The stones go walking, and I with them

[mitsun]

In the upper left looks too simple and uninspired. This move defends against a B move at E17, but otherwise puts no pressure on the weak B group. In addition, it is a low move which does not cooperate effectively with the existing low W group to the top right. Anytime B feels pressure, he can push you down to inefficient low third line territory. You are right to look for something more severe.

The alternative move E16 would be a much better joseki choice, both to pressure the B group and to make the W top position more balanced. As the weak B stones run away, you might be able to keep up an attack while taking fourth line territory on top, which would be fine. The peep at E14 is also worth considering; the result would be very good if B simply connects and you then continue with E16 or F17.

should definitely be C12. This primary point of this move is to prevent B from making good shape. It also defends the cut at C10, threatens a cut at D12, and prepares a connection underneath at B14. In contrast, after B gets this point (in sente), his group is settled and safe. B has recovered from his initial weakness and now seems to have pulled ahead.

is an excellent move, at the boundary of two spheres of influence. No need to over-think this one -- you got it right. Just compare this to a B move at F5 (maybe even E5) to appreciate the difference.

(Q10 shoulder hit) is a plausible reduction move. Q8 on the wider side is perhaps even more plausible. Since it is hard to say which side is better, I might pick the cap at P9, letting B decide which side to defend. If B plays Q7, you can probably still invade at R5 and live. Invading directly at R5 also seems reasonable.

For why not continue at Q12? B has no good way to connect his two stones, so your reduction pays extra dividends. After your reduction has not accomplished much. (Now it is really sad that the B group to the left is not weak. If you could get some forcing moves around G14, then O12 would make double use of the thickness created by your reduction sequence.)

Continuing locally at O9 would be the usual thick shape here, but you cannot afford to let B consolidate all the territory below. Maybe invade R3 now?

looks strange to me. This invasion does not take away much B territory. In fact, the push at G5 seems equally large, without the drawback of creating a weak group. (Now it is really sad that the B group to the left is not weak. After pushing a few times around G5, it would be nice if F10 was a strong attack.)

Really though this seems like the best opportunity to invade deeply at R3 and live. You did that later, but only after B was too strong and probably should have been able to kill the invasion. But at least you recognized the need to try and made the attempt.

[jeromie]

Thanks, mitsun! Your comments are very helpful. I'll try to summarize my takeaways from what you and Bill had to say when I have some more time.

[jeromie]

If stronger players are kind enough to review my games, I figure I owe them the respect of trying to learn from what they have to say. Here are a few takeaways from the reviews that Bill and mitsun were kind enough to offer:

• I lack awareness of how the stones on the board are working together in the opening. While I recognized that my opponent played a lot of low plays, I didn't know how to effectively take advantage of that.
• I can be over concerned with protecting my stones in the opening instead of playing lightly. I think this comes from not always trusting my fighting skills later on. Move 8 and, to some extent, move 16 both reflect an unnecessary concern with the safety of my stones.
• I think move 16 was also an example of playing comfortable moves instead of good moves. Obviously this is part of a joseki I know, but that type of thinking shows up in other areas of my game, too.
• On the bright side, I often correctly recognize when there are vulnerabilities in my opponent's shape, even if I don't know what to do with it. Knowing that I don't know what to do is a good start.
• 20 was another fearful move. I didn't know if I could follow up after the cut at C10. Positions like this are hard to read and evaluate, but I need to take the time to read it out the best I can and appreciate the difference between good and bad shape.
• Sometimes my instincts are right (26) and I don't need to second guess them.
• Don't ignore the quiet, big moves. (34)
• Keep learning where / when to invade / reduce. (36)
• I need to finish what I start. (38)

Thanks!

[jeromie]

Today, on the way to work, I fell off my bicycle.

