Kirby's Study Journal

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:22 am

Kirby wrote:@Bill: Probably true. I generally prefer invasion. At least, i always have hesitation in giving territory to my opponent easily.

But no hesitation about giving your opponent thickness and a weak group to chase?

Though in this latest game I think your invasion is quite reasonable as it has attacking power on k3 thanks you already having f3 in place, an important difference to Go Seigen's game (if it's a good move in his when black already has a 2 space extension it's even better in yours).

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:20 am

Uberdude wrote:But no hesitation about giving your opponent thickness and a weak group to chase?

Yes, I think I frequently undervalue this. I think it's quite common in my games to have weak groups.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:31 am

I played against KGS 2d today. I "won" the game, but I actually lost. I guess he had to go somewhere or something.

Anyway, here is my review.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:41 am

Problem areas.

Position 1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 28 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , B . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I played the marked move. I didn't expect his wedge after the double approach. I think I should just aim for a simple variation:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 28 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . B . O . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

He might still double approach, but:
1. The stone is closer, and I can use it better.
2. I know how to respond to this type of double approach better, because I'm more used to it.

Position 2

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 43 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . B . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think the situation is already good for white, but I think I should still aim to get initiative on the top. White can make it really big.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 43 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . B O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Position 3

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 45 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . B . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think this type of move is my trademark these days. I make two weak groups. It can't be good. I think I need to play something softer:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 45 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . B . O . B . . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . B . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

With something like this, there is relationship between each of the marked stones. I think I like it better.

Position 4

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 53 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . B . . O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . O , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . X . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . O X . . O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was "probing" to get his response here, but I think it's more like a trolling move. I should just move out:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 53 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . O , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . . X . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . O X . 1 O . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . O . . . 2 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . 3 . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I can always come back and troll him later.

Position 5

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 87 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O . O X O O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O O X . O X . X O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , X O O O O X X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . X X O . . O X O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . X X . X X O X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . O X . . O . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . B . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It's nice to move out into the center, but I think it's too aggressive to try to kill his group. I think I can just connect my stones, and it's a lot safer.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 87 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O . O X O O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O O X . O X . X O . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , X O O O O X X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . X X O . . O X O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O B X X . X X O X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . O X . . O . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think white still is ahead, but I think it's a lot less risky than in the game.

----

Lessons

1. Do not make multiple weak groups. I did this again.
2. Don't put everything on the line and risk the game. Even if I'm a little behind, I shouldn't introduce so much risk into the game. I basically lost this game because of that.
3. Sometimes it's OK to play in a simple way.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:02 am

Kirby wrote:
Uberdude wrote:But no hesitation about giving your opponent thickness and a weak group to chase?

Yes, I think I frequently undervalue this. I think it's quite common in my games to have weak groups.

It's not just a question of weak groups. While I applaud your ability to live in the bottom right corner, the invasion still strikes me as a horrible overplay that gave Black strong thickness and weakened your right side group.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:17 pm

Kirby wrote:Do you have any comments that might make me less fearful to play this way in the future?

See viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11681

:b27:

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote:
Uberdude wrote:But no hesitation about giving your opponent thickness and a weak group to chase?

Yes, I think I frequently undervalue this. I think it's quite common in my games to have weak groups.

It's not just a question of weak groups. While I applaud your ability to live in the bottom right corner, the invasion still strikes me as a horrible overplay that gave Black strong thickness and weakened your right side group.

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't understand the distinction you are making. The result of the invasion was that I created weak groups on the bottom and on the right. That's why I think it's a problem of creating weak groups.

For example, if white was already really strong on the bottom, then a corner invasion might seem more reasonable, because I could still invade, but I wouldn't be left with a weak group.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:27 pm

Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote:Do you have any comments that might make me less fearful to play this way in the future?

See http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 15&t=11681

Maybe I should take pro games more seriously.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:48 pm

Uberdude wrote:But no hesitation about giving your opponent thickness and a weak group to chase?

Kirby wrote:Yes, I think I frequently undervalue this. I think it's quite common in my games to have weak groups.

Bill Spight wrote:It's not just a question of weak groups. While I applaud your ability to live in the bottom right corner, the invasion still strikes me as a horrible overplay that gave Black strong thickness and weakened your right side group.

Kirby wrote:I agree with what you are saying, but I don't understand the distinction you are making. The result of the invasion was that I created weak groups on the bottom and on the right. That's why I think it's a problem of creating weak groups.

For example, if white was already really strong on the bottom, then a corner invasion might seem more reasonable, because I could still invade, but I wouldn't be left with a weak group.

First, I wrote that at a godawful hour, and had intended to say that you weakened your right side, not just your right side group.

