jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #8)

Ian Butler · Post by **Ian Butler** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:56 am

Bill Spight wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:Here I was proud of my tenuki on the top side, but it turns out it was too big a gamble?
Well, your pincer was really an invasion. And the jlt raised the stakes!

That's true. My reasoning at the time, however, was this:

I can live back here. But doing so might give white a lot of influence in exchange. so I'd better postpone it if I can, and do something else first, before giving white such amount of influence.
If white would decide to block off the stone, I could still reduce the area later and have a free move elsewhere.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:47 am

Ian Butler wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:Here I was proud of my tenuki on the top side, but it turns out it was too big a gamble?
Well, your pincer was really an invasion. And the jlt raised the stakes!
That's true. My reasoning at the time, however, was this:

I can live back here. But doing so might give white a lot of influence in exchange. so I'd better postpone it if I can, and do something else first, before giving white such amount of influence.
If white would decide to block off the stone, I could still reduce the area later and have a free move elsewhere.

Well, it seems to me that you are doing two things. First, you are second guessing yourself. If you are right about the influence, then your invasion was premature. I don't think it was, but you do not have my experience. And I could be wrong. Maybe it was premature.

Not just in go, but in general, IMO it is a good idea to be a bit dogged about your original plan or idea. In theory, I suppose, you should reevaluate on every turn, look with fresh eyes, and not hang on to potentially mistaken perceptions or assumptions. But that takes time and energy. Better to have some faith in yourself while admitting that you could be wrong. Besides, if you were wrong then, you could be wrong now. In chess, Znosko-Borovsky said this about second guessing yourself: "Order. Counter-order. Disorder." (I read Znosko-Borovsky when I was 13. He made a big impression.

) Edit2: Znosko-Borovsky points out that a worthy opponent is going to resist your plans and come up with plays that put the outcome in question. It is a contest, after all.

Edit 4: Something I forgot to mention. Sticking by your guns encourages you to make better decisions beforehand, and, by finding out how your original plan works out, you gain information to use in making good decisions.

Anyway, you saw the flaws in White's wall, which are what makes the invasion OK at this time. So maybe do a little reading and evaluate the picture of White's outside influence that emerges. You don't have to do an exhaustive search, just get the picture. Another chess writer, Krogius, points out that each move gives you a better picture of the future than your previous mental picture. Improving your vision of the future is not the same as second guessing yourself.

The second thing you did was assume that your approach was sente, and you could come back to the invasion. In fact, the approach to the 4-4 is not in general sente and White could have attacked your invading stone. He could also have tried a leaning attack against your top left corner, to strengthen the attack against that stone. It was a close enough question that I did not comment on it, but thinking about it now, attacking your invasion would probably have been good psychology, inviting you to question yourself again.

Edit: Correction. Looking again, I see that you did take the possibility of an attack into account. But you assumed that you could reduce if he did. But if he attacks from above, you won't be able to do that. And you might not be able to do that if he starts with a leaning attack against your corner.

Edit3: You did assume that if White did attack your invasion, your gain elsewhere would be good enough compensation. That is a dubious assumption after White has raised the stakes.

----

Oh! Note to jlt. As White you followed Black around the board too much. That is part of the reason why he played so well. Black is supposed to follow White, remember?

Ian Butler · Post by **Ian Butler** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:54 am

Game 5. An interesting game, where black leads after the opening (at least in points and according to Leela), but white takes the lead after a good invasion (attach invasion into a shimari) and where white takes more than he's entitled to, because of slack black play.

White keeps his lead until the endgame. Black tries to play his best endgame, gets big endgame moves and finally white misses a capture of 2 stones and the game swings back in black's favour.

My personal take on the game:

Of course I'm happy to finally win. Even though I don't think I played better than jlt, I earned this victory, if only for my patience and fighting spirit after being behind 4-0

I played bad on the bottom (overplay) and against the shimari-invasion. Other than that, I feel happy about my game. Opening was decent, middle game was fairly good, I played more aggressive than I'm used to and it felt good. Endgame was actually pretty okay.
Of course you don't want to win because your opponent misses a sequence, but it happens and I still had to be close enough to catch up, so it still feels good to win.

It's also funny that I woke up this morning and decided to tackle this game differently than the 4 previous matches. This morning I forced myself to think: "I will win today. I can win. I need to be bold on the board!"
I tried to do that and it paid off. Even though I got back to self-doubting in the middle of the game. I recovered and tried to play my best up until the very end.

EDIT: I'm also very happy that this game breaks my 2-week losing streak (well, of matches against even, slightly weaker or better opponents)

Ian Butler · Post by **Ian Butler** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:13 am

Also, 4-1, that's like Lee Sedol VS AlphaGo. I can dig that!

jlt · Post by **jlt** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:16 pm

Hi Ian,

Indeed I felt that you were more aggressive than in previous games.

