I suppose it *is* a bit like playing a handicap game with this standard. It reminds me of HNG, where Sai sets a self-induced negative komi, and has to play very aggressively to make up the differential. It was a much more level game when he played normally, without this self-induced handicap.
Maybe I should experiment a little bit and try to make games that I play close.
Kirby's Study Journal
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
-
mhlepore
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:52 am
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: lepore
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Kirby wrote: ...I happen to overplay when the situation is unclear. But maybe the solution, then, isn't to focus on overplay, but rather to make the situation more clear (i.e. by reading or planning).
One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30." And with that in mind, I feel planning too much can be counterproductive. It is hard (for me anyway) to have any real idea of what the board is going to look like 40 moves from now, so better to look for moves that maintain the flow until a moment presents itself later on.
Another way of thinking about it is, at our level, it is more likely that a mistake will decide the game than a brilliantly read out sequence. So focus on eliminating mistakes. If your opponent still beats you, that's fine - she just played better. At least you didn't beat yourself.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Coined by someone who values the middle game more than the opening, I suspect.mhlepore wrote:One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30."
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Knotwilg
- Oza
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:53 am
- Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Artevelde
- OGS: Knotwilg
- Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 1021 times
- Contact:
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
I think if you focus on not losing the game, winning becomes more likely. There is no checkmate in Go.Bill Spight wrote:Coined by someone who values the middle game more than the opening, I suspect.mhlepore wrote:One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30."
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
That would explain the not trying to win at move 30, but it doesn't explain trying to win at move 130. (I contemplated adding, "Try to win the game by move 300."Knotwilg wrote:I think if you focus on not losing the game, winning becomes more likely. There is no checkmate in Go.Bill Spight wrote:Coined by someone who values the middle game more than the opening, I suspect.mhlepore wrote:One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30."
)The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
mhlepore
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:52 am
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: lepore
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
There's nothing magical about 130 compared to some other similar number depicting a game that is well beyond the fuseki. Today we have AI win rate graphs, which (in pro games) often depict a game that is roughly even until around move 100, and then something happens to swing the probability to one extreme or the other. From my perspective, that validates the spirit of the proverb.Bill Spight wrote: That would explain the not trying to win at move 30, but it doesn't explain trying to win at move 130. (I contemplated adding, "Try to win the game by move 300."
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Not to hijack Kirby's thread, but how would such a graph look if you played a pro, or if a pro played a top bot?mhlepore wrote:There's nothing magical about 130 compared to some other similar number depicting a game that is well beyond the fuseki. Today we have AI win rate graphs, which (in pro games) often depict a game that is roughly even until around move 100, and then something happens to swing the probability to one extreme or the other. From my perspective, that validates the spirit of the proverb.Bill Spight wrote: That would explain the not trying to win at move 30, but it doesn't explain trying to win at move 130. (I contemplated adding, "Try to win the game by move 300."
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Last week sucked for my routine. After stepping on that nail, I didn't run at all last week, and I played go minimally. I slept in, and did just a few go problems. Not a great week for go or for my running. I did get some sleep, though.
So I'm trying to get back on the horse, and get back into my routine. I drew out a schedule for today last night, and got up early this morning. I ran about 7.5 miles, and rode the bus so that I could do go problems on the way to work. I focused this morning pretty well. I'm pretty tired from waking up early (still used to last week's sleep schedule), but it was OK overall.
Anyway, I'm back to routine now, so at lunch, I played another game on fox... I lost, again. Kind of frustrating. I'll aim to win tomorrow. I know I can be stronger than fox 3d - I just have to get back into my routine.
Here is the game:
Trouble came after black played here: Maybe there's a way to work things out, but the game is in a lot of risk now - I certainly hadn't read out variations during the game, so this was a bad attitude problem.
I should have either:
* read out completely; OR
* protected
here when black threatens the bottom left: But I was cocky, and remember thinking: "go ahead and try to kill my corner - I can live". It was just a feeling/attitude I had, not backed by reading.
