paK0's goals and dreams

[paK0]

I don't really think that sandbaggers are the problem. At least I feel like I loose more games to my own misplays rather then my opponent being better by a big margin.

But I'll keep that in mind, if all else goes wrong I might go back to just playing regular blitz games, but I'm still not convinced that its impossible for me to slow my playing down =)

[Bill Spight]

I wonder if playing blitz actually makes you better. I got 10k KGS doing only that.

I have never played at blitz speed myself, but Bruce Wilcox has recommended playing games is 15 min. total. That's an average speed of less than 4 sec. per move.

[RBerenguel]

I wonder if playing blitz actually makes you better. I got 10k KGS doing only that.

I have never played at blitz speed myself, but Bruce Wilcox has recommended playing games is 15 min. total. That's an average speed of less than 4 sec. per move.

This is more or less what a KGS blitz automatch takes (1 min main time, 3x10" byoyomi.) Between 10 and 20 minutes total.

[RBerenguel]

I don't really think that sandbaggers are the problem. At least I feel like I loose more games to my own misplays rather then my opponent being better by a big margin.

But I'll keep that in mind, if all else goes wrong I might go back to just playing regular blitz games, but I'm still not convinced that its impossible for me to slow my playing down =)

Something that made me play slower (but not much better) was prepare a paper with numbers 1-150 and record the reasoning behind the moves I played (of course, if something was a joseki, I didn't write anything for the moves, if some sequence was part of a plan I had already written out, same.) Essentially 1-5 words about the move.

[Abyssinica]

I got to kgs 6k by playing most of my moves in under 10 seconds.

[paK0]

I don't really think that sandbaggers are the problem. At least I feel like I loose more games to my own misplays rather then my opponent being better by a big margin.

But I'll keep that in mind, if all else goes wrong I might go back to just playing regular blitz games, but I'm still not convinced that its impossible for me to slow my playing down =)

Something that made me play slower (but not much better) was prepare a paper with numbers 1-150 and record the reasoning behind the moves I played (of course, if something was a joseki, I didn't write anything for the moves, if some sequence was part of a plan I had already written out, same.) Essentially 1-5 words about the move.

Not sure if this would work for me, its not that my moves are without reason, its that I don't take any time to consider alternatives, which is quite a problem when the first instinct isn't right.

I got to kgs 6k by playing most of my moves in under 10 seconds.

Even on slower time settings?

[Abyssinica]

I got to kgs 6k by playing most of my moves in under 10 seconds.

Even on slower time settings?

Especially on slower time settings.

[paK0]

Especially on slower time settings.

Maybe I'm lacking the female intuition

Or I could just be worse....

I'll add that to the list of things to ponder after I fix my little blitzing problem.

[Knotwilg]

If playing too fast and not considering any alt moves is the issue, then play games with only that objective. If that still does not work then write down your thoughts during the game or use a voice recorder. We're delving Into the field of psychology here.

It must be possible to start thinking. But you may have to remove a few heavy roadblocks.

[paK0]

Thanks for all the comments, I'm not 100% sure what did it, but today was definitely an improvement. I only blitzed on a couple of moves, but I immediately recognized it and took a 5 sec walk through my room. Still improvable, but success for now.

Report for today:
- 25 problems (tesuji, got most of em right, but a little too slow for my taste)
- some reading practice
- 4 games: 3-1

Here is the one I lost, it may or may not have been a little to early to resign, but I felt like I got overplayed at every part of the board and could not see where my territory was coming from:

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=4859

[mitsun]

This looks like a good game to learn from. Go is fundamentally about territory, and at some point you have to try to make some of it. Maybe it will fall into your lap through a brilliant attack which actually kills a big group, but more often you have to think about where you can make territory and then try hard to get it.

Lets looks at the sequence in the upper right after . How would you describe the starting position? Here is what I see: 1) W has an extremely strong group radiating power to the center and the upper right; 2) W has a corner shimari facing the upper right; 3) B has three very weak stones in this area. Clearly W has an overwhelming local advantage, which should somehow be turned into territory.

