Kirby's Study Journal

[jeromie]

What magazine do you get?

[Kirby]

What magazine do you get?

It's a Korean Go magazine - "Monthly Go" [1].

Typically, the magazine has recent pro news in the front, along with some selected pro games. There's some commentary on the games, too, but I haven't looked too much at that yet in this month's.

After the pro games, there are usually blurbs about go related news (e.g. Lee Hajin's recent marriage), and then some lecture type material. Over the past few years, the content of the lecture material has changed a little bit. They might change again next year.

Regarding lecture material, this year, they have a series on some opening variations that have recently being researched in Korea (kind of like new joseki, but sometimes it says that they don't know the best result yet). For example, this month they talk about variations arising from this opening:

$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . W , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . W , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

They have another section that talks about a particular joseki and how it might have changed. For example, this month, they go over variations arising from this position:

$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 2 . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 2 . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

There's also a monthly section on "The ABCs of Invasion and Reduction".

Near the end of the magazine, there's been a monthly quiz with various questions - sometimes opening, sometimes life and death, etc. Each of the questions have point values. You can mail it in to them, and your test is graded. If you do this several times and get a particular score, you can get a dan/kyu ranking. For example, if you get 95/100 or higher for 5 times for 5d, 85 or higher 2 times OR 80 or higher 3 times gets you 1d, etc. I haven't bothered mailing anything in to them, but the problems are interesting.

There are also write-ups by various authors about go-related topics. Especially after AlphaGo over the past few months, there have been articles on philosophical questions about the future of go, etc.

All in all, I'd recommend the magazine, even if you don't read Korean.

I will say that previous years featured a section about "After Joseki", which I really liked. That hasn't been there for awhile, which was somewhat disappointing. Nonetheless, there's a lot of educational material, variations, games, commentary, and news.

Although, with the news, I'd say that it's somewhat dated if you are following news articles on tygem.com or cyberoro.com/news. A lot of the news you'd have already read online if you're keeping up on those sites.

[1] 월간바둑: https://namu.wiki/w/%EC%9B%94%EA%B0%84% ... 4%EB%91%91

[aiichigo]

1. Strengthening my weak group is bigger than playing a big point.

I don't see the value in this generalization.

What does strengthening mean in this context? Does this mean adding to the weak group when it is not in danger? This sounds like playing a gote move, just to be sure, and is an inefficient way to play. Ideal go play means never having to strengthen your groups, only to play when you need to keep them alive.

The value of a weak group, can easily be calculated, if the opponent can kill it on their next move, then the size of saving the weak group is known. So it is possible to know when saving a weak group is the biggest move on the board, or when there are bigger moves.
The decision should never be about choosing to help a weak group, it should be about playing the best move to improve your status overall.

Strengthening a weak group isn't bigger than playing a big point, when the weak group is in no danger, or when the big point is bigger than saving the group.

When we begin go, we encounter all kinds of generalizations, proverbs and sayings, but they are all very rough guides, there comes a time to stop trying to follow these generalizations and build our own understanding, because the caveat, "...except when it's false" can be applied to every one.

Perhaps my style of go playing is different from yours, I aim to play by knowing, If I don't know, then it is a fault of my go, or my effort, If I cannot understand a situation I need to find a way to make a decision, by finding a way to value the stones, the shapes, and groups. And from that understanding I then make a decision on what to play.

This way, If I fail then I can easily go back over what I have done, what I thought and identify where I was wrong and work out why, maybe the way I valued the stones was wrong, maybe the move I played was bad, I didn't read a correct sequence etc. and through this improve my go playing.

Where as if I play more by intuition, I can't really say why I chose one move over another, and I have no easy way to try and improve my nebulous intuition.

And I find if I play by intuition, I am far more likely to be lazy and not read, get angry or upset and play bad moves. But if I spend my time knowing the value of the board, and groups, and I read as much as I can, I can quantify my performance, and focus on parts of the game where I have problems.

[Kirby]

I don't see the value in this generalization.

The value is simply that I've noticed in my reviews that I often underestimate the value the opponent can get from attacking my weak group. Therefore, my thinking needs to be adjusted.

I think there may be a misunderstanding.

Please note that when I am making these "generalizations", I am not trying to establish rules that are always or often true in go. Rather, these are specific things that I've noticed in my games that I seem to miss, and I'd like to consider an alternative way of thinking.

