Kirby's Study Journal

Kirby · **#1161**

I won't pick apart the game too much, but my biggest insight from playing against two weaker players today was this:

Be satisfied with a good result. If I can read out a clear sequence that is definitely a good result for me, take it over an unclear path that may or may not lead to a superior result.

EdLee · **#1162**

Quote:

If I can read out a clear sequence that is definitely a good result for me, take it over an unclear path that may or may not lead to a superior result.

Like a bot.

Kirby · **#1163**

I was thinking more like how pros talked when they show variations in joseki (this position is favorable for black or white or whatever).

I'm still not super interested nor inspired by bots, but if the analogy works for you, why not?

Bill Spight · **#1164**

Kirby wrote:

I was thinking more like how pros talked when they show variations in joseki (this position is favorable for black or white or whatever).

I'm still not super interested nor inspired by bots, but if the analogy works for you, why not?

Take a look at my recent posts on "Questions about a game", starting here. viewtopic.php?p=234439#p234439 . Maybe you'll be inspired.

Uberdude · **#1165**

Kirby wrote:

The first move that seemed like a big difference to me was when I took the 3-3 point here:

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

LeelaZero seems to like playing here, at least on my computer:

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

I'm against considering this suggestion to be a better move based on winrate only, so let's take the hypothesis that this is a better move, and think about why.

1. First of all, it puts significant pressure on the black stones. The black stones may live with the 3-3 point, but it threatens to seal black in:

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

So black probably wouldn't take the 3-3 immediately.

<snip>

Kirby, are you sure you are not a computer? You just suffered from one of their classic bugs, an off-by-one error! ;-)

Your reasoning about the value of the kosumi in the corner would make lots more sense if it was indeed a 4-4 corner with a pincer and slide, as then the 3-3 is indeed a comfortable base for both players. Black playing the slide is pretty unusual with a 3-4 point (because unlike with 4-4 there is no big follow-up at 3-3) so that's probably part of why you got confused into thinking the edge of the board was where it wasn't.

Kirby · **#1166**

I feel like I'm being peer pressured into using a drug or something :-p

I use LeelaZero already for game analysis. So I'm not 100% against computers. I'm a professional software engineer, by trade, after all. I suppose that requires more programming than anything else, though, so for my job, I usually get to tell computers what to do more than the other way around :-)

Kirby · **#1167**

Another game on KGS. I gave 2 stones to 3k.

Here's the game record:

Kirby · **#1168**

Learning points from this game are not to take unnecessary risk. Here are a few examples where I may have been unnecessarily risky.

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

I'm aiming at the cut above, but maybe if I just get out with my group, it's enough.

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

The one above is probably OK, but I could avoid risk of something weird happening by just playing at the marked spot. Maybe I like the in game move better, though, I suppose.

Uberdude · **#1169**

Indeed Kirby, this is a classic example of where falling back can reduce your cuts:

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W One* cut. $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O O X O X X . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . X X X X X b . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O a . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . O X X 2 3 . . . . . . . O O . . | $$ | . . O . O . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . c O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . X . . X . . , . . . X . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . | $$ | . O O O . . O . . . . . . O O . . . . | $$ | . X X O X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O X O . . O . . . O . , X . . | $$ | . X . X O O . O . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the 2nd diagram if black does cut you can just atari on the outside and sacrifice; it's true that you didn't force black to grovelling connect at b but he's still pretty inefficient.

And if black doesn't push and cut then next you are aiming at defending the peeping stone in good shape and force the grovel connection whilst pressing on the outside.

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

* actually there could be 2 or 3 by black cutting across the knight's move at c. But also black's 2-space jump below is thin so it's complicated. Maybe white should attach there before kosumi.

Kirby · **#1170**

Very nice! I didn't see the move in the game, but I like it! The shape is solid, and it seems much better.

In general, I have a hard time seeing moves where you "fall back", but in this case, it definitely seems stronger.

