the willow way

[Charles Matthews]

I've played a couple games via DGS recently that I would appreciate reviews for, if anyone is so inclined.

In this first one, I felt I was slightly ahead in the mid-late endgame and am not sure where I lost the game exactly.

Things have been kind of leisurely up to this point. Here White at N17 breaks through, and I don't see why not.

Suddenly White is looking a bit thin.

I'd be looking at O6.

OK, seems to be an attack. Black at L4 is still of interest, but White has some scope to dodge around.

Not now. White has recovered.

Instead of pushing at D6, I like D7 when it works: get one step ahead. If that's the plan, keep options open.

By it isn't clear White has made enough territory by attacking. Looks like a small lead for Black to me.

[skydyr]

Things have been kind of leisurely up to this point. Here White at N17 breaks through, and I don't see why not.

I spent a while thinking of whether to break through or not here, but I ended up deciding not because it looked like it lead to wild and unclear fighting with both sides running, but white weaker than black. I often tend to get myself into ridiculously complicated fights by playing the crazy move, as Uberdude among others put it, and refusing to back down. I have been known to burst into maniacal laughter on finding the crazy move in the past, and find it hard to resist playing, but it tends to be crazy for a reason. So, I'm trying to restrain my play somewhat, but I think it leads to underplays.

This is probably not a question with a pat answer, but how to you tell the difference between "severe yet complicated" and "severe yet overplay"? Spheres of influence? Deep and heavy reading? Instinct?

[Bill Spight]

Some remarks on the first game.

[Charles Matthews]

This is probably not a question with a pat answer, but how to you tell the difference between "severe yet complicated" and "severe yet overplay"? Spheres of influence? Deep and heavy reading? Instinct?

There is quite an interesting point here, in the particular position at issue.

You end up with a group that is a bit heavy, so you have to take care of it.[1] You do so in reasonable style (with a couple of shapeful plays, I'm glad to say). Your breakthrough as I read it would take away considerably more territory, and leave the upper left Black group subject to some later attacking plays. But it would leave you heavier.

I think, fundamentally, you have to take the heavier play in such positions. (It took me a long time to formulate this as a principle, I'll admit, for my own use.) The development over about the next ten plays shows that, to me.

So, breaking through to the second line is typically so big that it is worth some later grief in terms of having to defend. I'm assuming Black has to cut after the hane I suggested.

[1] Well, you don't have to, as Bill points out. This gets us into another discussion, about kikashi. In a sense my point is that if you are going to defend, you should make the breakthrough that is one of Bill's variations. This isn't really a trade-off, more a perception thing.

[Bill Spight]

This is probably not a question with a pat answer, but how to you tell the difference between "severe yet complicated" and "severe yet overplay"? Spheres of influence? Deep and heavy reading? Instinct?

There is quite an interesting point here, in the particular position at issue.

You end up with a group that is a bit heavy, so you have to take care of it.[1] You do so in reasonable style (with a couple of shapeful plays, I'm glad to say). Your breakthrough as I read it would take away considerably more territory, and leave the upper left Black group subject to some later attacking plays. But it would leave you heavier.

I think, fundamentally, you have to take the heavier play in such positions.

Charles makes a couple of valuable points. First is with the phrase, "a bit heavy". There is not a strict dichotomy between heavy and light, but heaviness and lightness are questions of degree. The second has to do with the willingness to take on a certain degree of heaviness in order to destroy a good bit of potential territory and the possibility of later attacking plays. There is the voice of judgement and experience.

One thing that I noticed in pro games is that fighting players often made plays that seemed heavy to me. Karigane in particular gave me that impression. (Maybe because most of his games that I saw were with Go Seigen. ) Later I found out that Honinbo Shuei had said that Karigane's play was like water. Aside from being quite a compliment, that does not carry a connotation of heaviness. And so I began to question my own perception of heaviness and lightness, which I had thought was pretty good by the time I had become a dan player.

[skydyr]

This is probably not a question with a pat answer, but how to you tell the difference between "severe yet complicated" and "severe yet overplay"? Spheres of influence? Deep and heavy reading? Instinct?

There is quite an interesting point here, in the particular position at issue.

You end up with a group that is a bit heavy, so you have to take care of it.[1] You do so in reasonable style (with a couple of shapeful plays, I'm glad to say). Your breakthrough as I read it would take away considerably more territory, and leave the upper left Black group subject to some later attacking plays. But it would leave you heavier.