Playing a big point may sometimes be better than defending a weak group. Certainly. But in my current play, I pretty much ignore weak groups if I think they can live.

This needs to be adjusted, hence, I am reminding myself in an extreme way (even if that generalization is not always true).

[Kirby]

Perhaps my style of go playing is different from yours, I aim to play by knowing, If I don't know, then it is a fault of my go, or my effort, If I cannot understand a situation I need to find a way to make a decision, by finding a way to value the stones, the shapes, and groups. And from that understanding I then make a decision on what to play.

I think we play in the same way. I'd like to play by knowing, too. It doesn't mean that I'm always going to defend a weak group when I see it. My saying is just a way for me to remember to consider adjusting my perception of how important it is to defend a group.

Trying to calculate this precisely is, of course, desirable. But clearly, my calculation has failed in some cases up until now, so I should reconsider how I calculate.

[Kirby]

The value of a weak group, can easily be calculated, if the opponent can kill it on their next move, then the size of saving the weak group is known. So it is possible to know when saving a weak group is the biggest move on the board, or when there are bigger moves.

Actually, I guess we don't agree on all of the points you mentioned. The value of a weak group is not always easily calculated as you suggest.

Just because an opponent cannot kill the group on the next move doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to strengthen it in some way. An opponent can play forcing moves by attacking, and get profit in other areas on the board. This is not always easy to calculate.

Maybe the opponent can make 10 points by attacking your weak group. Maybe 15.

I don't believe you if you're saying that you always know how much this is worth.

[aiichigo]

I don't believe you if you're saying that you always know how much this is worth.

Always know? Not really, values tend to be estimates because exact counting is too time consuming, but if you see the possibility of your opponent using sente moves against a weak group to get something, you can read out some variations, and then you have a value for those moves, then if you see a way to play that both helps your group and removes that possibility, you know the value of that move. Then you can think about letting your opponent get what he wants, and playing elsewhere, maybe getting more than your opponent gets. You now have values for both options, you can make a decision based on solid information.

What if your reading was bad? Then the problem is in your reading, what mistake did you make? You review and improve.
What if your values were wrong? Then you examine to see what assumptions were made when you estimated, across many games you can compare and see if your estimation techniques are inaccurate, you can change and improve them.

Maybe the word 'easily' is the problem here, the way I see it is that there is nothing to stop any person from working out the value of a group. In my eyes this makes it easily calculable. Maybe for some people it would take a long time, someone with no knowledge of the game may take several years to get to a level where they could come up with this kind of analysis. For someone who has been playing long enough, then it may take a few minutes, for a pro, less than a minute.

And the quality of the responses will probably vary as well, with experience and strength.

This is the draw of go, the fact that it is not easy, it is a hard hard road, of effort, that many people find strange, because it isn't something that interests them, or worse something they actually hate doing.

Go isn't played easily, easily go isn't worth playing, though maybe everyone likes to sandbag now and again.

But it may not be easily now, but if I work hard and practice then what I see as hardily now becomes easily later.

There that's a good quote.

"With hard work and practice what is hardily now becomes easily later."

[Kirby]

I agree it can be calculable, and you should make an effort each time. I think intuition is necessary sometimes, too. You do your best, and sometimes you're wrong.

Anyway, I often under-evaluate the value of attacking a weak group, and I'd like to be aware of this and fix it.

Is this that controversial?

[Magicwand]

Kirby is on the point.
difference between strong and weak is that stronger player better evaluate thickness.
One can witness many professionals play move that appears slow and overconcentrated.
They play them because it is often worth one move.

having thickness will eventually yield points later.

[Fedya]

The move above gives black a good move with the pincer

You're giving six handicap stones to somebody presumably at least six stones weaker than you. (So, about my rank or weaker.) Of course they can pincer it! You're supposed to be able to get a good position from when they err in the follow-up. Or something like that.

I'm in the middle of a handicap game (as Black) where I played what I thought was a standard joseki move. However, it turns out the move is dependent on having the ladder, and I didn't have the ladder in my favor. It doesn't help all that much to know joseki if you don't know why they play those moves. Or what to do after you get to the end of the joseki.

[Fedya]

What magazine do you get?

It's a Korean Go magazine - "Monthly Go" [1].

