#246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

moyoaji · Post by **moyoaji** » Mon May 04, 2015 12:39 am

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm110 Captured: $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . , . . O . O O . O O X X X X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . X . . . X O . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . X . . X X X X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . X . X O O O . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . X O . . O X . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . O . O X X X . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , O O . O . , . . . | $$ | . X O . X . . . . O . O O O O X X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O O X X X O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . X X O . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . X X X . O X X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . X O O . O . X . . | $$ | . . O , . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . 1 . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . 2 5 . . . 3 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

schawipp · Post by **schawipp** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:26 pm

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm110 Captured: $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . , . . O . O O . O O X X X X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . X . . . X O . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . X . . X X X X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . X . X O O O . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . X O . . O X . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . O . O X X X . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , O O . O . , . . . | $$ | . X O . X . . . . O . O O O O X X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O O X X X O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . X X O . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . X X X . O X X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . X O O . O . X . . | $$ | . . O , . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 6 . 1 . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . 2 5 . . . 3 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

moyoaji · Post by **moyoaji** » Sun May 10, 2015 11:43 pm

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm110 Captured: $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . O . X O X . | $$ | . . . , . . O . O O . O O X X X X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . X . . . X O . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . X . . X X X X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . X . X O O O . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . X O . . O X . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . O . O X X X . . . | $$ | . X . O . . . . . , O O . O . , . . . | $$ | . X O . X . . . . O . O O O O X X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O O X X X O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . X X O . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . . X X X . O X X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . X O O . O . X . . | $$ | . . O , . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 6 . 1 . . O X . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . 2 5 . 7 . 3 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

schawipp · Post by **schawipp** » Mon May 11, 2015 1:11 pm

Well, I think there is no reasonable chance for me to catch up, so I resign this game. Congratulations, it was a quite interesting game (at least for me ;-)

)!

Once more a hidden comment ;-)

moyoaji · Post by **moyoaji** » Mon May 11, 2015 4:48 pm

Thank you for the game schawipp, I look forward to seeing your and other's comments.

moyoaji · Post by **moyoaji** » Mon May 11, 2015 6:12 pm

So I just got through reading most of the comments. Here are my initial thoughts on this game:

* My goal was to play for territory and to play lightly. I definitely kept a territorial advantage all game. As for playing lightly, I lost my way a bit with my central stick, but generally I was willing to let go of things I did not need. I was willing to let my bottom group die if black took the time to come back against it.

* In general, my assessments seemed to agree with others' assessments. Seems consensus was that C13 was questionable as it likely gave me a wall in sente and B10 was a mistake that I punished with C14 to get ahead. However, for one situations in particular, I was completely at odds with the group:

My move at P5, the reduction of the corner, was generally disliked. However, upon looking back at Kato Masao's book, I haven't found a reason to discount the idea.

Here was his assessment of the move in the following situation: "White 1 is also effective. Black is virtually obligated to play 2, since the attachment at 'a' would be ideal for white. Following this, White plays the cap at 3, which was his aim from the beginning. Jumping in at 'b' instead of 3 is unsatisfactory; white would have been better playing 1 at c to start with. You should note that the knight's move shoulder approach at 1 is unsuitable when Black's marked stone is at d."

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm1 $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . Y . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 c b . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . 2 . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . a X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Yes, the board state for my game with schawipp was different, but I don't see what is wrong with P5. Black is building a moyo in the center and :w1:

reduces this moyo as a flexible move. The only argument I saw against this was that the standard approach is better, but I cannot agree with the idea of simply approaching in a game like this. My goal with this, and every Malkovich game, is to learn from my opponent and others. Playing the standard approach sequence teaches me nothing. Sure, it is an easy path to victory when I'm ahead, but I wasn't playing just to win - as I stated in my post about the move. And had I known that this move would cost me the game somehow, I would not have changed it to the approach. Perhaps I would have played M5, N5, Q6, or even P6, but not Q5. Q5 is a great move, and if you look at my games on the KGS you'll find me playing it there without question, but that's why I didn't play it here. I know Q5. I was unfamiliar with P5. Now I understand it a little better. It is a harder move, but I can see why it could be considered.

And I think this is exactly the situation to consider it in.

P5 aims at a light reduction, granting black points on the bottom and likely more in the corner, in exchange for more of a central reduction. Black was going to get nothing on the bottom after being undercut, so giving black the bottom was fine by me. All of black's points were going to come from the center, so, to me, these moves seem like they directly challenge that. Instead of asking for a share of the corner, I was telling black that I wanted to make something live in the center - thereby making his hopes of the center meaningless. Had black somehow managed to kill both P5 and P9 it would be game over, but I don't think that's possible. And were I more skilled at sabaki, I think I could have done wonders with these stones. Especially if I didn't tenuki to take black's corner - which I questioned myself at the time.

That part of the game was by far the hardest for me, because I was so unfamiliar with the situation. Yet, that was the point. I wanted to make it hard there. I wanted to make mistakes and let the game get messy. That certainly happened, so even if I'm totally wrong for playing P5, it did exactly what I wanted it to do.

Shaddy · Post by **Shaddy** » Tue May 12, 2015 4:22 pm

A few thoughts:

P5 sucks because its goal is to reduce the bottom, and in your game, the bottom is already destroyed. So it's nice to approach with Q5 to force Black to build up the bottom more.

42 (knight's attachment) was heavy, and 43 was the right punishment. 45 was painful to watch, 48 let Black off. 48 would be the losing move, if you had lost. Don't get into that kind of situation in the future.

moyoaji · Post by **moyoaji** » Wed May 13, 2015 2:01 am

Shaddy wrote:P5 sucks because its goal is to reduce the bottom, and in your game, the bottom is already destroyed. So it's nice to approach with Q5 to force Black to build up the bottom more.

So would you say that Q5 is the only move in this situation? Could I have considered anything else?

Shaddy wrote:42 (knight's attachment) was heavy, and 43 was the right punishment. 45 was painful to watch, 48 let Black off. 48 would be the losing move, if you had lost. Don't get into that kind of situation in the future.

As I said in the previous post, I lost my way with making that group heavy. If I had stuck to my plan from the start of the game I would not have played 42. I liked Uberdude's suggestion for 48 - that looks like a good result to me - connecting my stones while working to surround black's. Is there another move you suggest, or would his be best?

Also, what is "that kind of situation?" My goal with 48 was to work at surrounding black's two stones. Are you referring to the idea that you shouldn't try to attack from a position of weakness (before my group was settled) or the general principle of not making two weak groups (because my stones could be cut)?

Shaddy · Post by **Shaddy** » Wed May 13, 2015 9:51 am

I wouldn't say that q5 is the only move, but I don't think p5 makes sense, and I can't think of anything clearly better at the moment. Uberdude's idea was good for 48, and even the diagram you posted as rejected looked better to me than the game.

Also, what is "that kind of situation?" My goal with 48 was to work at surrounding black's two stones. Are you referring to the idea that you shouldn't try to attack from a position of weakness (before my group was settled) or the general principle of not making two weak groups (because my stones could be cut)?

It's rough having two weak groups, but especially when Black has stones all around. Next time, make sure you control the center before you do that :rambo:

Life In 19x19

#246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp

Re: #246 moyoaji vs. schawipp