Kirby · **#1171**

I played a 4-stone game against a 4k on KGS today. I got into some drama and things got a bit risky in the middle game, but then he let me capture the entire bottom right in exchange for 3 stones.

Here's the SGF:

Kirby · **#1172**

Highlights...

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

Not 100% sure on the 3-3. Maybe sliding is better?

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

Position 2:

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

The three stones only seem small. Maybe I should hane on other side first:

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

Position 3:

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

Overplay?

Calm way is to just come out, but he gets some easy territory:

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

Maybe either hane:

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

Or a bit closer:

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

Not really sure.

I end up aiming to sacrifice anyway:

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

I guess those are the main points I can think of.

dfan · **#1173**

Interesting positions. Here are some instinctive thoughts, which are interesting to calibrate against those of stronger players (like you!):

Kirby wrote:

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

Not 100% sure on the 3-3. Maybe sliding is better?

I like the 3-3 on principle because sliding and letting Black take the 3-3 gives him a big strong corner while you maybe make an eye on the side, while playing the 3-3 means that Black has to really think about living. Of course it's a fight, but you're four stones stronger than him.

Quote:

Position 2:

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

The three stones only seem small. Maybe I should hane on other side first:

I would really be happy to capture those four stones, immediately making everything at the top strong (especially since I have a potentially weak group in the upper right), rather than get into a big do-or-die fight to try to capture one additional Black stone.

Quote:

Position 3:

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

Overplay?

The general idea seems easily justified to me. Squeezing your way out and letting him turn that peep into a territory boundary seems incredibly submissive. I personally might have played one line above your actual move (which is one of your suggestions) but that may be because I tend to play it safe. Your move feels more like the right distance.

Uberdude · **#1174**

That slide vs 3-3 decision often crops up. I think I'd go for 3-3 as it's a lot of points and takes black's territory/base and black can barely connected under on the left. The idea of slide would be a double sente move (don't want black to kick there) to make a bit of eyespace as a bonus before attacking the black group below. But as black has jumped out that far I think that's unlikely to be succesful (plus some wedge of one-point-jump worries), though it always amazes me how weaker players manage to kill themselves in handicap games

. 3-3 settles the groups more so gives less scope for later changes, so I'd say as a general principle if you are on track for overcoming the handicap (so at this stage caught up about 1 stone) then 3-3 is fine, but if you feel you are behind and want to keep opportunities for magic kills later then that's a plus for the slide.

Kirby · **#1175**

@dfan: thanks for the comments! Looks like you mostly agree with the decisions I made in the game. You and Uberdude have convinced me about the 3-3.

Regarding just capturing the stones instead of hane on outside, I think hane on outside will still capture the stones, though, it is less clear cut.

@Uberdude: Good point about the attackability on the outside stones. They seem tough to attack here.

@All: No game today - opted for sleep instead. Tomorrow will feature a club game, again.

Kirby · **#1176**

I was doing some go problems this morning, and my mind wondered upon an interesting train of thought.

I was going over a problem book I've already done before, so the problems are already somewhat familiar to me. Typically, upon looking at a problem, I have an idea of what the solution is already; after all, I've already solved the problem before. But that's not good study, so I've had to take some discipline in iterating the solution (black, white, black, white, ...) in my head. Then I've really solved the problem.

But what's the difference? I already knew the answer to the problem when I glanced at it. Well, I can certainly feel a difference in thought process in my head - when I'm iterating a solution (black, white, black, white, ...), I can feel my mind working. If I recall a solution from memory, that's cool and all - but I'm not really solving a new problem. In short, the essence of solving a go problem lies in exploring the various paths and labeling them (black, white, black, white, ..., white lives; black, white, black, white, ..., white dies). Coming straight to the answer, "I can kill white" doesn't do much for me. After all, it's a book of go problems. Of course white dies, because it's black to kill! Without the process of iterating and labeling the intermediate parts of a solution, simply claiming that white dies has little meaning - all of the problems have this result, and it's the differences in each problem which make them unique.

