A sad escape.

[Joelnelsonb]

I lost this game playing white after I let black escape. What would you have done differently?

[EdLee]

Hi Joel,

What would you have done differently?

Study your shapes. Improve your understanding of shapes.

Example:
You're not looking at your shape problems:
Your keima can be cut.
B can try to connect underneath to with E18.

This is too much -- this shape can be cut,
but you don't cut it and only submissively back up.

[DJLLAP]

Black was never really in any trouble of dying. At any point after he could connect by playing E18.

[Bill Spight]

Three quick comments.

First, White resigned too early. Yes, Black is ahead, but the game is young and the opponent is weak. White certainly has chances. It is important to learn how to come from behind. DDKs should hardly ever resign.

Second, White's main error in the opening was the failure to attack. Mainly, a failure to attack Black in the bottom right, but also a failure to attack in the top left. Yes, White eventually attacked the Black group in the top left, but the attack came too late. Black, however, allowed himself to get bamboozled into passive play.

Third, White made some single purpose plays. Usually you cannot afford such plays until late in the game.

[skydyr]

Black was never really in any trouble of dying. At any point after he could connect by playing E18.

To follow up on this, the problem is assuming that you attack to kill. Most of the things you should attack are not killable with decent play. You need to get something else out of the attack besides playing forcing moves for the sake of forcing.

[Joelnelsonb]

So would it be correct to say that whenever you attack stone, you should plan for it to live?

[Bill Spight]

Some comments.

[Bill Spight]

So would it be correct to say that whenever you attack stone, you should plan for it to live?

No. You should start out attacking to kill. Often you will not, but if you don't learn to kill, you won't learn to attack.

[Uberdude]

Black was never really in any trouble of dying. At any point after he could connect by playing E18.

To follow up on this, the problem is assuming that you attack to kill. Most of the things you should attack are not killable with decent play. You need to get something else out of the attack besides playing forcing moves for the sake of forcing.

But seeing as Joel is playing 12 kyus decent play is rather unlikely

[DJLLAP]

So would it be correct to say that whenever you attack stone, you should plan for it to live?

No. You should start out attacking to kill. Often you will not, but if you don't learn to kill, you won't learn to attack.

One of the big keys to attacking is having strong groups to attack with. As you set out to attack a group, take inventory of weaknesses that might exist in your own groups. If there is a weakness that can be exploited for easy life, maybe you should protect that weakness before attacking. You might even find a way to protect in sente.

There are times when you should definitely go for the kill. There are times when you definitely should not. It can be hard to tell the difference between them. A question that might help: If I try to kill and fail, how will I fare? If going for the kill leads the attacked group straight through the heart of your potential territory, it is a dangerous move, because if you fail, you might end up with very little. I still make the wrong decision quite often when attacking. I have lost several won games recently because I insist on capturing a 40 stone group and make one small error that lets the group live and cuts me to pieces. Capturing large groups is risky business, but it is a ton of fun when it works.

[Bill Spight]

So would it be correct to say that whenever you attack stone, you should plan for it to live?

No. You should start out attacking to kill. Often you will not, but if you don't learn to kill, you won't learn to attack.

One of the big keys to attacking is having strong groups to attack with. As you set out to attack a group, take inventory of weaknesses that might exist in your own groups. If there is a weakness that can be exploited for easy life, maybe you should protect that weakness before attacking. You might even find a way to protect in sente.

Excellent advice. See http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 11&t=11896

I have lost several won games recently because I insist on capturing a 40 stone group and make one small error that lets the group live and cuts me to pieces. Capturing large groups is risky business, but it is a ton of fun when it works.

There is a proverb that says that large groups never die. That's not true, OC, but because they seldom die, it is seldom a good idea to attack a large group.

[skydyr]

So would it be correct to say that whenever you attack stone, you should plan for it to live?

Well, there are times when you need to kill because you'd be behind if you don't. Also, when attacking, you should generally have a plan for how to kill if your opponent tenukis for something less important. And if your opponent makes a mistake, you should kill. But you should also have a broader goal that you will accomplish even if you don't kill. Something like "turn this area into territory" or "build strength in the center so I can use it as backup to invade this weak point".

[Uberdude]

There is a proverb that says that large groups never die. That's not true, OC, but because they seldom die, it is seldom a good idea to attack a large group.

I take issue with this. Because "large groups never die" (of course 'never' is a simplification/exaggeration/lie for effect, as often the case in proverbs), attack to kill is seldom good. But attacking large groups for profit is fine and common.

[Bill Spight]

There is a proverb that says that large groups never die. That's not true, OC, but because they seldom die, it is seldom a good idea to attack a large group.

I take issue with this. Because "large groups never die" (of course 'never' is a simplification/exaggeration/lie for effect, as often the case in proverbs), attack to kill is seldom good. But attacking large groups for profit is fine and common.

This is all in the context of my advice to DDKs to attack to kill in order to learn how to kill. In this game in particular, except for the initial pincer, White waited until the Black group in the top left got big before attacking it. In the meantime White failed to attack the weak two stone group in the bottom right. So, yes, attacking a large group out of the blue is seldom a good idea. (If you attack a group and it becomes large during the attack, that does not mean that you abandon the attack, OC.)

It also strikes me that we may be using the term, "attack", somewhat differently. I often use terms like "pressure", "hinder", "aim at", "push around", where others might say "attack". For instance, a 1 point sente may threaten the life of a large group, but I do not think of that as an attack.

[Polama]

On when to try to kill, ideally you ask something like this set of questions.

• Do I even want to kill the group? (how's the position look if my opponent plays to sacrifice?)
  
  Can I kill it? (am I able to confidently read out the death of the group?)
  
  If not, what moves would let me kill it? How can I shape the game so that those moves accomplish other things?
  
  If it's unclear whether I can kill, can I profit from forcing the group to live?
  
  If so, am I at least close to even with my opponent afterwards? (if not, you'll probably have to kill.)
  
  If it's a close game if I allow the group to live while taking simple profit, how much would I lose if I do go all out but fail to kill?
  
  Are there opportunities for ko's on the board? At what point in the attack could I tenuki with the maximum ko threats?
  
  Is this the right time to attack? Are there other, more urgent things to address? If I tenuki, and my opponent reinforces this group, and I get another move elsewhere, are those two moves enough to ensure a win?