My commute is short (only 1.5 miles), and most of it is over residential streets, but there's a short section where I have to travel on the main street that runs through downtown Littleton before making a left turn to head towards the college where I teach. It's not a terribly busy road, but there was some light traffic this morning, so I decided to turn onto the road when there was a moderate break in traffic. I've had a crick in my neck for the last two days, so my ability to look over my shoulder is limited. In order to make sure I had plenty of room to merge into the left hand lane, I quickly sped up to match (or exceed) the pace of traffic. (The speed limit is 25 mph in that area and the street runs down a hill, so I can match traffic pretty easily.) However, I didn't leave myself enough room to slow down for my turn. I went into it too fast, and my tire started to slide out from under me halfway through the turn. I recovered from the slide, but I ran into the curb on the opposite side of the road and fell onto the sidewalk. I wasn't injured beyond a minor scrape on my hand and a bruised ego, but the entire incident was caused by my own foolishness.

Why am I posting about this incident in my go journal? I had two losses last night, and they felt a little like my bicycle accident. My recent winning streak has left me over-confident and a little bored (and a bit obsessed with ranking up on KGS), so I rushed headlong into a few situations that were unwise. The result was that I crashed somewhat spectacularly. The incident made me realize that I need to slow down and stick to my strengths, especially when there are physical factors at play (in go, fatigue is more significant than a crick in my neck). I'm generally quite patient, but I'm not beyond making a reckless decision at times.

One of my crashes:

http://files.gokgs.com/games/2016/8/30/jeromie-CADoubtJk.sgf

[sparky314]

Few comments. Take with a large grain of salt. Or the entire shaker.

Interesting choice, I kind of like it. I typically play dual 4-4 to remain flexible as white.

Trying to prevent giving b a bigger framework with the pincer? I'd have chosen D6. It leaves the invasion point, but that can be handled.

This black group is more or less settle. I think its important to get stones elsewhere on the board, with the approach at O17 or enclosure at D15.

This is probably fine, but I think E15 or K16 is bigger.

L2 instead to prevent the connection, if you're intent is to attack b's group. Otherwise, b can connect with L2 (either directly, or just push and cut. Also, w isn't profiting from these stones.

Black takes more profit. Definitely favorable for black at this point. Time to pincer the G16 stone and attack to prepare an invasion on the right, while taking profit on the left for white.

Still surrounding the b group. C2 or L2 gives black a way to live/fight to connect. Though it might be killable now?

Should be played at C2 first, threatening the kill. Then extend at D11. White gets solid territory. E7 is almost dead.

Crosscut at D11 instead.

B12 for the fight, or D11 to take one of the two sides.

Just take at B12. If black ataris, then connect. You'll get more forcing moves, and can live in the corner. The descent gives black more forcing moves, which is not what you want when he's invading.

Capture at E13. All your stones are connected. And it might be sente against the corner? Then you can attack the G16 stone to strengthen for an invasion on the right.


You played a lot of moves surrounding a difficult to attack group. Since black was more or less safe, it would have been better to tenuki. After you did surround black, you could have played a big move to threaten the kill (or maybe even kill it?). To show what I mean, by move 26, you played 10 stones in the bottom left while black only played 6, but you didn't gain much with the 4 extra stones.


Good luck for your next game. And stay safe on your bike!

[jeromie]

I agree that I spent too many stones on the bottom. The single biggest predictor of my success is that when I play for profit, I win. When I play such that winning depends upon killing a large group, it's a toss up at best.

[jeromie]

After seeing very good results in August, September has gotten off to a poor start. I suppose it's possible that my success was a statistical fluke, but I think the more likely explanation is mental lapses in my game. It's amazing how evident the difference in my play is when I am in a good mental state versus when I am tired, over confident, or pressing for a win. While it's frustrating to lose when I know I can play better, this is one of the things I like best about go: it provides an opportunity for introspection and reveals something about my inner mental state, sometimes before I become consciously aware of it.

I hope I start winning again soon, but more importantly I hope I sort out some of the underlying issues that have caused my game to suffer. If I hope to play to my potential, I have to take care of my body, mind, and spirit. That sort of self-care pays dividends in life as well as over the go board.