For those of us who only know the Hangul letters, but don't actually speak the language, who's the pro pictured? (Or is it not a pro?) I tried Shin Minchun and Shin Inwang, but an Internet search didn't yield anything.

And I know there's a reflection, but even discounting that, the angle of the photo makes his left arm look a heck of a lot bigger than the right arm, in a creepy way.

[Magicwand]

For those of us who only know the Hangul letters, but don't actually speak the language, who's the pro pictured? (Or is it not a pro?) I tried Shin Minchun and Shin Inwang, but an Internet search didn't yield anything.

And I know there's a reflection, but even discounting that, the angle of the photo makes his left arm look a heck of a lot bigger than the right arm, in a creepy way.

i think his name spells shin minjoon. He was first place on last rookie tournament. Yes he is not Hellboy.

[Kirby]

Here's an article on GoGameGuru from awhile back, talking about Shin Minjoon and Shin Jinseo.
https://gogameguru.com/prodigies-upset- ... -go-games/

Shin Jinseo has been doing a little bit better than Shin Minjoon IMO, but they are both pretty skilled.

[Kirby]

So, I haven't yet played a game this week, and it's already Wednesday. I'm slightly apprehensive, because I'm getting a little close to 2d on KGS. Historically, whenever that happens, I start on a losing streak, and sometimes go back down to 1k. Maybe it's psychological, but I can never seem to hold 2d rank.

There's like a magnetic force field around that rank that repels me back to the kyu ranks on KGS.

So today, I'll really try to do problems. I did some easier ones today, actually, but I'm having trouble with that Yilun Yang book. Maybe they are too hard for me right now. I recall chatting with Mark Lee (he won the US Open Master's a couple of years ago), and he recommended that I find go problems that I can solve in about 10 minutes at my current level. The ones in the Yilun Yang book are taking me way too long...

So I'll see what I can find today.

I keep putting this off, because I've been feeling slightly lazy for the past couple of days. I also haven't shaved since Monday. I should do that, too...

So, tentative plan for the today and tomorrow is:
1. Find a more suitable problem book.
2. Do problems from that book for the rest of the evening.
3. Shave.
4. Rest well so that I can play a game tomorrow. Try not to be repelled back to kyu ranks.
5. Watch the next game of the Ing Cup, which should be broadcast live on the AGA Youtube channel tomorrow.

[Kirby]

I changed my mind.

I decided to stick with the Yilun Yang book for two reasons:
1. Maybe the problems I'd done in the past (though it was awhile ago) were too easy. I looked through some of the problems I usually do, and they usually don't take me 10 minutes. Furthermore, Bill mentioned that learning happens when I have about 50% chance of getting the problem correct. It's painful, but maybe I do need to do more difficult problems.

2. I looked at the forward of the book, written by Yilun Yang. He described how he began his journey to create his own go puzzles:

In the beginning, even though it cost me almost all my free time, my progress was very slow. Sometimes, even after I had put in a lot of effort, and several days had passed, I had failed to create anything of value. Moreover, sometimes my thoughts went completely in the wrong direction, and all those efforts were wasted. However, this hard work has also brought me tremendous happiness. For each time I successfully created a new life-and-death puzzle, I felt as if I had won an important match and I immersed myself completely in that wonderful feeling.

How can I argue with that? If Yilun Yang had a hard time creating problems at first, experienced slow progress, but pushed through it, then why not try to do the same? Progress might be slow, but maybe I can experience the happiness that he experienced. Creating problems is much more difficult than solving them, but why not? Maybe the same idea applies.

So I did a few more of these problems. For better or for worse, I also got some problems incorrect. On one hand, I'm glad because of that idea that I should be having about 50% chance of success. On the other hand, maybe I should have tried harder on those problems. I had some confidence in my answer, but obviously overlooked important variations. I think I should aim to have fewer mistakes, but I guess it's OK that I made some mistakes. I'll try to make fewer next time.

Anyway, here are the ideas I had when going through the problems. Looking back, I only solved a few. Maybe I'll be able to solve more next time.