I reviewed a bit with LeelaZero, here are a few variations I could have considered:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . , X . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . O . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . O O . . | $$ . . 6 X 2 3 X . . | $$ . . . 5 1 X 4 . . | $$ . 7 . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ ------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . $$ | . . O X . . . . $$ | . . O , X . . . $$ | . . . O . O . . $$ | . . . . . . 1 . $$ | . . . . . . . . $$ +----------------[/go]

Also,

is considered as a mistake, I should have attacked your D8 group instead.

Tryss · Post by **Tryss** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Ian, Around move

, why didn't you try to capture/attack the 4 white stones? They are quite weak, and if you capture them, you're alive

Ian Butler · Post by **Ian Butler** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:49 am

Tryss wrote:Ian, Around move , why didn't you try to capture/attack the 4 white stones? They are quite weak, and if you capture them, you're alive

That is true, but I figured I couldn't risk my entire group on that attack. If I attack them, I'd have to start from the cutting stone, right? Then I might drive white into my eye potential for the group and if I end up not killing those stones, my group dies and the game is over. I decided to just live and maybe attack them later.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:24 am

Ian Butler wrote:
Tryss wrote:Ian, Around move , why didn't you try to capture/attack the 4 white stones? They are quite weak, and if you capture them, you're alive
That is true, but I figured I couldn't risk my entire group on that attack. If I attack them, I'd have to start from the cutting stone, right? Then I might drive white into my eye potential for the group and if I end up not killing those stones, my group dies and the game is over. I decided to just live and maybe attack them later.

Actually, attacking those stones could be how you could live.

As Tryss points out, if you capture them you are alive. That also means that you might be able to strengthen your group by attacking the weak White group. That is something that happens quite often in go. When weak group faces weak group, the player with the move (the initiative) has the advantage.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:41 pm

Hi, guys! A lot of comments and variations this time. Both players played well.

I made a number of comments based upon reverse komi. Leela might not agree.

Double keima seemed to be a recurrent theme.

There is a weakness for Black in the bottom right corner which you both need to learn about. I was a dan player before I did.

White followed Black around again. White's job is to make life difficult for Black, unless Black is giving 7.5 komi.

With so many comments, I am very likely to have goofed at least once.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:56 pm

I was analyzing with the LZ 205 net and I think the very early situation is quite interesting.
When White approaches the bottom right with

below, Black answers with the knight's move at

. This is the new style. Next LZ thinks White should enclose the bottom left, leaving the single stone on the right as a forcing play. Instead White extends with the 2-space jump to

. LZ does not consider this a bad move but slightly worse than the enclosure.

Now Black attaches at

and White answers with

. This seems natural, everyone who learned go more than three years ago probably feels that Black has made White over-concentrated and that this is a good exchange. LZ disagrees. This exchange strengthens White while creating a weakness at P3 for Black. Immediately, LZ thinks Black needs to protect the bottom left instead of

, White should play P3 instead of

, and Black should again protect instead of playing elsewhere with

. This weakness dominated the analysis of the next thirty moves or so in the game, LZ continually wanting to go back and either protect (as Black) or attach at P3 (as White).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . 4 . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

I went to have lunch with the board position set up following

above. When I returned, LZ had been pondering for an hour before it timed out, with the result shown here. Note that it has dedicated 251K visits to P3. The next most studied play is the shoulder hit in the upper right but with a mere 1.1K visits.

So what was it pondering on? Here is its 39-move deep best play based on 251K visits.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:35 pm

ez4u wrote:I was analyzing with the LZ 205 net and I think the very early situation is quite interesting.
When White approaches the bottom right with below, Black answers with the knight's move at . This is the new style. Next LZ thinks White should enclose the bottom left, leaving the single stone on the right as a forcing play. Instead White extends with the 2-space jump to . LZ does not consider this a bad move but slightly worse than the enclosure.

Now Black attaches at and White answers with . This seems natural, everyone who learned go more than three years ago probably feels that Black has made White over-concentrated and that this is a good exchange. LZ disagrees. This exchange strengthens White while creating a weakness at P3 for Black. Immediately, LZ thinks Black needs to protect the bottom left instead of , White should play P3 instead of , and Black should again protect instead of playing elsewhere with . This weakness dominated the analysis of the next thirty moves or so in the game, LZ continually wanting to go back and either protect (as Black) or attach at P3 (as White)

As I mentioned, I learned about the weakness of Black in the bottom right when I was a dan player. As I recall, from reading Sakata. And I remember that Segoe, reflecting the opinions of earlier generations, was not too worried about White's overconcentration. So I went and checked the Suzuki-Kitani Small Joseki Dictionary, and here is what they say is somewhat favorable for Black in the bottom right corner, because White is a bit overconcentrated.

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

They also point out that

protects against White "a".

In this case LZ is right, but humans got there first.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:47 am

Another thing I have learnt from LZ is in the related shape in which black has played the solid kosumi instead of knight move (in which case white making 2-space extension is a relatively more valuable move as black is threatening a better attack as 3-3 attach less good now, LZ doesn't like traditional 3-space low), then if black kicks (in early opening) extend shouldn't be your default move (because you don't have p3 aim as before) but the light and flexible 2 space extension, or more fancy you can do some kikashi against the top right corner like a if it's small low or the new attachments if big low. This kind of light dodge isn't an unknown idea before bots (can also happen with 4-4) and it's heavily dependent on timing, but I sense LZ is less concerned with allowing a further black move after tenuki kick than humans have tended. Of course there is a selection bias in looking for similar pro games in that black won't kick if he thinks it would be a bad move because white wouldn't extend but play the speedy extension.