Now jump ahead to the result after . How would you evaluate this position, compared to the start? B has succeeded in making a very safe almost certainly alive group. What did W get in return? The very strong W group has become a little bit stronger, but that is all. W did not enclose the weak B group (which would make center strength) and W did not make any corner territory. Clearly something went wrong.

The basic problem is that you attacked the weak B stones by pushing from your strong group, which is the wrong direction. The right strategy is to push from the weaker side, forcing your opponent in the direction of your strong group. Also, the top is where there is territory to be made, and now is a perfect time to take some profit while attacking. There are lots of possible moves, but how about something simple like R14? If the sequence unfolds R14, R13, R15, Q12, then B has nice shape (although you can mess that up with a peep at P13) and will probably live, just like in the game sequence, but this time you have a secure profit of 20 points in the corner.

Something similar happened later in the upper left corner, where you started out with a good position but did not find a way to make territory. You cut B with moves - , initating a strong attack, which should have been profitable. Clearly after the cut, the W groups on either side are much stronger than the floating B stones. But jump ahead to and B not only lived, but ended up with more territory than W along the top.

I think the problem was again direction of play. was great shape, but very slow, letting B off the hook. How much harm can B do by running with this stone? Certainly no harm to the right, where the huge W wall is waiting. On the left side, you might worry a little, but you still have plenty of room, and in fact you would not mind running toward the bottom side, since that would destroy the potential B territory there.

In the other direction, along the top side, there is a lot of territory waiting to be made, and now would be a perfect time to beat your opponent to it. You should be able to make territory there naturally, while also loosely attacking the big floating B group which your cut has created. How about playing somewhere around H15? There is a very good chance you can make a big territory here, as it is unlikely B will be able to invade while he is busy settling his weak group. It was a real shame to let B destroy all this prospective territory while settling his group nicely with . (Even after that, I would respond at H17, to try to dispute the territory around here. If that failed and my group died, I would resign. - are too submissive and painful to even consider.)

[Knotwilg]

The review by Mitsun is excellent.

[paK0]

...

I agree with Knotwilg, great review, thanks a lot.

Go never fails to remind me that there is a big difference between knowing something (attack from the weaker side) and actually applying it in your games. Or even seeing it afterwards without someone pointing it out =).

[EdLee]

there is a big difference between knowing something (attack from the weaker side) and actually applying it in your games. Or even seeing it afterwards without someone pointing it out =).

Yes. Different levels of understanding:

• Even after someone points it out, we still don't get it.
• After someone points it out, we vaguely get an idea.
• After someone points it out, it kind of makes sense.
• After someone points it out, it makes a lot of sense.
• After someone points it out, we think we get it, but fail next time.
• After someone points it out, we play it 5% of the time.
• After someone points it out, we play it 50% of the time.
• After someone points it out, we play it 75% of the time.
• Nobody ever told us, we figure it out with tremendous work.
• Nobody told us, we figure it out with medium wotk.
• We figure it out with little to no effort.
• We understand none of the exceptions.
• We understand 5% of the exceptions.
• We understand 50% of the exceptions.
• We can help others understand it.
• And the infinite shades in between all the above.

Understanding is a continuum. Not a discrete thing
with 3 or 4 discrete states.

What does it mean to "know" something ? See above examples
of the continuum. Many people think of understanding
as yes-or-no, or . ( See various people's posts
on this forum for samples. )
No, understanding is often a continuum.

[paK0]

@Ed: I just hope I'm moving in the right direction on the list^^

Anyway, did not do a lot today, some joseki study and 2 games(1/1). Last update for the week though, gonna spend some time in Wacken.

So for a change of pace I'll post a game that I managed to win. After I got a lead I played a little over-safe, but still got quite enough to win.

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=4865