[jeromie]

After a second month that ended up being very similar to August statistically, I finally got my KGS rank to 4k. I had to play a handicap game as black for the final win that pushed me over the line, which is fitting since that has been my Achilles heel.

I honestly didn't play that well and was way behind until white made a big mistake at move 141. Still, I'll take it.

http://files.gokgs.com/games/2016/9/25/wrap-jeromie.sgf

[Majordomo]

I'll not offer advice but instead observations heh -
Hmm, for your double approach on the corner, isn't this the situation where white wants to draw back to the 3-3, since he has support on both wings what follows will be a tough fight (which I guess is white's advantage being the stronger player)? Now that didn't happen but how would you compare your result to taking the 3-3 directly then try for light reductions after instead? Since the black group on the outside ends up heavy here and immediately come under attack (also, did you consider sacrificing them with 46 at K7? to get a strong wall facing the centre?).

Speaking of blunders, I had my opponent start (as in let me take first) a Ko for 60 points in the very late endgame - when the biggest threat on the board was maybe 12 heh.

[jeromie]

Yeah, the double approach was bad. 24 was awful since it didn't really connect the groups, and 32 made my group very heavy. I saved it, but at the expense of giving white power all over the board. I didn't deserve to win that game, but since I've also blundered away games I should have won it all evens out in the end. It's hard to maintain that perspective when I lose, though.

[jeromie]

This whole thread is interesting, but I found John's suggestion to work through a large number of pro games particularly interesting. I also appreciated Kirby's counterpoint about the value of tsumego. I think I'd like to choose one approach or the other to try out for a set period of time and see what happens. I've done a lot of tsumego in the past (though I think I could still stand to drill some of the basic life and death shapes), so I'm leaning towards going through a large number of professional games.

I'm not sure what pro I'd choose to focus on. It seems like I'd have to choose someone who I desire to emulate. I'd probably choose someone in Logan's ebook collection. Cho Chikun? Go Seigen? Chen Yaoye? Lee Changho? Iyama Yuta? There are lots of great choices!

[sparky314]

For choice of pro, I think studying a pro who matches your style while keeping the game at an understandable level would be best.

I think my particular preference will be Lee Changho or Cho Chikun, followed by Lee Sedol. Lee Sedol, though, requires deep reading (for his fighting), so I think I'd hold off on him until I'm stronger.

Also, for the url tag:

Code: Select all

[url=http://www.google.com]text[/url]

[jeromie]

Chen Yaoye and Lee Changho both show up in the go style estimator web app, which is why they were near the top of my list.
Cho Chikun is also territorial, I find Iyama's games easy to understand, and Go Seigen is Go Seigen.

Still, I'll probably go with Chen Yaoye or Lee Changho.

[jeromie]

And yes, I've made links many times before. Just had one of those moments.

[Majordomo]

Heh, cool to see that the style indicator will actually pick up differences (in particular it says I'm calm (passive I think heh) where you get much more on the fighting side) - as a side-note do you agree with the scales as they apply to you?

That thread is interesting to follow! I've gone over quite a few games of Fujisawa Hideyuki - based on the idea that older japanese pro's would be simpler at better to "absorb". All pro games go way over my head, because even when the ideas I do understand arise on the board I'm only seeing the tip of the iceber, but Fujisawa (and in part Otake Hideo) I find something more instantly recognisable to me than I do in the modern games (be it Iyama, Lee Sedol etc etc).

Based on that I think you should maybe reflect on how you intend to go over them though. Studying them deeply? Memorising? Trying to understand them only very superficially? Or just mindlessly play them out over a board (digital or real)? If the first I'd second Sparky in that the deep reading required to see the countless of "bad" lines in fighty games will be hard, but for the latter ways of study? You don't really need to understand, just go with the flow and be inspired - this has been my way of going over games. Once mindlessly, just playing the stones (using the Go4Go app where it replays it with 5 second between moves), then once more where I think just what the move does and why it's "good". Then I move on to another game unless I was fascinated by something in particular.