I need advice: Forward the game to move 22 and tell me who stands better or if it's an even game (and if somebody played a real bad move up to then).
Who stands better in this fuseki?
-
skydyr
- Oza
- Posts: 2495
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:06 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: skydyr
- Online playing schedule: When my wife is out.
- Location: DC
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 436 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
I'm not as strong as you, but I wonder about the original split at 
and the approach at 
.
By tewari, if the game were played something like this: Would white want to play at A, or somewhere different? It certainly wouldn't be my first choice. With the stone at A, as in the game, I wonder if approaching at the 5-3 point would be better?
By move 22, my feeling is that black has taken the big point on the right side, but white didn't get the opportunity to take a corresponding one, and black has miai between harassing the stone in the upper left and attacking white's shape in the lower left, which seems less than ideal. Sure enough, later in the game the white stone in the upper left has turned into a heavy group that black gets a lot out of attacking, and the thickness white built in the lower left doesn't seem to really come into play with black poking his head out between the two white groups. Alternatively, maybe white should have ignored
to do something on the top, and dealt with the bad shape, or done something else instead of attaching at C5 for 
, and held that in reserve or taken sente when black fixed it.
and the approach at .By tewari, if the game were played something like this: Would white want to play at A, or somewhere different? It certainly wouldn't be my first choice. With the stone at A, as in the game, I wonder if approaching at the 5-3 point would be better?
By move 22, my feeling is that black has taken the big point on the right side, but white didn't get the opportunity to take a corresponding one, and black has miai between harassing the stone in the upper left and attacking white's shape in the lower left, which seems less than ideal. Sure enough, later in the game the white stone in the upper left has turned into a heavy group that black gets a lot out of attacking, and the thickness white built in the lower left doesn't seem to really come into play with black poking his head out between the two white groups. Alternatively, maybe white should have ignored
to do something on the top, and dealt with the bad shape, or done something else instead of attaching at C5 for , and held that in reserve or taken sente when black fixed it.-
Joaz Banbeck
- Judan
- Posts: 5546
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am
- Rank: 1D AGA
- GD Posts: 1512
- Kaya handle: Test
- Location: Banbeck Vale
- Has thanked: 1080 times
- Been thanked: 1434 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
4: Taking a side before a corner? Not theoretically optimal.
9: Encouraging W to take F3 and F4, which works very well with K3.
I would have played the old move at D6, hoping to make K3 over-extended.
13: Black owes a move in the lower left.
19: I think B6 is needed here.
22: I would have played C7, not C8. Why jump? D4 is more of a concern than C14.
9: Encouraging W to take F3 and F4, which works very well with K3.
I would have played the old move at D6, hoping to make K3 over-extended.
13: Black owes a move in the lower left.
19: I think B6 is needed here.
22: I would have played C7, not C8. Why jump? D4 is more of a concern than C14.
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
I pretty much agree with Joaz. 
I think that the position is roughly even. Statically, White is a little ahead, but Black can get the last big play of the opening with a pincer on the top side.
I think that the worst play so far was
. It not only allowed , but approached the White strength.
I think that the position is roughly even. Statically, White is a little ahead, but Black can get the last big play of the opening with a pincer on the top side.
I think that the worst play so far was
. It not only allowed , but approached the White strength.The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Pippen
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:34 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: 2d
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
Hm...interesting. I think a move at "a" would be indeed one of the best. It would be a light way of playing, but loosely connecting the white stones. If White jumps to a kakari at 1 directly, he can be pincered and things get rocky, if white undercuts 5 he can be pincered too in the process. I do not think that tewari shows that my splitting 4 ("a") is badly placed.skydyr wrote:I'm not as strong as you, but I wonder about the original split at
By tewari, if the game were played something like this: Would white want to play at A, or somewhere different?
After reviewing the game I think I didn't lose it in fuseki, but in the middle game, esp. with 76 which was wayyy to slow. It's amazing how little fuseki actually means when you see all the mistakes done in middle games, though many players (including me) treat fuseki as if would really matter^^.
-
Shaddy
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:44 pm
- Rank: KGS 5d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Str1fe, Midorisuke
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 192 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
At this point, I think that the extension on the top side is the biggest move, and 'a' is probably worse than playing another move in the bottom left corner.Pippen wrote:Hm...interesting. I think a move at "a" would be indeed one of the best. It would be a light way of playing, but loosely connecting the white stones. If White jumps to a kakari at 1 directly, he can be pincered and things get rocky, if white undercuts 5 he can be pincered too in the process. I do not think that tewari shows that my splitting 4 ("a") is badly placed.skydyr wrote:I'm not as strong as you, but I wonder about the original split at
By tewari, if the game were played something like this: Would white want to play at A, or somewhere different?
After reviewing the game I think I didn't lose it in fuseki, but in the middle game, esp. with 76 which was wayyy to slow. It's amazing how little fuseki actually means when you see all the mistakes done in middle games, though many players (including me) treat fuseki as if would really matter^^.