Second, you said nothing about Uberdude's point about giving your opponent thickness. In fact, you gave Black a wraparound wall. Not good. Even a 3-3 invasion of the 4-4 point does not quite give up a wraparound wall. (Actually, there are times when it is OK to give your opponent a wraparound wall, but usually it is not a good idea, especially before move 50.)

Also, and this is a bit of an afterthought, and something that you are aware of, you don't just have weak groups, you seem to go out of your way to create weak groups.

Charles Matthews · Post by **Charles Matthews** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:54 pm

Bill Spight wrote:Also, and this is a bit of an afterthought, and something that you are aware of, you don't just have weak groups, you seem to go out of your way to create weak groups.

I thought of a line from a song:

The simple things you see are all complicated

And vice versa: some of the complicated things you see are simple. The game takes on its character from :b23:

to

. What are my thoughts?

:b23:

You play the pincer-avoiding play. But you don't need to avoid a pincer here. The reason is that White has an open skirt on the left side. So a pincer by White is OK for you. You would just have to live locally, so the one-point low approach is perfectly fine.

:b25:

and

are actually quite imaginative. I wouldn't say that getting pressed down here is too serious. But you get out to the centre. On the other hand it would be consistent for you to play simply to get sente, because R5 is so big in this game.

What is your plan? It appears to be to play in all four corners. OK, that is a handicap game strategy to me: it occurs in your other games too. When White's formation is as on the left side with :w2:

and

, it must be a sound way to play. But it doesn't overrule the size of big points: completing an enclosure when your opponent doesn't have one is substantial.

I would be very tempted to play lightly with :b25:

at F14 and then tenuki at :b27:

assuming White just extends on the top side. :b27:

at R5 is my style.

Anyway, :b29:

for me is not a hard decision. I would play at R14 in about two seconds. Pincers are not winning plays! Sorry, I think your choice is a classic 1 kyu play. So here I think your perception is holding you back. Can White really make a big framework on the top side now?

"Negating" all your opponent's framework building plays is how old Chinese go was played, to a first approximation. A pro once told me that those games were hard for her. Bill's comment is worth remembering, even if you disagree with all this I'm saying. I suppose, however, that you want a "checklist" version.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:15 pm

Thank you, Charles. I can't say I disagree much with what you said. Probably the pincer is kyu-like play, and I really like the idea of getting sente to play R5.

I would like to ask what you meant about preferring a checklist. Perhaps I think of these reviews too linearly?

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:35 am

Kirby wrote: Still, I decided to go with some variation that I knew.

IMO, the start of the rot.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:13 am

In my database there are 1,588 examples of Black attaching with 1 below. White plays the hane at 'a' 1,027 times, jumps into the 3-3 at 'b' 556 times, plays elsewhere 5 times and never wedges in at 2 as in the game. There has to be a reason for this. I assume it is Black should play the hanging connection at 'c' instead of 5 as in the game. What do you think?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Continuations $$- - - - - - - - - - - + $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . O 4 . b . . | $$. , X . a 1 2 X . . . | $$. . . . . . 3 5 c . . | $$. . . . . . . . O . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. , . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$[/go]

At 42 (the marked stone below) you wrote, "White got an even better result, I think.I played L16 because I was afraid of white making a position on the top.Well, white has a lot of potential on the top, now, anyway."

I think the assessment is just wrong. White has a very poor result here. Black has an absolutely solid corner (which BTW means that 43 at 'b' in the game was small). Meanwhile at the top the thematic continuation is the descent at 'a'. However, your habit of making multiple weak groups should be resisted so I would probably start with 1 to loosely connect up the various Black stones on the left and top, keeping 'a' in reserve. What does White have here?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . a W . O O X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , X . O X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X X . . . | $$ | . . X . O . 1 . . . . . X . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . b . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . X . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:32 am

My first thought is this is satisfactory for black:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Continuations $$- - - - - - - - - - - + $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . O 3 5 . . . | $$. , X . 6 1 2 X . . . | $$. . . . . 8 4 7 . . . | $$. . . . . . . 9 O . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$. , . . . . . . . . . | $$. . . . . . . . . . . | $$[/go]

White's double approach is severely blighted whereas black's pincer is weakened but still ok, can be sacrificed if needed. Black's corner shape is rock solid and white's ponnuki is nice enough for now but has the feeling of the sort of ponnuki that can get pressured later.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:35 am

Kirby wrote:Do you have any comments that might make me less fearful to play this way in the future?

Three more pro games with that sequence.

With a few sportscaster like comments.

I like this game. It is very interesting.

Satsugen was already at meijin strength.

Jowa vs. Gembi. Two of my favorites.

The game started off placidly.

Sakata vs. Kobayashi Koich. Just to show you that this play is not old fashioned. I think you will like Sakata's style. His games are complex, and he does not shy from having weak groups. In this game you can see why he was called Shinogi no Sakata. But Kobayashi's attacks were too strong.

Life In 19x19

Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal