Looking for a review of a tough game

[daal]

Here is a hard fought game. Except for unnecessarily dying at the end, I can't figure out what went wrong and why, and I'd appreciate if someone might point out a few of my major strategic and tactical mistakes. Thanks

[jts]

As you know I'm only a few stones stronger than you, but I will give it a stab anyway.

24: I would go high - tying off the loose end at M4 at the same time seems good.

28: I would be pretty worried about B tenuki... and then what have you gained?

34: C5 first, I think. After rolling over B, M5 or something might look better than J3, right?

50: C5 first seems way bigger. I would also prefer adding a move in the upper left (smash through the sector line!) to this immediate turn.

52: Too late

68: F7 seems so much bigger! But I understand you don't feel like running around putting out fires...

74: You're the one who has a weak group here, right? So 1-space jump?

144: Aji keshi... this gives N8 an extra liberty, which weakens your L9 cut a lot.

152: Why not just connect? The big local move is b12/b11 anyway, so I don't know why you would worry about him getting the forcing move.

184: If you just capture his three stones, your net loss in the corner amounts to the value of his endgame moves around f13. (Think about it - your group started with 11 living stones and ~6 points of territory, now you'll have 11 living stones and 8 points of territory, plus a nice endgame move at B15.) Just kidding, you cant capture those stones, of course.

[daal]

50: C5 first seems way bigger. I would also prefer adding a move in the upper left (smash through the sector line!) to this immediate turn.

Thanks jts. C5 does seem like an oversight at best. In fact, I managed to talk myself out of it.

I haven't read Wilcox' sector lines, and breaking through it isn't something that would have occurred to me. In this case it refers to the line between C12 and K16? I suppose a move like H14 would cut it, but could you tell me a bit about the desired effect? H14 would feel to me like a small move in gote. Is it more like honte?

[jts]

50: C5 first seems way bigger. I would also prefer adding a move in the upper left (smash through the sector line!) to this immediate turn.

Thanks jts. C5 does seem like an oversight at best. In fact, I managed to talk myself out of it.

I haven't read Wilcox' sector lines, and breaking through it isn't something that would have occurred to me. In this case it refers to the line between C12 and K16? I suppose a move like H14 would cut it, but could you tell me a bit about the desired effect? H14 would feel to me like a small move in gote. Is it more like honte?

Maybe H14 is a small move in gote! I don't know. But the point of smashing through a sector line (yes, C12->K16) is that you can't kill a group, or even threaten to kill a group, without sealing it in, and you can't seal it in if it's not behind your sector lines. The main point of H14 would be to make G18 alive. The secondary point would be deny B the chance to attack/reduce some other area by first sealing you in in sente (by forcing you to live in gote), and then using his power in the upper left as a springboard for some other attack. The tertiary point is that all of his endgame moves against G18 become much less valuable once that group doesn't have to live locally.

[hyperpape]

At 78, Black's stone is cutting two strong groups, so I think it's small to capture it.

I also dislike Q10. What about just a one space jump to avoid strengthening Black?

[Bill Spight]

Some thoughts.

[daal]

Thanks hyperpape and Bill,

Both of you commented on move 78. I don't know why that seemed big to me. But the comment that it is cutting two strong groups is something I should take notice of - particularly in this case where I have a weak group on the board.

Bill - twice, at and you pointed out that my decision was sub-optimal because it failed to take into account the strength of the group on the bottom right, so I guess I'm not appreciating or understanding what to do with such strength. After it was the left that had more potential for development, correct? And what ought to be doing is increasing the potential of the bottom instead of trying to cash in? I'm usually worried in this sort of situation about increasing the potential and then losing the cash. Risk-avoidance mentality you think?.

[Bill Spight]

Bill - twice, at and you pointed out that my decision was sub-optimal because it failed to take into account the strength of the group on the bottom right, so I guess I'm not appreciating or understanding what to do with such strength. After it was the left that had more potential for development, correct?

It's a close call, but I prefer the pincer. The proverb says not to approach strong stones.

And what ought to be doing is increasing the potential of the bottom instead of trying to cash in? I'm usually worried in this sort of situation about increasing the potential and then losing the cash. Risk-avoidance mentality you think?.

I would not go so far. First, I think that shows a lack of appreciation of the power of thickness. In this case, not only does the thickness aim at the bottom side, where an invasion would face pressure from both sides, but it aims at the center, where White already has some thickness, and it also secures the White group on the left side. Second, I think that it is simply over-concentrated. Too many White stones take too little territory at this stage of the game.

As for losing the cash, what you generally want to do, especially in the opening, is play close to the edge. (Not the edge of the board! ) If your opponent invades in the opening and you can force him to live small in gote, that is almost always to your advantage. Even if he lives small in sente, that is often good for you. If you get an enduring attack, that is good for you. Takagawa had some good advice here. He said that territory is made in the skirmishes. For me the corollary is, if you can make territory without a fight, you probably shouldn't.

I have added some commentary to both plays.

[daal]

Thanks again, Bill.