Kirby's Study Journal

Kirby · **#41**

I won this game, but I kind of stole it. I think my opponent could have played differently for one move, and maybe would have won.

That said, before that I should have protected my weakness, and maybe it would still be an unknown result.

skydyr · **#42**

Kirby wrote:

I won this game, but I kind of stole it. I think my opponent could have played differently for one move, and maybe would have won.

That said, before that I should have protected my weakness, and maybe it would still be an unknown result.

I didn't like H11 either. It seems to drive black into the area where white wants to make points. I don't see a good attacking move to play right away, as black has good center access, an eye on the side, and potential for one around G12 or so. I would probably just play a move on the left side to profit and see if black neglects his group too much later on. If black tries to invade the left side right away, he may cause that group problems once white is strengthened. White's top left group is also fairly thick already, so white might be able to just play a move to strengthen the right side group and let black try to figure out where to go from there.

Kirby · **#43**

So my company gives out these cards - they're called "ORCA" cards. Basically, they let you ride public transportation for free. I've been meaning to save on gas and ride the bus to work, so today I did. I brought along my iPad, on which I have a few PDFs containing various go problems. I've been telling myself I only have time for games, but I couldn't resist ez4u's advice that it's time for me to study more go problems. And what better opportunity than on the way to work?

So equipped with my trusty iPad, I walked to the bus stop today, and rode the bus to work. I solved several go problems, and I felt great at work. It was a great way to make my mind wake up. Correspondingly, when I left to go home, I also rode the bus, so I did the same on the way home. I was mentally tired from work, but I still solved a good number of problems. I'd say that each problem takes me about a minute to solve, unless I remember the shape, in which case, I remember the problem...

And the result? Today, I have a game to show, which I am utterly ashamed to post. Despite having done go problems during my commute to and from work - something I've done for the first time in awhile - I ~~couldn't~~ didn't(?) read at all today. Certainly, there are other games that I've posted here in which I did not read well. But I am sincerely embarrassed of this one.

But alas, I've decided to play games and post them here when I have. I won't hide this embarrassing game. I only feel sorry to those that feel inclined to observe it, as it is filled with poor play!

But maybe I'll try to commute by bus again tomorrow. Maybe if I keep playing each day, doing go problems here and there, maybe, just maybe, I can get better than the 1d/1k that I've been for years.

Then again, maybe not. But at least I'll have fun trying. :-)

P.S. I did NOT play calmly.

billywoods · **#44**

Kirby wrote:

But maybe I'll try to commute by bus again tomorrow.

I really look forward to train journeys I make; they're excellent opportunities to do things like tsumego (or learning vocabulary, or...) which I often just feel I don't have time to do at home. Train journeys are time I can't spend doing anything else.

Speaking of not having time: this thread looks interesting. I'll try to make time to read it and look at the games...

oren · **#45**

I use the public system to watch a lot of go while commuting. It's fun and the time goes after.

I probably should do tsumego as well, but it's not quite as fun.

xed_over · **#46**

Kirby wrote:

So my company gives out these cards - they're called "ORCA" cards. Basically, they let you ride public transportation for free.

they're not free -- your company is paying for them. and if you forget to "tap-off" the train or light-rail, then your company is charged for the full ride, rather than your actual destination.

but its definitely a benefit you should take advantage of.

Kirby · **#47**

xed_over wrote:

they're not free -- your company is paying for them. and if you forget to "tap-off" the train or light-rail, then your company is charged for the full ride, rather than your actual destination.

Yes, if it was not clear from the context of what I wrote, the cards permit me to ride public transportation free of charge to me.

Kirby · **#48**

What happened before the game:

We played the following approximate game:

After the game, he suggested that I study joseki.

What happened after the game:

Kirby · **#49**

Which brings us to today...

Shaddy · **#50**

18 hurts me.

Kirby · **#51**

Shaddy wrote:

18 hurts me.

I wish I was skilled enough to understand your meaning.

