I hate it when they play so rude and march in my place. I know it is wrong, I simply know it from the bottom of my heart that what these people play is incorrect and I never seem to be able to punish it.
Now I think I should have connected at r5 but then again I get split in two... but then white would jump around n5 and then what??
It seems that the only way to win in go is to play territorial games, since invading and living in opponent moyo is so easy, while trying to defend your moyo is extremely hard.
Krama wrote:I hate it when they play so rude and march in my place. I know it is wrong, I simply know it from the bottom of my heart that what these people play is incorrect and I never seem to be able to punish it.
Now I think I should have connected at r5 but then again I get split in two... but then white would jump around n5 and then what??
It seems that the only way to win in go is to play territorial games, since invading and living in opponent moyo is so easy, while trying to defend your moyo is extremely hard.
W's moves appear to be working so, incorrect or not, they are appropriate against someone who cannot take advantage of them. Instead of complaining try to figure out why you lost and make sure you don't do it again. A good place to start would be a book on shape.
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).
Krama wrote:I hate it when they play so rude and march in my place. I know it is wrong, I simply know it from the bottom of my heart that what these people play is incorrect and I never seem to be able to punish it.
Now I think I should have connected at r5 but then again I get split in two... but then white would jump around n5 and then what??
It seems that the only way to win in go is to play territorial games, since invading and living in opponent moyo is so easy, while trying to defend your moyo is extremely hard.
W's moves appear to be working so, incorrect or not, they are appropriate against someone who cannot take advantage of them. Instead of complaining try to figure out why you lost and make sure you don't do it again. A good place to start would be a book on shape.
I am simply over with trying to play like this... I got my self the territorial style book and now I will stick to it. Shapes don't matter when you have solid stones and and territory that can't be invaded. Now I understand what a lot of people mean when they say pro players avoid playing on moyo and focus on territory, it is so much easier
At what point do you think you had a moyo or territory which was so secure that it would be rude for your opponent to invade? The W cut at O9 (move 72) looks entirely reasonable. In the fight from moves 82-106, both sides had two weak groups, and I dont think you should expect to be able to kill everything. At move 109, you had an opportunity to block at J5 and fight to the death, with good prospects in the capturing race.
Krama wrote:I hate it when they play so rude and march in my place. I know it is wrong, I simply know it from the bottom of my heart that what these people play is incorrect and I never seem to be able to punish it.
{snip}
It seems that the only way to win in go is to play territorial games, since invading and living in opponent moyo is so easy, while trying to defend your moyo is extremely hard.
Pardon me, but what moyo? The closest thing Black has to a moyo is on the top side, which remains untouched.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Krama wrote:
I am simply over with trying to play like this... I got my self the territorial style book and now I will stick to it. Shapes don't matter when you have solid stones and and territory that can't be invaded. Now I understand what a lot of people mean when they say pro players avoid playing on moyo and focus on territory, it is so much easier
Hhm! Last time I checked that would qualify as good shape.
Last edited by DrStraw on Tue May 06, 2014 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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).
In general, black missed several key shape points and didn't really build a moyo or do much with the strength white have him early on. The thing with some of white's weird moves is not to get fazed by them and to play your own game. Just because white played elsewhere, that doesn't automatically mean that white's move is more sente than your move. Even if it is, sometimes kiai requires that you ignore it and fight back.
The other thing about this is that you don't need to punish all mistakes. Many mistakes are their own punishment, but can be turned into good moves if the opponent tries to "punish" too hard. If white's taking small areas, etc, then the punishment is that black naturally builds the bigger ones while white gets settled.
Skydyr, thank you for the review. Now I see a lot of mistakes that I made. Why do you think us weaker players do these kind of silly mistakes? Fighting where fighting is not needed, protecting something that requires no protecting, not protecting something that has a weakness?
When I want to play all solid and without aji I am left with little territory and no influence, and it seems that my opponent gets it all. This is why I mostly make my game an illusion. It all seems good territory and influence wise however I soon realize that my shapes have no value and they just all apart.
Krama wrote:[
W's moves appear to be working so, incorrect or not, they are appropriate against someone who cannot take advantage of them. Instead of complaining try to figure out why you lost and make sure you don't do it again. A good place to start would be a book on shape.
I am simply over with trying to play like this... I got my self the territorial style book and now I will stick to it. Shapes don't matter when you have solid stones and and territory that can't be invaded. Now I understand what a lot of people mean when they say pro players avoid playing on moyo and focus on territory, it is so much easier
Hhm! Last time I checked that would qualify as good shape.[/quote]
I must agree here. Playing territorially is often a matter of having solid groups that look after themselves. The territory advantage comes from the inevitable fighting later: when you have nothing that your opponent can attack, you have a free hand to play in the middle game and endgame.
skydyr wrote:The territory advantage comes from the inevitable fighting later: when you have nothing that your opponent can attack, you have a free hand to play in the middle game and endgame.
Actually, that kind of advantage depends upon thickness .
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
skydyr wrote:The territory advantage comes from the inevitable fighting later: when you have nothing that your opponent can attack, you have a free hand to play in the middle game and endgame.
Actually, that kind of advantage depends upon thickness .
Perhaps I am using the terms incorrectly, but I often think of them as somewhat synonymous. Of course, it occurs to me that solid can be slow and heavy instead of thick, so there's definitely some difference.
skydyr wrote:The territory advantage comes from the inevitable fighting later: when you have nothing that your opponent can attack, you have a free hand to play in the middle game and endgame.
Actually, that kind of advantage depends upon thickness .
Perhaps I am using the terms incorrectly, but I often think of them as somewhat synonymous. Of course, it occurs to me that solid can be slow and heavy instead of thick, so there's definitely some difference.
How would you describe the difference?
To my understanding for territory oriented players want the profit now, though some seem satisfied to destroy your profit ASAP. I think thickness is a variation on influence, which isn't considered territory at all.
skydyr wrote:The territory advantage comes from the inevitable fighting later: when you have nothing that your opponent can attack, you have a free hand to play in the middle game and endgame.
Actually, that kind of advantage depends upon thickness .
Perhaps I am using the terms incorrectly, but I often think of them as somewhat synonymous. Of course, it occurs to me that solid can be slow and heavy instead of thick, so there's definitely some difference.
How would you describe the difference?
Well, thickness is a big topic, one that is not easy to understand. It is usually not associated with territory, especially in the early play. Several joseki feature a tradeoff between territory and thickness. That said, it is possible to have thick territory. You are probably familiar with the material on thickness at Sensei's Library.
The problem with Krama's idea of building territory that cannot be invaded is that it is easy to fall behind. It is not that one builds secure territory in preparation for later fighting, it is that secure territory arises from fighting (as Takagawa pointed out).
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