I think, fundamentally, you have to take the heavier play in such positions. (It took me a long time to formulate this as a principle, I'll admit, for my own use.) The development over about the next ten plays shows that, to me.

So, breaking through to the second line is typically so big that it is worth some later grief in terms of having to defend. I'm assuming Black has to cut after the hane I suggested.

[1] Well, you don't have to, as Bill points out. This gets us into another discussion, about kikashi. In a sense my point is that if you are going to defend, you should make the breakthrough that is one of Bill's variations. This isn't really a trade-off, more a perception thing.

My joking answer to heavy/light groups, at least, is that my groups are heavy and my opponents' are light

I've long suspected that complication comes through the use of less good moves that happen to just work in particular situations. The avalanche, for example, with it's playing into hane-at-the-head-of-2, or other joseki where one hanes on the outside but leaves an exploitable cutting point. I've also begun thinking that not only are there degrees of heaviness and lightness, but that, like strength, the heaviness or lightness of a group is relative to the surrounding groups. If you have a heavy group, but it's in a running fight with another heavy group, it's not really that heavy because of the pressure it can exert on the opposing group. In a sense, the lighter the group is, the more easily it's cut, allowing the opponent to relieve the pressure on his own group. Similarly, the more shapeful one group is, the more trouble the other group may be in, so the heaviness of the group is less relevant.

In retrospect, I think you're right, and Bill's move is the best one to get black running and ruin points. It would probably help the right side connection is the process as well, instead of letting black invade their following the sequence.

One thing that I noticed in pro games is that fighting players often made plays that seemed heavy to me. Karigane in particular gave me that impression. (Maybe because most of his games that I saw were with Go Seigen. ) Later I found out that Honinbo Shuei had said that Karigane's play was like water. Aside from being quite a compliment, that does not carry a connotation of heaviness. And so I began to question my own perception of heaviness and lightness, which I had thought was pretty good by the time I had become a dan player.

It wouldn't surprise me if Karigane was off his game by the time of his match with Go Seigen on account of not having been able to get many serious games following the Ki-in/Keiinsha match in the 20s, but the only game of his that I can say I'm truly familiar with (as opposed to having looked over in passing) is the famous killing game from that match. Shuei's commentary, after all, is prior to all of the tumultuous period following his passing.

[Uberdude]

Is breaking through to the side really heavier than the game line of making the wall of 3 stones? A basic trait of heavy stones is they can't make eyes easily, so think about where potential eyes can be. In the game line there's maybe an eye around L15 and white takes gote to run out, and a further moves at n13 or j13 would build some further eyeshape in the centre. In the 1st of Bill's breakthrough lines there's some eyeshape forming around j15 and white takes gote to run out. In his 2nd line there could be a future eye in the centre around l14, but by breaking through there could also be an eye on the edge around o19 (it's a lot easier to make eyes on the edge than the centre). And a bonus of this line is black's group to the right is not fully settled so moves like p18 (and s17) are more fun.

[Charles Matthews]

This is probably not a question with a pat answer, but how to you tell the difference between "severe yet complicated" and "severe yet overplay"? Spheres of influence? Deep and heavy reading? Instinct?

There is quite an interesting point here, in the particular position at issue.[...] I think, fundamentally, you have to take the heavier play in such positions.

There is the voice of judgement and experience.

Credit where it's due: I hadn't really formulated it until I did one of Matthew Macfadyen's workshops. There we were asked to play over continuations in a game position from the 1960s, I believe involving Sakata and Fujisawa Hosai. There a descent to the second line seemed to be a strategic "pivot".

Now Sakata was "severe yet complicated" if any pro was: maybe his opponent was responsible but actually the same attitude is found in the older Fujisawa. So, I don't rate these guys as role models, but I found something there, to qualify my basic working view that good go is elegant.

[Charles Matthews]

Is breaking through to the side really heavier than the game line of making the wall of 3 stones? A basic trait of heavy stones is they can't make eyes easily, so think about where potential eyes can be. In the game line there's maybe an eye around L15 and white takes gote to run out, and a further moves at n13 or j13 would build some further eyeshape in the centre. In the 1st of Bill's breakthrough lines there's some eyeshape forming around j15 and white takes gote to run out. In his 2nd line there could be a future eye in the centre around l14, but by breaking through there could also be an eye on the edge around o19 (it's a lot easier to make eyes on the edge than the centre). And a bonus of this line is black's group to the right is not fully settled so moves like p18 (and s17) are more fun.

