It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:41 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #41 Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:33 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8479
Liked others: 2478
Was liked: 2943
Some comments on the opening and early middle game. :)


_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #42 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:11 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
Bill Spight wrote:
Some comments on the opening and early middle game. :)


Thanks, Bill! These are some great ideas. I particularly like the idea of using the elephant's eye to solicit the split and in doing so providing tighter coverage of both groups. I've been focusing on shape a bit lately in my reading and have always seen the elephant's eye described as weak because it could so easily be split. Interesting to see how the split could be advantageous :-)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #43 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:18 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8479
Liked others: 2478
Was liked: 2943
BlindGroup wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Some comments on the opening and early middle game. :)


Thanks, Bill! These are some great ideas. I particularly like the idea of using the elephant's eye to solicit the split and in doing so providing tighter coverage of both groups. I've been focusing on shape a bit lately in my reading and have always seen the elephant's eye described as weak because it could so easily be split. Interesting to see how the split could be advantageous :-)


It's funny. I don't think of it as an elephant's eye -- which it is, OC --, but as a boshi. That is, the relation to the opponent's stone is more important to me than the relation to my own stone. Except for haengma ( https://senseis.xmp.net/?Haengma ), it does not make much sense to think of shape without considering the opponent's stones. A good shape against certain opponent's stones can be bad shape against others, and vice versa. :)

BTW, that sequence, boshi, kosumi, keima, occurs often in professional play, if not in actual games, at least in variations. Pros often avoid playing the kosumi. ;)

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #44 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:05 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
Bill Spight wrote:
Except for haengma ( https://senseis.xmp.net/?Haengma ), it does not make much sense to think of shape without considering the opponent's stones. A good shape against certain opponent's stones can be bad shape against others, and vice versa. :)

BTW, that sequence, boshi, kosumi, keima, occurs often in professional play, if not in actual games, at least in variations. Pros often avoid playing the kosumi. ;)


This reminds me of the point that I've seen EdLee make a few times about the tiger's mouth being a good move in certain circumstances. It's interesting that so many discussions about shape definitively label both as weak when clearly the value of the shapes is a little more subtle. Even the dreaded empty triangle can be a good move, depending on the circumstances!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #45 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:53 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8479
Liked others: 2478
Was liked: 2943
BlindGroup wrote:
This reminds me of the point that I've seen EdLee make a few times about the tiger's mouth being a good move in certain circumstances. It's interesting that so many discussions about shape definitively label both as weak when clearly the value of the shapes is a little more subtle. Even the dreaded empty triangle can be a good move, depending on the circumstances!


Many discussions about shape label the tiger's mouth as weak? Hard to believe. :(

Fortunately, I had better books when I was starting out.

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #46 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:14 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 174
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 55
Rank: KGS 1k EGF 2k
KGS: Schachus12
when wachting Haylee's videos I always had the impression, that tigers mouth is the main/most common reason for her to say she has good shape:)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #47 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:43 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
Schachus wrote:
when wachting Haylee's videos I always had the impression, that tigers mouth is the main/most common reason for her to say she has good shape:)


In fairness, I could be wrong. I don't remember where I think I saw this now, but I feel like I've seen it come up a few times in the online lectures that I've watched. That said, it's also very possible that I misunderstood what was being said. That happens with frustrating frequency ;-)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #48 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:06 pm 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8507
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 322
Was liked: 1963
GD Posts: 312
Hi BlindGroup,

Here's a case where I thought a tiger's mouth is bad shape:
post 3 :b43: . :) As usual, the global context matters.


This post by EdLee was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re:
Post #49 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:55 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8479
Liked others: 2478
Was liked: 2943
EdLee wrote:
Hi BlindGroup,

Here's a case where I thought a tiger's mouth is bad shape:
post 3 :b43: . :) As usual, the global context matters.


Yeah, F-18 plainly sucks. ;)

But what about G-17?

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #50 Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:01 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
I was wondering if someone might be able to answer two questions from a recent game where I played black?

