I think I've often been this way. Unless I have some sort of an attack, "building a winning position" always seems gote. In the example you gave, I actually have some reluctance to play there. It's a big spot, but gote. I don't like gote.
At least when I break my opponent up, I don't have gote usually, because they often retaliate.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I'd rather win in gote than lose in sente. I don't mean that entirely or even mostly as a joke, either.
Kirby wrote:I would like to ask what you meant about preferring a checklist. Perhaps I think of these reviews too linearly?
Actually that came from another thread, in which you said something about "busy", namely you could see yourself checking each play to see if it was.
I'm a bit sceptical in general about "methodical" approaches to the game. I guess only reading and counting are necessary as methods. I once thought "look for a snapback every play" was good advice for DFKs. So my point is something like this: that advice might indeed be good for players who hadn't internalised snapback shapes, but only at levels where it could make a one or two stone difference in strength to be methodical.
So, maybe I'm saying you are concentrating on some parts of your game you already know about; and you have too many "unknown unknowns" for your level, which is quite good, of course. I'd like to be helpful, naturally. A way I have put this in the past is that players should "try to get into better positions" rather than "try to play the positions they currently get into somewhat better".
Charles Matthews wrote:A way I have put this in the past is that players should "try to get into better positions" rather than "try to play the positions they currently get into somewhat better".
This probably doesn't look like pro go. It actually isn't like my go, and certainly not like your go: you did get pincered, played a complex modern joseki that was very "shape-fixing", and took sente to prevent the enclosure at this .
The point about this opening is that Black concentrates on knowing what is happening, and playing moves that really cannot be bad. That has points in common with pro attitude.
And Black here doesn't worry too much about komi. Sometimes I think you have mentally set komi at 15 when you are Black.
Here White has to worry about how to play both a and b, to get a decent game.
I've been fighting a similar problem as Kirby recently; even though I know the good moves, I play the greedy moves because {my judgment is impaired, I haven't eaten, I have mental problems}. I think it's helped me to just turn off my judgment completely and trust that if I play the moves that I know are good, I'll win.
Wow, what a lot to think about. I read each of the recent comments in this thread awhile ago, but haven't had time to sit down and think about them well until today.
I'm a software engineer for my day job, and last Wednesday was the deadline for getting things in for the next release. It's still possible to get things in after that, but you have to go through a special process. Anyway, I stayed up late a few nights early last week to wrap up some changes to get into the release. I was happy that I was able to successfully submit my work on Wednesday, prior to the 5pm deadline. However, "submit" is a generous word, because what actually happens is that your work is put into a queue to be checked in. The checkin process is "gated". That means that, even after you submit the work, your changes are compiled and tested by the build system. It's "gated" in the sense that, if it fails, your change is rejected, and you have to submit again. Often this is to protect the quality of the source control. But sometimes, the build system itself has failures.
Anyway, after "submitting" my work on Wednesday, I was happy, satisfied to meet the deadline. I got some needed rest, and came back to work on Thursday. Thursday morning, I realized that my change was rejected by the system due to a conflict with another item in the queue. This just meant that I should re-sync and resubmit. The problem is, each time you submit, it takes several hours to see if it actually went in. Anyway, I went along my day, and worked, and in the afternoon, it failed again due to another problem (unrelated to my changes). I submit again.
This process went on and on (and on and on and on) several times, each attempt taking up to 8 hours. Even this morning on Saturday at 6am, it had failed again.
---
At this point, given that it was Saturday, and the deadline was Wednesday (though, you can still get it into the release with special permission), I was going crazy. Actually, I was beyond crazy. My stress was gone, because I felt I had no control over the situation.
So around 6:20am, I resubmit again, played with the kids a little bit, and then went out to mow the lawn. It turns out our lawn has bad pH level in the soil, so I added some lime as well. Trimmed around some bushes, and then took down some old blinds that we'll be replacing soon. Then, I did some gardening, and played with the kids a little bit more. It turns out that physical work around the house was able to take my mind off of the stress of not getting work checked in.
I was a little afraid, but then around 9am, I went back upstairs and checked the status of my checkin. What do you know? It passed. Finally. After something like 7 attempts of submitting the change, making no changes to the work I was submitting, it was finally accepted by the build system.
I was happy, but more than that kind of dazed. At least my lawn was mowed. And at least some work got done around the house.
Now that failed checkin submissions are out of my head, I think I can think more deeply about these comments (though, technically, as I didn't have this change in until today, I probably could work this weekend, and get another change up for code review. That'd probably be a good thing to do). Thank you. It's somewhat soothing after going crazy, and then coming back again.
Am I really back again?
---
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...
ez4u wrote: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?
....
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?
$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . a W . O O X . . . | $$ | . . 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]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . a W . O O X . . . | $$ | . . 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]
I think it's a good point that 'b' was small. I didn't think of it this way. I guess the theory is that, if the group is already strong, playing an extension from it isn't as big. Sounds similar to an earlier discussion in this thread about being over-concentrated.
I like the move at . This was one option I thought was better than my actual invasion point from the game.
Regarding the idea of the hanging connection, is it still an okay result for black if white moves out after this? I'm a little concerned about the aji at 'd':
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.