-
skydyr
- Oza
- Posts: 2495
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:06 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: skydyr
- Online playing schedule: When my wife is out.
- Location: DC
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 436 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
My own assumption was that locally white would want to press at D6 and follow it up with a move in the vicinity of A, but perhaps higher or farther depending on the result on the left side. I agree that the kakari would be problematic as black could play against both sides easily. I can understand the thought that the top is larger also, but it does seem like white gave away a corner if white takes the top.Shaddy wrote:At this point, I think that the extension on the top side is the biggest move, and 'a' is probably worse than playing another move in the bottom left corner.Pippen wrote:Hm...interesting. I think a move at "a" would be indeed one of the best. It would be a light way of playing, but loosely connecting the white stones. If White jumps to a kakari at 1 directly, he can be pincered and things get rocky, if white undercuts 5 he can be pincered too in the process. I do not think that tewari shows that my splitting 4 ("a") is badly placed.skydyr wrote:I'm not as strong as you, but I wonder about the original split at
By tewari, if the game were played something like this: Would white want to play at A, or somewhere different?
After reviewing the game I think I didn't lose it in fuseki, but in the middle game, esp. with 76 which was wayyy to slow. It's amazing how little fuseki actually means when you see all the mistakes done in middle games, though many players (including me) treat fuseki as if would really matter^^.
-
Joaz Banbeck
- Judan
- Posts: 5546
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am
- Rank: 1D AGA
- GD Posts: 1512
- Kaya handle: Test
- Location: Banbeck Vale
- Has thanked: 1080 times
- Been thanked: 1434 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
It does matter. A good fuseki gives you a slight edge in the middle game.Pippen wrote:... It's amazing how little fuseki actually means when you see all the mistakes done in middle games, though many players (including me) treat fuseki as if would really matter^^.
For any given game, the magnitude of mid-game mistakes makes that edge look like noise. But if you look a large bunch of games - enough to smooth out the big mistakes - the results favor those who play better fuseki.
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207
-
Knotwilg
- Oza
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:53 am
- Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Artevelde
- OGS: Knotwilg
- Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 1021 times
- Contact:
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
I beg to differ. You are filtering out the signal to make the noise significant.
There is no reason to neglect the opening, so try your best to play a good opening. But the effect in winning percentage is marginal. Even at our level, the difference is made in life & death and next in the endgame.
A good opening gives you an edge, as you say. After the opening, all the work still needs to be done.
There is no reason to neglect the opening, so try your best to play a good opening. But the effect in winning percentage is marginal. Even at our level, the difference is made in life & death and next in the endgame.
A good opening gives you an edge, as you say. After the opening, all the work still needs to be done.
-
DrStraw
- Oza
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:09 am
- Rank: AGA 5d
- GD Posts: 4312
- Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
- Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
- Has thanked: 237 times
- Been thanked: 662 times
- Contact:
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
In the 100m sprint those who get out of the block fastest will generally produce faster times. That's not to say that there is not a lot of effort to be put into the remaining 95m. It's the same with go: overall the better starters will produce the better results in the long run.Knotwilg wrote:I beg to differ. You are filtering out the signal to make the noise significant.
There is no reason to neglect the opening, so try your best to play a good opening. But the effect in winning percentage is marginal. Even at our level, the difference is made in life & death and next in the endgame.
A good opening gives you an edge, as you say. After the opening, all the work still needs to be done.
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).
-
Joaz Banbeck
- Judan
- Posts: 5546
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am
- Rank: 1D AGA
- GD Posts: 1512
- Kaya handle: Test
- Location: Banbeck Vale
- Has thanked: 1080 times
- Been thanked: 1434 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
No. I'm averaging a bunch of signals to demonstrate that what appeared to be noise is significant.Knotwilg wrote:... You are filtering out the signal to make the noise significant...
A car analogy is needed here.
Most people will assume that they can avoid hitting the car in front of them if they are paying attention and are quick to hit the brakes. If you suggest to them that an additional .8mm of tread would make a difference, they will say that it is just noise.
But if you look at 10,000 accidents, and compare tread depth, it matters.
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
I would also add that an opening advantage can be easily lost in a fast game, but in slower games it is harder for the behind player to elicit mistakes from the leader and catch up. When I played on OGS I was much better at maintaining my advantage after the opening through to the endgame than in real-time games. Now one could say the extra time makes me play a stronger middlegame too, but having a slight lead after the opening means one is in command of the game and can play 'Boa constrictor style' so as to preserve your advantage rather than trying desperate measures to catch up.
Edit: Hence in 2 day Japanese title match games it's fairly common for only 60 moves or so to be played on the first day. So the pros place a lot of importance on the opening. But then if we look at the most recent Gu Li - Lee Sedol jubango game Gu Li lost after a good opening because of one slip in the middlegame: I wonder how long he spent on that crucial move 130 seriously considering Lee's counterattack in the centre.
Edit: Hence in 2 day Japanese title match games it's fairly common for only 60 moves or so to be played on the first day. So the pros place a lot of importance on the opening. But then if we look at the most recent Gu Li - Lee Sedol jubango game Gu Li lost after a good opening because of one slip in the middlegame: I wonder how long he spent on that crucial move 130 seriously considering Lee's counterattack in the centre.
Last edited by Uberdude on Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Knotwilg
- Oza
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:53 am
- Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Artevelde
- OGS: Knotwilg
- Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 1021 times
- Contact:
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
I agree with Uberdude, who was so diligent to stick with Go arguments. Analogies are always a sign of running out of arguments: Go is not like 100m dash or driving a car, so whatever is true there chronologically, is not necessarily true for Go.
Go does not share the linearity with 100m dash. It uses brain, not body, so there are effects of scale and complexity in Go not present in 100m dash. In fact, the only thing Go shares with 100m dash is the fact that it starts and ends. There are numerous analogies possible, all equally flawed.
For example, I could argue that Go is like a match of football: it doesn't matter whether you kick off or not, or whether your ball possession is higher in the first 15 minutes. That might be true in football but it says nothing about Go, only because both are games and have a beginning and an end.
My argument is that in the middle game, life & death issues arise because groups become disconnected and surrounded. This requires a particular skillset, very different from the intuitive skillset in the opening, and the act of killing or living is much more meaningful for a game than the act of playing proper direction or keeping sente in the opening or whatever heuristic that is important in the opening.
Same for the endgame: the alleged noise of blundering by ignoring atari on your big group as stones fill the board is not noise, it's a signal of weakened concentration and needs to be fixed before you dive into the intricacies of the opening.
Notice how few arguments of 100m dash have been used here. You can still disagree with me of course.
Go does not share the linearity with 100m dash. It uses brain, not body, so there are effects of scale and complexity in Go not present in 100m dash. In fact, the only thing Go shares with 100m dash is the fact that it starts and ends. There are numerous analogies possible, all equally flawed.
For example, I could argue that Go is like a match of football: it doesn't matter whether you kick off or not, or whether your ball possession is higher in the first 15 minutes. That might be true in football but it says nothing about Go, only because both are games and have a beginning and an end.
My argument is that in the middle game, life & death issues arise because groups become disconnected and surrounded. This requires a particular skillset, very different from the intuitive skillset in the opening, and the act of killing or living is much more meaningful for a game than the act of playing proper direction or keeping sente in the opening or whatever heuristic that is important in the opening.
Same for the endgame: the alleged noise of blundering by ignoring atari on your big group as stones fill the board is not noise, it's a signal of weakened concentration and needs to be fixed before you dive into the intricacies of the opening.
Notice how few arguments of 100m dash have been used here. You can still disagree with me of course.
-
Pippen
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:34 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: 2d
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
That is my experience too. I do play Split-Fusekis and these are suboptimal openings if we look to the fact that no pro plays them anymore anywhere anyhow. Still I can win basically every game with it (in fact I do better with it than with usual openings) and in games I lose and review I come to the conclusion that at one or more points I either blundered or played a bad direction.Knotwilg wrote:My argument is that in the middle game, life & death issues arise because groups become disconnected and surrounded. This requires a particular skillset, very different from the intuitive skillset in the opening, and the act of killing or living is much more meaningful for a game than the act of playing proper direction or keeping sente in the opening
So my theory is: Below a certain level the opening doesn't mean anything if it's not a freak opening with double 2-2 or something similiar. And even in the pro business I doubt that a good pro would become a bad pro if he'd open with double 3-3 from now on which I'd also consider suboptimal nowadays.
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: Who stands better in this fuseki?
I'm not sure what to think of 13. On the one hand allowing white to make thickness with c5 is bad, but on the other after doing so white's k3 has ended up as an under-extension and white takes gote again so black gets a speedy development. c14 low makes the left side boring so if black did play there c6 would be too flat so perhaps a time for d5 or d6.Bill Spight wrote:I pretty much agree with Joaz.
I think that the position is roughly even. Statically, White is a little ahead, but Black can get the last big play of the opening with a pincer on the top side.
I think that the worst play so far was
I wouldn't say the opening doesn't mean anything to a 5k (for example), but certainly the middlegame is more important and where most games are decided. However, often the problems one faces in the middlegame are sown in the poor opening (Otake makes this point in Opening Theory Made Easy). It is a common situation when I am reviewing some kyu game and he says "I thought the opening was ok for me but then it all went bad later and I don't know why" and the answer is the opening was bad and he had failed to appreciate the aji and problems in his positions. So while spending masses of time trying to play the perfect opening is not the best way to increase your win rate (but I enjoy it) you should spend enough effort to not come out of it with a several stones handicap. Guo Juan recommends, in a 1 hour game, spending 10 minutes on opening, 30 minutes on middlegame, and 20 on endgame.Pippen wrote: So my theory is: Below a certain level the opening doesn't mean anything if it's not a freak opening with double 2-2 or something similiar. And even in the pro business I doubt that a good pro would become a bad pro if he'd open with double 3-3 from now on which I'd also consider suboptimal nowadays.