Kirby's Study Journal

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:56 pm

It's hard to say much to White in a four stone game, because so much depends upon the errors of Black.

One play by White struck me as very bad:

It's not only aji keshi, it weakens White on the top side by provoking

. You can see how it affects the later fighting around

.

White played a very fast opening at first, which could have led to complications, but it soon evolved into a fairly simple opening. Too simple for a four stone game? I dunno.

Starting with

Black strengthened his bottom right corner. Then the skirmish

-

solidified the right side for Black. Later

, followed by the fighting up to

extended and strengthened Black's lower right framework even more.

I bring this up because of your comment at

and later jump to K-06. You often seem to want to butt heads with your opponent where he is strong. Sure Black's right side is big. That's in no small part the result of your decisions. You strengthened Black in the bottom right corner, then you strengthened him on the right side, then you strengthened him in the center. What did you expect?

I liked

It extended the White framework on the top while reducing the Black framework on the left side and preparing to invade there. But of course that strategy allowed Black to enlarge his territory on the right side. Your invasion with

was consistent with your earlier decisions. I was quite surprised when you were contemplating playing where Black was strong instead of invading where he was relatively weak.

Anyway, you took away a good bit of the left side to make a fairly close game, which is what White is generally supposed to do. I can only congratulate Black on a game well played.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:47 pm

Thanks for the comments, Bill.

What sticks out the most is the idea that I fight where the opponent is strong.

I agree, and I don't know why I do it.

Maybe I don't think much about the relative strength of stones?

Charles Matthews · Post by **Charles Matthews** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:52 am

Kirby wrote:I lost against a KGS 4k today. Here is my review.

You seem pleased to capture: but actually I think you must extend.

This area turns out not to be quite big enough in the game, anyway. It isn't clear that you reacted to

in a strategic way: your play would be the answer if the reply was at D6. You could instead play D5 to build up on a bigger scale. If Black invades the lower side, you have a good play at Q2.

If you want to do anything with the R14 stone, the timing is wrong. If you played at Q13 and Black cut, you could be happy with what is left behind here. Up to

you have thrown away points.

is too early.

Again the scale is too small. Black's kick isn't good, but you don't take full advantage. How about K11? Black at O16 can be answered by pushing up on the N line, sacrificing the right-hand stones; and you have D15 in reserve.

is slow, but the game is now tough for White, despite Black's weaknesses in fuseki. Black's two sides are bigger than your two, Black probably has the edge in thickness.

Black didn't cave in the fighting: but in a sense you gave static targets to shoot at.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:30 am

For those that have been following this journal, you may know that I've been losing.

Accordingly, my rank on KGS dropped to 1k.

I played against KGS 1k today, as 1k. I lost, again.

Here's my review.

The review isn't that in depth. My physical condition isn't that great. Or maybe that's an excuse for not thinking very hard (though, it is somewhat true).

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

I've been thinking about why I've been losing lately.
Actually, I didn't deliberately think about it so much as a thought came to me as I watched a bit of one of Haylee's Youtube videos. For those of you that don't know, Haylee is a pro that does video streaming of the games she plays on Tygem. As she's a pro, she often wins, so it's fun to watch her talk about her thought process.

Anyway, I started to think about the some of the differences between the way that I play go, and the way that she plays go. Of course, she's much better at reading, and can evaluate the board position much more precisely.

But what stuck out to me was her attitude during the game. The biggest difference in thinking that I can notice in her playing style and mine is that I am constantly thinking of the result. I don't have a problem in making myself try to count points in the game, which is good for evaluation.

But perhaps I think of the result too superficially. When I get into a local skirmish, I feel like I'm rushed to get past the skirmish, and move on to the end of the game. Haylee, on the other hand, strikes me as being much more patient, taking her time to play the best way for each move in the game. Even if she knows she's ahead, she plays without rushing the game - like savoring each local battle.

With thoughts like rank, winning and losing, and finishing the game on my mind, I feel I rush the game, overlooking the basic and proper way to play.

I will play another game soon. And I plan to play it properly, without rushing to the end of the game. I think Haylee would do it that way, and I'd like to try, too.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:49 pm

I played against KGS 1d today. I tried to be patient with this game, but I still lost.

I misread some pretty simple areas... So yeah.

Anyway, here is my review.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:56 pm

Kirby wrote:I've been thinking about why I've been losing lately.
Actually, I didn't deliberately think about it so much as a thought came to me as I watched a bit of one of Haylee's Youtube videos. For those of you that don't know, Haylee is a pro that does video streaming of the games she plays on Tygem. As she's a pro, she often wins, so it's fun to watch her talk about her thought process.

Anyway, I started to think about the some of the differences between the way that I play go, and the way that she plays go. Of course, she's much better at reading, and can evaluate the board position much more precisely.

But what stuck out to me was her attitude during the game. The biggest difference in thinking that I can notice in her playing style and mine is that I am constantly thinking of the result. I don't have a problem in making myself try to count points in the game, which is good for evaluation.

But perhaps I think of the result too superficially. When I get into a local skirmish, I feel like I'm rushed to get past the skirmish, and move on to the end of the game. Haylee, on the other hand, strikes me as being much more patient, taking her time to play the best way for each move in the game. Even if she knows she's ahead, she plays without rushing the game - like savoring each local battle.

With thoughts like rank, winning and losing, and finishing the game on my mind, I feel I rush the game, overlooking the basic and proper way to play.

I will play another game soon. And I plan to play it properly, without rushing to the end of the game. I think Haylee would do it that way, and I'd like to try, too.