First, I ended up in the following position and played the circle stone as shown. However, in doing so, I was worried that the marked stones needed another move. Should I have played that extra stone in support, perhaps at A? I feel like this is one of those cases in which the black stones can't be killed, but they can certainly be easily harassed. But is preventing the harassment as valuable as the shimari?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . Y . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . O O Y . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Later in the game, I faced the following board after white played the circle stone. At this point reducing white's territory in the top middle seems to be the most urgent. What is the right way to do that?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . O . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . W . X . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . . O . O X . . . |
$$ | . . O O O O . . . . . O . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . X X X . X . , . . . X . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . O . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . X . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O O . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X X . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


This is the best I could come up with so far:

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

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #51 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:44 am 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8507
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 322
Was liked: 1963
GD Posts: 312
Hi BG,
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]
( Just curious. ) What was your plan for :w1: ?


This post by EdLee was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #52 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:07 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
I'm going to guess given just that you posed this question, that it is a bad plan :oops:

That said, my plan was to sacrifice the black triangle stones with 2. I reasoned as follows. First, I considered the value of white's triangle stones, and decided that they were not worth much. It honestly looks like a bad cut since both the cut black groups can stand on their own. And I think white needs one more move before he can use them to surround the group in the top right. If they are not worth that much, then I didn't expect white to defend them. So, I couldn't expect moves like black A or B to be sente even if I defended against 1. Thus, the question is whether preventing white from connecting these stones and breaking through my "wall" is more valuable than enclosing the top left corner. I did't know how to do a formal calculation of this, but my guess was no. With white 1, I expected the sequence to continue as shown below, trading my influence in the bottom right for territory in the top left. Was I clearly wrong?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . Y O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


If I thought white would have defended the marked stones then this would be an entirely different situation. And in fact, I did deliberate about whether or not white might over-value those stones since that is very common at my level. In the end, I decided to play the game rather than the opponent.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re:
Post #53 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:32 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 174
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 55
Rank: KGS 1k EGF 2k
KGS: Schachus12
EdLee wrote:
Hi BG,
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]
( Just curious. ) What was your plan for :w1: ?


Interesting question, I thought:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . 5 X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . 6 X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


black can just ladder this stone. Of course, white can do this:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . 3 X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

but that really doesnt seem like black should be worried. Im kinda surprised, that BG wants to give those 2 stones up, which seems like a huge success(! all blacks center potential gets destroyed at once) for white and also why you asked in the first place, so what am I missing?!

PS: In your variantion, BG, also white 5 to the left of :b2: is very painful cause you have to come back making weird shape to save your 5 stones. I think even if it is for some reason your plan to sacrifice 2 stones, exchanging 2 for 3 can only be bad for you.


This post by Schachus was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #54 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:12 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
Schachus wrote:
Im kinda surprised, that BG wants to give those 2 stones up, which seems like a huge success(! all blacks center potential gets destroyed at once) for white and also why you asked in the first place, so what am I missing?!


This is very useful feedback. :salute: My take from what you are saying is that yet again, I'm undervaluing influence and that the loss of that influence was more valuable than getting the shimari. Is that fair?

Quote:
PS: In your variantion, BG, also white 5 to the left of :b2: is very painful cause you have to come back making weird shape to save your 5 stones. I think even if it is for some reason your plan to sacrifice 2 stones, exchanging 2 for 3 can only be bad for you.


Agreed, and I did see it. However, it sounds like I underestimated the cost to me of the bad shape. Again, very good to know!

Interesting how the answer to my original question was that I was asking the wrong question! Yet again, the unknown-unknows are more important than the known-unknowns :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #55 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:18 am 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8507
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 322
Was liked: 1963
GD Posts: 312
Hi BG,
Quote:
that it is a bad plan
I'm not sure about global situation; just curious about your follow-ups to the cut. :)


This post by EdLee was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #56 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:19 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 838
Location: Littleton, CO
Liked others: 283
Was liked: 262
Rank: KGS 3k
Universal go server handle: jeromie
BlindGroup wrote:
My take from what you are saying is that yet again, I'm undervaluing influence and that the loss of that influence was more valuable than getting the shimari. Is that fair?