Puzzle 115: First instinct was N3. After M3, N4 effectively reduced white's eyespace. M2 is sente on the bottom, but it's no problem, because N5, while sente, doesn't create an eye for white on top. So far so good. I read this part correctly. But then I was concerned about white's N4 response to N3. Just pulling back at M3 doesn't work well, because white can O3 and have an eye both on top and bottom. I briefly thought about M2 after N3-N4, but thought that white could O3. I didn't see much coming from that, so I assumed that N3 didn't work. I tried N4 for the first move, but couldn't think of anything from that. O5 to start also didn't seem promising. After some time, I gave up on this problem. As it turns out, N3 was the correct answer, but I missed the correct variation for after N3-N4. O2 was the correct next move, but black could go under at N1 to make a ko. The solution was ko, and I didn't come up with that variation. I guess I have consolation in that some of the other variations listed in the solution, I had read out correctly. But since the ko variation didn't come up in my reading, I ultimately gave up.

Puzzle 116: I feel happy to say that I thoroughly solved this one. My first instinct was N18, but after M18, it quickly got hairy and looked like ko. If I capture M18 with M19, white can O17. Next thought is the other cutting point at Q17. White still has throwin at P17, so similarly, it doesn't work. Since these throwins were getting me, I tried O18 first. But after O18, white can play N18. Cutting at Q17 doesn't work well, again because of the throwin at P17. So I tried P17 first. If white defends the cutting point at Q17, then I can cut at N18. Even if white throws in at O18, I can capture O19. White approach at P19 is no big deal because of R15. The issue was, after P17, white might play O18. For awhile it just didn't seem working. Even if I cut at Q17, white could connect at P19. I stopped reading the first time through here. But reading further, it became clear that after P19, black can R19 forcing white to connect the atari. L19 then works to get rid of the other eye on top. Since the four black stones have two liberties, white cannot have time to make an eye on top. I would say that I solved this problem pretty thoroughly, even though I didn't read far enough with one of the variations the first pass through. I wish I had given the other problems the same amount of thought.

Puzzle 117: Looked a little intimidating, so I didn't try it at all for now. Didn't look at the solution, or try a single variation. Maybe I'll make a second pass later and come back to this.

Puzzle 118: Solved this one correctly, too. First instinct was Q16, but after R17, it just didn't seem working. But playing R17 first seemed promising. I may have tried Q19 variation first, but I soon tried R17 first. If black didn't play Q16, I could play Q19 threatening to connect under (and white didn't have enough eyespace on the right). After white blocked, I could play Q16 for the famous shortage of liberties shape. The interesting aspect was if white played Q16 first (in response to R17). But R19 was sente, and then S17 threatened to connect. If white T17 in response to S17, I could throwin at T18 without problem. The interesting variation was if white played T16 in response to S17. But in this case, I could capture the single stone with T18. This is actually slightly different from the book's variation where he played T17. But I believe it is still correct, since white doesn't have enough liberties to capture the black stones.

Puzzle 119: Though I skipped 117, I felt some momentum from solving puzzles 116 and 118. So I quickly thought I had come up with the solution to this one with P19. It's not the correct answer, and is just the "shape" move. I should have given this one more thought.

Puzzle 120: I spent some time on this problem and came up with white O17, black P18, white Q18, black Q19, white R19 for ko. In fact, this is ko. However, I missed the winning variation, which is a lot cooler - and is not ko. So I got this problem incorrect.

Puzzle 121: This problem I got correct. It didn't take me long to start with S18 - maybe a feeling about the shape. And there were basically two types of followups - if white played on the right (T18 or T17) or on the top (R19 or S19). White can't try to make an eye in the middle, since he can only get one eye in gote. In the case where white plays on the right, black R16 works nicely since white has shortage of liberties. In the case that white plays on the top, black Q16 works fine since white's normal response (R16) doesn't work since black can Q17. This problem wasn't too bad, and I felt confident with the answer.

That's as far as I got tonight. In the end, I only got 3 problems 100% correct. For 2 problems, I read out most of the correct variations, but didn't read them thoroughly enough to ultimately solve the problem. I was too hasty with 119 and wasn't even close - maybe I got too excited.

Ignoring the problem I totally skipped, I suppose that's about 50% accuracy, spending around 10 minutes per problem... Not really happy about 50% accuracy in some ways, but at least I think I should continue to try to solve from this book. It's a bit harder than some of the other problems I've done in the past, and I think I should see it through.

I'll try to be more accurate going forward. Tomorrow, I'll aim to do at least 6 problems and get them all correct within 10 minutes. That's my goal, anyway.

Still haven't shaved. I guess I'll do that next.