Shaddy · **#52**

Sorry, it's the game against Dusk Eagle

Kirby · **#53**

Shaddy wrote:

Sorry, it's the game against Dusk Eagle

The game I played at the club was not against Dusk Eagle. Presumably, the player is around 6d. In any case, move 18 may be bad - it seems kind of like aji keshi. But to be honest, I got the idea from a pro game I saw. I don't have the exact game, but here is example of what I saw in a pro game:

http://eidogo.com/#11Rd4s:0,33

Admittedly, this position is slightly different, as I have an additional stone in the area. However, the shape seemed similar, and I still wanted to split him. I'd be happy to hear about why the pro position is good, and why it is not good in this case.

Here are some other examples of the shape I was thinking of:
http://eidogo.com/#search:sw:6x5:.4x.4x.o.4xo.12

Kirby · **#54**

The only example I can see of something more similar to the pattern I have is here with this game between Sakai Takeshi 9p and Yokata Shigeaki 7p on move 19:

While it's true that I played this shape because it seemed similar to what I saw a pro play, I don't know *why* any of these are good or bad.

So to anyone that knows out there... Please discuss :-)

mitsun · **#55**

Kirby wrote:

Shaddy wrote:

18 hurts me.

I wish I was skilled enough to understand your meaning.

This may sound a little schizophrenic, but ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Good or bad for B? $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . O 2 . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

In this position, the exchange 1-2 might be good or bad, depending on the situation above. It could be good if it makes W over-concentrated, or if B can prevent W from making a base above and gets to launch a useful attack.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Bad for B? $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . 2 O . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

But in this position, the exchange 1-2 just feels submissive and bad, at least early in the game. It may look like an attacking move, if B has strength above (as in your game), but it generally helps W more than B.

Kirby · **#56**

mitsun wrote:

...
This may sound a little schizophrenic, but ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Good or bad for B? $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . O 2 . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

In this position, the exchange 1-2 might be good or bad, depending on the situation above. It could be good if it makes W over-concentrated, or if B can prevent W from making a base above and gets to launch a useful attack.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Bad for B? $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . $$ | . . 2 O . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

But in this position, the exchange 1-2 just feels submissive and bad, at least early in the game. It may look like an attacking move, if B has strength above (as in your game), but it generally helps W more than B.

Thank you for the comments, but could you elaborate a little more on this position, including :b3:

as is shown in the pro games I linked? The only thing I feel I've learned is that the exchange is bad in my game, but there's not really an explanation of why.

For example, yeah I get that kicking can make white over-concentrated and heavy, as in this popular example:

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

This makes sense to me. Yes, white gets over-concentrated, and we can work to attack him. The move on the bottom star point helps with that attack. I've heard this a lot, and sure, it makes sense.

But now that I've had the chance, I've located the precise game I was thinking of when I made this move. It's a game between Lee Changho and Komatsu Hideki from 1988. Here is the board position:

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

So sure, we could argue that :w2:

here is to make black over-concentrated to attack. But when I first saw this pro game, I didn't think that white could really attack black very much.

Why?

Because after black plays 'a', there are two cutting points at 'b' and at 'c'. So when I was reviewing this pro game, I thought to myself, "Why would he play :w2:

and

if he can't attack black?"

The answer I came up with was that white wanted to get out into the center and not be sealed in. The two cutting points at 'b' and 'c' were bait so that white could strengthen himself.

Sure enough, as the game proceeded:

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

So what has white accomplished here? He has very little attack on black, on either side. All that it really seems to have done is to get him out into the center.

So, in my feeble mind, I imagined that this was the point of such a move.

So let's compare this to the board position I was in:

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

In my mind's eye, I imagined that the same thing can happen here as what happened in the pro game I saw:

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

Of course, white doesn't have to play that way, but it seemed like the same concept. There are two weak points at 'a' and 'b', and I want to get into the center:

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

How is this different than the pro game I posted? I suppose one difference could be that the marked stones are weaker now.

Let's suppose the board position was slightly different:

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

Would it be OK to play the sequence now?

I understand that what you're saying in that the kick has potential to help white. But what I really don't get is the reason it was OK in the pro's game, and how it really differs from my situation. What was the rationale in the pro game? It certainly didn't seem like an attacking strategy there.

Again, my previous idea was that the pro's intention was to get out into the center, while preventing funny business in the corner. I thought I had a similar play here.