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

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:47 pm

There is an interesting end of game protective play question that arose. It would not make any difference to winning or losing, but it is something to be aware of. Even fairly good SDKs miss such plays from time to time.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Black to play (move 207) $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X W X . . . . . . . X . X X X | $$ | W X W W W W X . . , . . . . . , X O O | $$ | W W . c . W W X X . . . . . . X O . O | $$ | . . a W X W X O O X X X . . . X O O . | $$ | . . b W W X X O O O O X . . X O . . . | $$ | . . X W X O X O . . O X X . X O . . . | $$ | . . O X X . X O X O O O X X O O . . . | $$ | . . O O X . X X O , O X X O X , X . . | $$ | . . O X X X O X O O O . X O O O . . . | $$ | . . O X O O O O X X O X X X X O O . . | $$ | . O X X X X O X X . X X O O O . . O O | $$ | . O X . X O O . X . X X X O . . . O X | $$ | . . O X X X O O O X X . O O . O O X X | $$ | . . O O X X O . X , X . O X O O X X . | $$ | . . . O O O O X X . X X O X X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O O X O O X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X X . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The three marked Black strings have 3 dame each and share a total of 7 dame. As Wilcox warns us, they may be in danger. Black considered a play at "a", "b", or "c", did not find that any of them worked, and passed. Afterwards, Leela pointed out the cut.

There is a proverb that would have helped Black and saved him some time. It applied to life and death, of which this is an example, When you are considering how to kill, it says, "First, the hane, then the cut, then the oki." You might consider "c" a hane, but the proverb refers to hane from the outside. "a", "b", and "c" are not oki, but the primacy of the cut still applies. If Black had started with the cut, he might well have discovered that it works.

What is so good about the cut in this position (and in general)? It reduces White's dame. OC, so do the other plays, but the cut "keeps on giving".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Black wins the semeai $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X W X . . . . . . . X . X X X | $$ | W X W W W W X . . , . . . . . , X O O | $$ | W W 1 4 . W W X X . . . . . . X O . O | $$ | 5 3 2 W X W X O O X X X . . . X O O . | $$ | . a 7 W W X X O O O O X . . X O . . . | $$ | . . X W X O X O . . O X X . X O . . . | $$ | . . O X X . X O X O O O X X O O . . . | $$ | . . O O X . X X O , O X X O X , X . . | $$ | . . O X X X O X O O O . X O O O . . . | $$ | . . O X O O O O X X O X X X X O O . . | $$ | . O X X X X O X X . X X O O O . . O O | $$ | . O X . X O O . X . X X X O . . . O X | $$ | . . O X X X O O O X X . O O . O O X X | $$ | . . O O X X O . X , X . O X O O X X . | $$ | . . . O O O O X X . X X O X X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O O X O O X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X X . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

@ 1

Leela's main line shows White's most stubborn resistance. Here is White's combined dame count, move by move.

6 dame

5 dame

4 dame

3 dame

2 dame

1 dame

makes

and

atari. Note that

and

each reduce the White dame count. This is the kind of thing that makes such cuts work.

Note also that White should play at "a" instead of

, and give up the three stones.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Variation $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X W X . . . . . . . X . X X X | $$ | W X W W W W X . . , . . . . . , X O O | $$ | W W 1 2 7 W W X X . . . . . . X O . O | $$ | . 4 3 W X W X O O X X X . . . X O O . | $$ | . . 5 W W X X O O O O X . . X O . . . | $$ | . 6 X W X O X O . . O X X . X O . . . | $$ | . . O X X . X O X O O O X X O O . . . | $$ | . . O O X . X X O , O X X O X , X . . | $$ | . . O X X X O X O O O . X O O O . . . | $$ | . . O X O O O O X X O X X X X O O . . | $$ | . O X X X X O X X . X X O O O . . O O | $$ | . O X . X O O . X . X X X O . . . O X | $$ | . . O X X X O O O X X . O O . O O X X | $$ | . . O O X X O . X , X . O X O O X X . | $$ | . . . O O O O X X . X X O X X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O O X O O X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O X X . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

and

save the three stones, but then

is atari on the other

stones. OC,

at 5 loses only the three stones, but playing

in the previous diagram is the better way to do that.

Edit: For completeness.

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

If

is at "a",

at "b" captures the two Black stones.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:22 pm

This proverb also comes in handy:

Cut first, think later

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:47 pm

... Even fairly good ~~SDKs~~ Dans miss such plays from time to time...

Let's be honest.

Life In 19x19

jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #8)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #4)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #4)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #4)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)

Re: jlt - Ian Butler Jubango (Game #5)