interesting question whether White to play can kill the Black group on the left side. It might be worth your while to play around with that position and explore the possibilities. And I don't mean just thinking about the question, I mean playing variations out. You might learn a thing or two.

In briefly looking at some of your comments, it seems to me that a recurrent error is not noticing things. In this game it shows up in not realizing the shortage of liberties of the White group on the bottom side. This is a result of insufficient analysis earlier. Look at the position after Black 107. The clump of White stones on K-07 has only 3 dame. (Remember the C in ACH. Count! ) That's a danger signal. Also, Black can cut at M-06, and neither net nor ladder works. If Black cuts there is a semeai on the bottom side. Only then does the question of the liberties of the White stones on N-04 arise. None of this analysis is beyond your abilities. It is just a question of making it.

Making such analyses and avoiding the related oversights is worth at least a stone or two.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I bring you glad tidings! Well, at least, a game where I felt for the most part I played reasonably well and was ultimately rewarded with a comfortable victory. There were times where I thought my opponent gave up sente and allowed me to take some big points: B16, C7, and possibly T2 and R18 come to mind.

There are a few places where I clearly needed to work on my reading. Overlooking the C13 cut at the end is one; playing N11 is another. Actually, the whole reduction in the center is probably instructive to look at. I think Black could have attacked much more severely. Black played defensively instead of attacking from a distance, I felt.