I was then reminded of some of the debates I've had here on L19. Some people claim that they don't care about winning or losing. I've always thought that kind of idea is silly - if there is no objective of winning or losing to go, you're just putting stones on some wood - there's no real meaning without an objective. I still believe this to be true. But in a sense, when you play a game of go, it's a form of a go problem. Ignoring computer preferences for white with 7.5 komi, at the beginning of the game, I can have a sense that "I can win the game", even if I'm playing a pro. It's the same as thinking "I can kill white" in a go problem. Just as all of my go problems have solutions, each game presents itself with an opportunity to win. Going straight to the solution of "winning the game" without the iterative, strategic process is, just as in the case of go problems, devoid of meaning. From the beginning of the game, of course it's possible to win. Just as at the beginning of a go problem, of course it's possible to kill white (or get ko, depending on the nature of the problem :-p).

So where does meaning come from? In both go problems and go games, I still maintain that playing moves or sequences "without caring" about winning or getting a solution is without meaning: you're only playing random moves in these cases - it's devoid of meaning. But at the other extreme, to come straight to the solution of a problem or a game: "white dies" or "I win the game" is also devoid of meaning. My view is that meaning then comes from this iterative process of exploring possibilities in a way that's directed toward identifying a solution. Thoroughly exploring with a purpose gives meaning and purpose to the activity. In the case of go problems, this means that you still care about coming to the correct solution - but you do so by exploring and labeling the intermediate branches of the problem. In the case of go games, it means you still care about winning - but you do so by exploring and labeling the intermediate possibilities throughout the game. In both cases, it's most satisfying to fully explore various possibilities and to come up with the correct answer in the end.

This process of striving each step of the way seems to be the essence of purpose.

There seem to be other parallels in life, too. I have been exercising lately with an objective of being healthy. Maybe it's morbid to say it, but I already know the end result of this "problem" of life: I'm going to die. So that's the solution, and I already know what it is - just like in the go problem: "white dies" - it's evident before I start the problem. So what is the purpose? I suppose the purpose is to strive each step of the way, and to come up with the best response for each move.

The answer is already known, but I'd like to strive to find the best move from each position...

Do go problems well. Exercise well. Play go well. Live well.

These objectives give purpose.

---

Go club tonight, so more games to be posted soon :-)

Kirby · **#1177**

I went to the go club today. I was the only one there at first, but then a regular named Don showed up. He's like 5k or something. It seems I can give him about 5 stones. We played 3 games, and I won two of the three (I made a mistake with one).

Then some guy that claimed to be around 5d came by - his name was John, I think. He gave me 4 stones. I think I played passively at the start of the game and perhaps inefficiently, but I had a lead. But then I was greedy and tried to pull out the center stones. I should have just consolidated and tried to move to endgame.

He got his chance for a fight, took the corner, and killed my group. Game over.

Here's the game:

My wife wants to go to bed, so I can't review much right now.

I will say that, while I remember most of the game, the ending is a bit foggy, where he killed me. To me, that indicates that I wasn't focusing enough for that part.

If I were really focused on playing optimally and living, then I should have remembered that part.

So perhaps I was too careless.

I will beat him next week. :rambo:

EdLee · **#1178**

Quote:

I should have remembered that part.

Hi Kirby,

It's by choice you don't record your games ?

Calvin Clark · **#1179**

It looks like you held the line pretty well in this game. I'm impressed. For the first 100 moves I was not convinced you couldn't play this guy even. I look forward your comments.

Kirby · **#1180**

EdLee wrote:

Quote:

I should have remembered that part.

Hi Kirby,

It's by choice you don't record your games ?

Yeah, basically, when I'm focusing enough, I can remember the game. If I can't remember the game, I wasn't focusing on that part. If I'm recording the game, I'm not focused.

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online