If you are axiomatic about it, namely heavy means "I'd prefer to sacrifice these stones but can't", they are heavier (because of exchanges made round the edge of the group are basically investments on which you'd need a return). Attacks against the group become "more sente".

The valid points you make about shape are the secondary "so you'll have to defend, look at resources" debate, and from the general attack-and-defence perspective White should go down this avenue. Bill feels the shoulderhit is too early, and I simply don't know: for kyu players that is a nuance, I'd say.

But I don't think White should back down, given the chance. It is just the way to take the lead given Black played passively in the lower right.

[skydyr]

The valid points you make about shape are the secondary "so you'll have to defend, look at resources" debate, and from the general attack-and-defence perspective White should go down this avenue. Bill feels the shoulderhit is too early, and I simply don't know: for kyu players that is a nuance, I'd say.

If, following Bill's suggestion, white were to extend down the left or reinforce on the right at , how do you all see play proceeding?

As black, I think I'd be inclined to expand the top with Black P13 or something similar to simultaneously make a big reduction more difficult for white to accomplish.

[Bill Spight]

Is breaking through to the side really heavier than the game line of making the wall of 3 stones? A basic trait of heavy stones is they can't make eyes easily, so think about where potential eyes can be. In the game line there's maybe an eye around L15 and white takes gote to run out, and a further moves at n13 or j13 would build some further eyeshape in the centre. In the 1st of Bill's breakthrough lines there's some eyeshape forming around j15 and white takes gote to run out. In his 2nd line there could be a future eye in the centre around l14, but by breaking through there could also be an eye on the edge around o19 (it's a lot easier to make eyes on the edge than the centre). And a bonus of this line is black's group to the right is not fully settled so moves like p18 (and s17) are more fun.

If you are axiomatic about it, namely heavy means "I'd prefer to sacrifice these stones but can't", they are heavier (because of exchanges made round the edge of the group are basically investments on which you'd need a return). Attacks against the group become "more sente".

The valid points you make about shape are the secondary "so you'll have to defend, look at resources" debate, and from the general attack-and-defence perspective White should go down this avenue. Bill feels the shoulderhit is too early, and I simply don't know: for kyu players that is a nuance, I'd say.

But I don't think White should back down, given the chance. It is just the way to take the lead given Black played passively in the lower right.

My sense of heaviness is closer to Uberdude's than Charles's, but I did not want to muddy the waters by bringing up that question. I wanted to support Charles's main point.

As for the shoulder hit, I don't know, either. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

[Uberdude]

The problem with "it's bigger so harder to sacrifice" is if, all other things being equal, we have a choice to make 20 points or 30 points, should we choose the 20 so that if we have to sacrifice it we lose less? Breaking the side is only a bigger group because we destroyed more of black's points. Usually all other things aren't equal, the heavy choice in some position destroys more points, but at a cost of worse eyeshape, running away more slowly, gote vs sente etc. Here I am suggesting you get the plus of destroying more points, but with pretty similar (if not better!) eyeshape and running away speeds, plus cutting black gives future strategic goals. If white did tenuki rather than make the 2 space jump then yes I could see the point that that wall of 3 is lighter and more useful as some outside thickness kikashi than the scraggle of stones you'd get from the breakthrough lines and then playing tenuki.

As black, I think I'd be inclined to expand the top with Black P13 or something similar to simultaneously make a big reduction more difficult for white to accomplish.

The shoulder hit seems ok to me, but q8 and c8 also appeal (as white played slow f4 I want to get value from it with c8). I don't like your black p13 suggestion, that's a move for when white's right r11 is at q10 so you have a followup at r12, here you don't. q12 is one idea over there, or k15/k14/l16 to grow the moyo and prevent the shoulder hit.

[skydyr]

The shoulder hit seems ok to me, but q8 and c8 also appeal (as white played slow f4 I want to get value from it with c8).

As a followup, would you have preferred another move instead of F4 to finish the joseki, like getting ahead with the keima or something in between?

[Uberdude]

Joseki is to tenuki, o3 being a top choice and not quite tenuki as it does help the wall.

[skydyr]

Joseki is to tenuki, o3 being a top choice and not quite tenuki as it does help the wall.

Even with the 3-space high pincer? I understood tenuki as more frowned upon the looser the pincer, as black's stone has a much greater scope for action.