Fedya wrote:I've been playing go for 15 years, and have been stuck bouncing between KGS 6k and 7k for years. I think once I got promoted to 5k for about half a dozen games three or four years ago; a couple of times I've been demoted to 8k but the last time was almost two years ago.
It seems as though nothing I try works: my moyos get invaded; any attempts to deal with my opponents' moyos end in disaster. My opponents pincer me and I end up with a weak group; I pincer my opponents and I end up with a weak group if not two. I constantly fall behind early. And so on.
I am going to respond to your answers to my questions, but for now I will address your original post.
Assuming that your opponents are about the same strength as you, how can it be that what they try works against you, while what you try does not work against them? In that case, wouldn't they be stronger than you? If you constantly fall behind early, then you must be catching up later.
For all your weaknesses, you have strengths, as well. I understand your frustration, but you often express pessimism about your game. Get some perspective.
It is likely the case that you are not playing up to yourself. Hardly anybody does. You are making mistakes that you know better than to make. In this game you overlooked the danger to your group in the top right. And, as you say in response to my question, "As for
, it's terrible and I don't know why I didn't play anything better." I don't know how strong you are when you play up to yourself, but I would not be surprised if it is 5 kyu. If so, you can play as 5 kyu in a matter of weeks or months. I have told the story of how I went from 3 dan to 4 dan in 6 weeks, just by deciding to play at 4 dan level. OC, playing up to yourself is not so easy. If it were, everybody would do it.
(And I had been 3 dan for more than a year and a half. I doubt if I could have done it one year earlier.)
I go over my games, but that clearly doesn't help because it's like the blind leading the blind.
You have a point, and here is where getting a teacher could help.
But you should also be able to learn from you own self review. If you are not, then maybe there are better ways to do reviews. (Unfortunately, reviews by better players do not always tell you how they reached their conclusions. Sometimes they are just expressing their opinions.
) IMO, thoroughness is a virtue in a review, and at your level that means analyzing relatively small regions of the board. It is important to play around with positions.
Also, why not review your games with your opponents? If they are better than you at invading moyos and you have made an unsuccessful invasion, ask them how you could have done better.
I do problems, but the problems I do don't look like the positions that show up in my games.
That is one reason that it is important to study your own games.
From what you say it seems like you start with some goal, such as attacking an opponent's stone or invading a moyo, but then you do not achieve a satisfactory result, even though your peers seem to do so against you. Taking that at face value, that suggests that your peers have learned some basic techniques that you have not. If so, there should be some basic problems that would address your shortcomings. These problems should be set in positions that you should be able to analyze thoroughly. (I don't mean in your head, I mean with a board and stones or a computer.) I have not seen the books myself, but I have heard good things about
Graded Go Problems for Beginners. Get a thorough grounding in the basics.
Znosko-Borovsky gives some pertinent advice in his classic book,
How Not to Play Chess which generalizes to go. A major point of his is to make a plan and to stick to it. He says that a poor plan well executed is better than a good plan poorly executed. Whether that is always so or not, it illustrates the importance of basic technique. Znosko-Borovsky also emphasizes analysis. He states: "Unless you analyse the position, you will achieve nothing." Now, analysis takes time, and you won't perform one for each move. Analyzing the whole go board three or four times is enough, as a rule. But you should also analyze local positions. Analysis precedes reading. For instance, in a life or death situation, where are potential eyes? Where are escape routes? Can some stones be sacrificed? What about shortage of liberties?
Bridge great Oswald Jacoby had a checklist for planning the play of a bridge hand. Let me adapt it for go, with the acronym, ACH. (
Achtung!)
Analyze. Analyze the whole board or a local position. Where are the strong and weak points? What are the possibilities for each player? What are the threats?
Count. Count points. Count liberties. Count eyes.
How? How can I achieve my objectives? Here is where reading comes in. The reading is informed by the previous analysis and counting. It is the how that allows you to execute your plan well.
To this mix let me add discipline. Tournament bridge players are big on discipline. Discipline helps you to play up to yourself.
A lot of players wait until the position is difficult to start thinking. By then it may be too late. Discipline allows you to plan ahead and anticipate problems, also to create problems for your opponent. It allows you to keep your head and stick to your plan when the going gets tough. (And against a worthy opponent it will get tough.
) As Znosko-Borovsky says, making a plan, sticking to it, and carrying it out well will not guarantee victory, but if the victory goes to your opponent, he will have earned it.
Let me also add faith: Faith in yourself, faith in your plan, faith in your reading. OC, you will make mistakes. We all do. But faith will help you to play up to yourself. Self doubt leads to inconsistent play, which is guaranteed to include mistakes. Of two inconsistent plays, one (at least!
) must be a mistake. They can't both be right.
Why did you play S-04? 
Why did you play O-18?
that I noticed I've got a shortage of liberties in the capturing race at the top.