I'm typically reluctant to give a ponnuki, but maybe this is just being too strict about adhering to that principle. Since white has sente now, I'm a little afraid that white will move out with the marked stone, making a position on both sides. But like you say, black's group is very strong... So I can't say that I think it's a bad idea.
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.
Thank you for the games, Bill! Incidentally, I saw this comment last week, and printed out the Sakata game to read during my commute on the way home from work one day (before I went crazy).
I guess these games are evidence that that sequence you showed is played quite often. I do like Sakata's style, but my favorite sequence was not from the Sakata game, but from the second one.
The sequence starting here is amazing!
$$W Moves 66 to 75 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O . O . . . X . . X . X . O X . . . | $$ | . X O , . . . . . , . . . . O , X . . | $$ | . . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . O . O . . | $$ | . X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . X O O . . . . . . X . O . . O X . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . 8 . X 2 O 7 O X . . | $$ | . O . . O X O . . X 1 O X X O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . 0 9 . 3 . 4 O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
So, maybe I'm saying you are concentrating on some parts of your game you already know about; and you have too many "unknown unknowns" for your level, which is quite good, of course. I'd like to be helpful, naturally. A way I have put this in the past is that players should "try to get into better positions" rather than "try to play the positions they currently get into somewhat better".
Interesting! I agree that there are many "unknown unknowns" that I have. However, it seems natural to me that, when I do a self-review of the game, I can't comment on these "unknown unknowns", since they are "unknown" to me. For that, I thank those that have contributed on this thread.
However, perhaps I'm stubborn sometimes. What I mean by this is that, supposing there are "unknown unknowns" that one of you guys reveal to me, it is difficult for me to blindly accept it as correct. Usually, I have to interpret the advice in a way that is consistent with what I already think I know.
So it is certainly a dilemma that I have these "unknown unknowns", since I cannot determine them myself, and am even perhaps reluctant to accept them when they are pointed out to me.
Maybe I should tone down my internal filter for rejecting ideas that aren't consistent with what I already know...?
Charles Matthews wrote:A way I have put this in the past is that players should "try to get into better positions" rather than "try to play the positions they currently get into somewhat better".
This probably doesn't look like pro go. It actually isn't like my go, and certainly not like your go: you did get pincered, played a complex modern joseki that was very "shape-fixing", and took sente to prevent the enclosure at this .
The point about this opening is that Black concentrates on knowing what is happening, and playing moves that really cannot be bad. That has points in common with pro attitude.
And Black here doesn't worry too much about komi. Sometimes I think you have mentally set komi at 15 when you are Black.
Here White has to worry about how to play both a and b, to get a decent game.
Thank you, Charles. Are you saying that this is a good way to play? It's not 100% clear to me, because you said it wasn't pro go. On the other hand, you mentioned that it has points in common with pro attitude.
I agree that I internally set komi to a high value when I am black. One reason might be because I am not confident with endgame. I usually get confused when there are threads about it here, and I don't even consider endgame theory at all when I am actually playing (other than trying to get sente - I never try to compute point values in an actual game). If the game is close near the end of the game, there is a good chance I will lose.
Maybe there's another reason I set komi so high, internally. But that might be another one of these "unknown unknowns"...
Shaddy wrote:... I think it's helped me to just turn off my judgment completely and trust that if I play the moves that I know are good, I'll win.
It might be a good idea. Maybe I should try it. If I play moves that I know are good, and still lose, maybe there'd be something to learn from reviewing the game.
So, maybe I'm saying you are concentrating on some parts of your game you already know about; and you have too many "unknown unknowns" for your level, which is quite good, of course. I'd like to be helpful, naturally. A way I have put this in the past is that players should "try to get into better positions" rather than "try to play the positions they currently get into somewhat better".
Interesting! I agree that there are many "unknown unknowns" that I have. However, it seems natural to me that, when I do a self-review of the game, I can't comment on these "unknown unknowns", since they are "unknown" to me. For that, I thank those that have contributed on this thread.
However, perhaps I'm stubborn sometimes. What I mean by this is that, supposing there are "unknown unknowns" that one of you guys reveal to me, it is difficult for me to blindly accept it as correct. Usually, I have to interpret the advice in a way that is consistent with what I already think I know.
So it is certainly a dilemma that I have these "unknown unknowns", since I cannot determine them myself, and am even perhaps reluctant to accept them when they are pointed out to me.
Maybe I should tone down my internal filter for rejecting ideas that aren't consistent with what I already know...?
I was thinking about this a little bit more. Maybe it's not impossible to learn more about the "unknown unknowns" that I have. For example, there some areas of go that I simply don't study much. Endgame is a good example. In fact, probably the only areas that I really study are:
* Go problems (tsumego and tesuji) * Joseki (sometimes) * Opening patterns (once in awhile)
If I never study anything else, it probably accounts for some of the "unknown unknowns" that I have. I can try to figure out if I made a reading mistake, for example, but what about all of the areas that I don't study?
I noticed that other study journals make out a study plan, sometimes. For me, I just play games, post reviews, discuss, and repeat. Maybe it's about time that I made a study plan to tackle some of these "unknown unknowns".
I still have to think about what I should study. Maybe endgame is a good one, since that is one "unknown" that I know that I don't know.
here? You played this top left to "avoid the pincer", and I commented on that. 
.
With a few sportscaster like comments.