But...?

Kirby · **#57**

Well, aside from the talk about move 18 in my other game, here's a game I just played today. I lost by a few points.

mitsun · **#58**

This is an interesting study question. I certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Lee Changho and Komatsu Hideki $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . X O X . O . . | $$ | . . X , . O . . . , . . O X . X O . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 3 . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 2 X . . . O . . O . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Let's assume W decides to play :w4:

to split B. What are the pros/cons of the preliminary 2-3 exchange? I admit that I would probably not think to play this way, but it is an interesting option.

Pro: The two B stones are heavier than a single stone, so any attack is severe. The stable W group at K3 makes this attractive.
Pro: B can no longer slide to D2 to settle the right side group
Con: The two B stones are stronger than a single stone, and W leaves lots of cutting points which B might exploit.
Pro & Con: The invasion at C3 is still wide open. Without the 2-3 exchange, a direct C3 invasion would probably be the expected continuation. Maybe W wanted to make this invasion less attractive for B, by making the right side larger?

Now let's look at your game:

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

Again let's assume that B decides to play :b3:

to split W (a fine plan). What are the pros/cons of the preliminary 1-2 exchange?

Pro: W becomes heavier, presenting a larger target for attack. But I guess W would not really contemplate sacrificing the single stone, so maybe it is heavy enough already.
Con: W becomes stronger, and B leaves multiple cutting points.
Pro & Con: the weakness at P3 remains. Perhaps it even becomes more of a problem once W has a stone at M3.

Suppose B omits the 1-2 exchange, what can W do locally? With a high stone at M4 rather than a low stone at M3, the slide to O2 does not exist. W can peep at P3 immediately, but if B simply blocks at P4, W cannot connect to the M4 stone. So I guess I do not see much benefit to B from this exchange.

Now suppose W had a stone at M3 initially, rather than a stone at M4. In that case, I think the kick would be more reasonable (even though the ending position is the same), since it does prevent the W slide to O2.

Anyway, I think I will stop here, before I get myself even more confused. Thanks for presenting an interesting position to consider

Kirby · **#59**

mitsun wrote:

This is an interesting study question. I certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts...

First of all, excellent post. It was very interesting to compare the pros/cons of each scenario.

mitsun wrote:

Pro & Con: The invasion at C3 is still wide open. Without the 2-3 exchange, a direct C3 invasion would probably be the expected continuation. Maybe W wanted to make this invasion less attractive for B, by making the right side larger?

The idea of making the invasion less attractive kind of captures my feeling in playing the kick as well. I thought that it would be useful against P3, but...

mitsun wrote:

(If B omits the 1-2 exchange...)
W can peep at P3 immediately, but if B simply blocks at P4, W cannot connect to the M4 stone.

This is an excellent point! Based on the shape, I did not read that the kick did not help in preventing the P3 peep - it was just my intuition. This goes along very well with your other point that the pro game's kick prevents the slide at O2, whereas I am not really preventing much at all with the kick.

I'm still confused about this position, too, but at least now I feel like the pro's game had value in the kick in ways that my game did not.

mitsun wrote:

Now suppose W had a stone at M3 initially, rather than a stone at M4. In that case, I think the kick would be more reasonable (even though the ending position is the same), since it does prevent the W slide to O2.

Hmm, the plot thickens... I think this is why I get so confused with tewari! :-?

Kirby · **#60**

Alas, I have lost once again today. This time by 4.5 points. This is rather unusual, because in my experience, I usually lose by more or win by more. This is the second game in a row where it was a difference of less than 5 points.

I wonder if this is reason for me to give value to endgame. I feel I get worse as the game progresses. I'm not an expert in the opening, but at least I've seen several openings. As I get further into the game, I have less and less experience, since many of my games don't make it to the endgame. So again, it's very interesting to lose by a small amount like this.

In this game, I don't know exactly where I went wrong. Maybe it was a lot of little things. Maybe invading the bottom left was bad. Maybe not aggressively attacking his group was bad. In any case, the result was a 4.5 point loss. Alas, it is a sad start of the weekend.

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online