I don't think you even need to think of it in terms of influence versus territory. There are approximately 8 black stones on the right that don't do anything except make influence. In your plan for the cut, those stones plus the others you invest to save them end up surrounding 4-6 points of territory. That's less than one point per stone, which is really inefficient.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #57 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:45 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
jeromie wrote:
I don't think you even need to think of it in terms of influence versus territory. There are approximately 8 black stones on the right that don't do anything except make influence. In your plan for the cut, those stones plus the others you invest to save them end up surrounding 4-6 points of territory. That's less than one point per stone, which is really inefficient.


I confess I'm not used to thinking about the efficiency of stones in such a detailed way. In fact, this is the first time I've tried, and I had to read your comment several times before I thought I understood it. I think I see how locally the stones are not used efficiently. But I do not understand why the local inefficiency alone is sufficient to prefer defending against white 1 over the shimari.

Here is my thought process: Let's say the position plays out as in Schachus's solution, and I'll add an extra black stone (P6) to account for the fact that I'll likely eventually need to play one to handle the aji.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . Y O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . Y Y O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . Y Y O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


Now, as you say, I've got 12 stones generating 4 points of secure territory. That's a third of a point of secure territory per stone locally -- not good.

However, at least 4 of the stones in the new wall generate influence. So, that adds between 2 and 3 points a stone -- bringing the total to 12-16 points or about 1 - 1 1/3 points per stone. Then if we also consider the shimari in the upper left. If I remember correctly from a counting book I just read that is worth 15 points of territory and some influence, say 4-6 points. So, considering both positions together, I've used 14 stones to generate 31-37 points, resulting in a rate of 2.2 - 2.6. That would argue for ignoring white 1 for the shimari, no? Or have a misunderstood or miscalculated?

[Edited: To fix the mistake pointed out by skydyr.]


Last edited by BlindGroup on Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #58 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:27 pm 
Oza

Posts: 2463
Location: DC
Liked others: 145
Was liked: 435
Universal go server handle: skydyr
Online playing schedule: When my wife is out.
BlindGroup wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . Y O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . Y Y O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . Y Y O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]




Something has gone awry with your diagram, as black has a few more stones on the board than white.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: BlindGroup Study Journal
Post #59 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:42 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 838
Location: Littleton, CO
Liked others: 283
Was liked: 262
Rank: KGS 3k
Universal go server handle: jeromie
Sorry, I was (am) posting from a phone and tried to get away without using diagrams.

I was talking about this:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . B . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . Y O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 X O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]


That result is unbearable for black because many stones were made inefficient, and I don't think the gain from the shimari makes up for sacrificing all of black's influence.

To answer your original question, in the middle game you can generally make most of your points by attacking. Not that you'll necessarily capture anything, but if your opponent has to save his or her stones while you make profit it is a net gain. So as you are moving into that phase of the game, it is good to assess where the weak groups on the board are. Are there an groups you can harass for profit? Are there any groups your opponent can harass for profit? The most important move is generally one that fixes your weakness or makes sure your opponent stays weak.

The black group you left to make a shimari is weak, but you can easily sacrifice one or more of those stones, so I don't think tenuki is necessarily bad. The two white cutting stones are weak and, as was pointed out, the black wall is not as strong as it looks. I think the crucial factor in the game is how those weaknesses play out.


This post by jeromie was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Re:
Post #60 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:49 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 383
Liked others: 289
Was liked: 56
IGS: 4k
Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
skydyr wrote:
BlindGroup wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . Y O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . Y O Y O . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . Y Y O . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . , . . X . Y Y O . . |
$$ | . . . O X X . . . X . . . X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]




Something has gone awry with your diagram, as black has a few more stones on the board than white.


Thanks. I meant for black to have one extra stone at P6 so that my estimate of the efficiency of those stones was reduced to account for the aji. But I mistakenly used a diagram that already had a stone at C15. I corrected the diagram.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group