Do you watch Littlelamb's videos as well? I think they might be good for you, particularly his willingness to just make normal moves when the action is slow and to 'just take some points' when he isn't satisfied with the available attacking moves. All of us 'sharpies' have to learn sooner or later that keeping sente with plays that help our opponent more than they help us is self-defeating. At our level, sente can be more of a disease than a strategic concept.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:58 pm

Some Highlights

Position 1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 39 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X B . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I totally misread this, thinking it would be a net if he extended.

Instead, I think I should play elsewhere for now.

Maybe one of these:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 39 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X . . . . . . . B . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

OR

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 39 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

One of those seem better.

Position 2

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

Given the stones in the center, I think that this is the wrong direction. Instead, I think I should try to play a more global move like this:

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

At least it seems more consistent with the weird stones I have in the center.

Position 3

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . O . , B . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This move was naive of me, and white punished it well.

I'm thinking I should either connect to the center:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . B . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . O . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Or extend first:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . B . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . O . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Maybe extend high, since it could help the stones in the center.

Position 4

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 113 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O X . B . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X , X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O . O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think this move is bad, and just gives me a weak group. I should probably cut my losses and try to get a bit of profit:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 113 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . O . . . 4 . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O X . 2 1 O 3 5 . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X , X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O . O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I lose some, but at least I don't have a weak group there to save.

Position 5

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 145 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O O . O X . X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O X X X X X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X . O O X O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X O O O . X O O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O X O . . O . O . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . B O . O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This move is naive, and shows poor reading.

Instead, I think this is better:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 145 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O O . O X . X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O X X X X X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X . O O X O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . B . X O O O . X O O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O X O . . O . O . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

---

Overall Feeling

I've been told in the past that reading isn't the solution to all of my problems in Go. However, I think it was the biggest problem in this game.

If I want to be a dan player again, I need to beef up my reading.

Besides, if I suck at reading, do I really want to be a dan player anyway?

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:00 pm

ez4u wrote:Do you watch Littlelamb's videos as well? I think they might be good for you, particularly his willingness to just make normal moves when the action is slow and to 'just take some points' when he isn't satisfied with the available attacking moves. All of us 'sharpies' have to learn sooner or later that keeping sente with plays that help our opponent more than they help us is self-defeating. At our level, sente can be more of a disease than a strategic concept.

Interesting comment, ez4u. I have not watched Littlelamb's videos. Maybe I'll watch one today when I exercise.

I guess a 'sharpie(y?)' is someone that takes sente to help the opponent. I haven't been thinking much of that these days. I remember wanting to have gote a long time ago in this thread, I think.

I'll have to think about it some more.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:01 pm

Not really because I don't want to think now, but because I don't want to miss my ride.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:18 pm

From your previous game...
Normal is 5 below. In the game you allowed White to capture the cutting stone too easily. The result was that all you got was the corner, a disappointing result for the taisha. Your opponent didn't really understand what was going on since the main point of the descent at 2 is to be able to jump as far as 'a'.

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

In the game you played at 'a' below and speculated about 'b' instead. How about 5? The 3-3 is always strong and Black's low position on the right makes the bottom uninteresting.

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

Again you played 'a' below and speculated about 'b'. Settle your stones while undercutting White! If White protects the upper left, you protect the upper right.

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

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:27 pm

Kirby wrote:
ez4u wrote:Do you watch Littlelamb's videos as well? I think they might be good for you, particularly his willingness to just make normal moves when the action is slow and to 'just take some points' when he isn't satisfied with the available attacking moves. All of us 'sharpies' have to learn sooner or later that keeping sente with plays that help our opponent more than they help us is self-defeating. At our level, sente can be more of a disease than a strategic concept.
Interesting comment, ez4u. I have not watched Littlelamb's videos. Maybe I'll watch one today when I exercise.

I guess a 'sharpie(y?)' is someone that takes sente to help the opponent. I haven't been thinking much of that these days. I remember wanting to have gote a long time ago in this thread, I think.

I'll have to think about it some more.

I don't think that any of us take sente to help the opponent. Unfortunately too many of us end up helping the opponent just to take sente.

SoDesuNe · Post by **SoDesuNe** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:24 am

I feel you could go a bit back, before your first highlight.

White should just give way with E4, letting you push from behind, harming F3. As far as I know this is why you don't try to cut here.

Complicated but I think this move is a bit crude. It gives you the wedge but personally I'd try F5 maybe (even more complicated? ^^). Giving White forcing moves up to the second line hurts.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:01 pm

SoDesuNe wrote:I feel you could go a bit back, before your first highlight.

White should just give way with E4, letting you push from behind, harming F3. As far as I know this is why you don't try to cut here.

Complicated but I think this move is a bit crude. It gives you the wedge but personally I'd try F5 maybe (even more complicated? ^^). Giving White forcing moves up to the second line hurts.

Regarding

, I thought he would give away with E4 as well, and I'd be fine with capturing his two stones in a ladder. As far as I know, him blocking to begin with is a mistake since I have the double approach. It's not terrible for white since it hurts F3 like you said, but I prefer my position after capturing two stones.

Regarding

, I didn't consider F5, but I think I like it better. If he cuts, the F5 stone leaves more problems in his shape, and if he allows me to connect, I get more profit than in the game... So I like F5 better.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:04 pm

ez4u wrote:I don't think that any of us take sente to help the opponent. Unfortunately too many of us end up helping the opponent just to take sente.

The more I think of this, the more I find relation to the thought that I should be more patient during games, taking things a little bit at a time.

If I am patient, and just make sure that, little by little, I get the better deal in local exchanges, it's probably a more stable way to win the game.

When I become hurried, and eager to play elsewhere - maybe to take sente like you're saying, it's a lot easier to make a bad exchange, and lose out.

So I think I need to take the game little by little, trying to make good exchanges along the way.

But this only works if I can read out what gives me a good exchange - which is another problem evidenced in recent games I've had.

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