There are other highlights in the game - you can check them out in the SGF.
But the biggest takeaway for me here is:
* Don't be so arrogant - at least not until you've read things out to see what's happening on the board.
So I'm trying to get back on the horse, and get back into my routine. I drew out a schedule for today last night, and got up early this morning. I ran about 7.5 miles, and rode the bus so that I could do go problems on the way to work. I focused this morning pretty well. I'm pretty tired from waking up early (still used to last week's sleep schedule), but it was OK overall.
Anyway, I'm back to routine now, so at lunch, I played another game on fox... I lost, again. Kind of frustrating. I'll aim to win tomorrow. I know I can be stronger than fox 3d - I just have to get back into my routine.
Here is the game:
Trouble came after black played here: Maybe there's a way to work things out, but the game is in a lot of risk now - I certainly hadn't read out variations during the game, so this was a bad attitude problem.
I should have either:
* read out completely; OR
* protected
here when black threatens the bottom left: But I was cocky, and remember thinking: "go ahead and try to kill my corner - I can live". It was just a feeling/attitude I had, not backed by reading.
There are other highlights in the game - you can check them out in the SGF.
But the biggest takeaway for me here is:
* Don't be so arrogant - at least not until you've read things out to see what's happening on the board.
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
A couple of highlights by a quick scan with LZ:
LZ seems to think that I have an advantage on the board, even after the invasion above, but seems to prefer this invasion: I suppose it's more open in that area. So I should remember that, when invading like this - approaching the 4-4 is not always the best starting point.
Another point: LZ still thinks I'm ahead after the extension above, but prefers going further - I do, too, after I see it: So I should remember that I don't have to always follow the traditional ideas about not "touching" a stone when I'm extending.
Another point: LZ still thinks the board is OK for me, but doesn't like playing away from the top left. It recommended this move: So I guess the takeaway is that, even though it's only a single weak group, it's bigger to protect the weak group than to take corner points.
---
LZ also agrees that I should have protected the bottom left - even earlier than I was thinking. Basically, as soon as I killed the bottom, I should just protect the bottom left to ensure that it stays dead...
So overall takeaways from this game:
1. Same idea as before - don't be arrogant, and protect when I need to; AND
2. Some technical aspects of invading are different when comparing my intuition to that of LZ
3. Protecting a weak group can be bigger than taking a big point, even if protecting the weak group seems small...
That's all I've got.
LZ seems to think that I have an advantage on the board, even after the invasion above, but seems to prefer this invasion: I suppose it's more open in that area. So I should remember that, when invading like this - approaching the 4-4 is not always the best starting point.
Another point: LZ still thinks I'm ahead after the extension above, but prefers going further - I do, too, after I see it: So I should remember that I don't have to always follow the traditional ideas about not "touching" a stone when I'm extending.
Another point: LZ still thinks the board is OK for me, but doesn't like playing away from the top left. It recommended this move: So I guess the takeaway is that, even though it's only a single weak group, it's bigger to protect the weak group than to take corner points.
---
LZ also agrees that I should have protected the bottom left - even earlier than I was thinking. Basically, as soon as I killed the bottom, I should just protect the bottom left to ensure that it stays dead...
So overall takeaways from this game:
1. Same idea as before - don't be arrogant, and protect when I need to; AND
2. Some technical aspects of invading are different when comparing my intuition to that of LZ
3. Protecting a weak group can be bigger than taking a big point, even if protecting the weak group seems small...
That's all I've got.
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
I was scheduled to play in the AYD on Tuesday, but we have been busy lately. My in-laws are coming on Sunday, so we've been preparing for that a little bit. My opponent was gracious enough to allow for us to reschedule the game to today.
Here is the game we played:
One spot in particular sticks out to me as a big mistake on that part, so I'll highlight mainly that. I don't think that my choice here was good at all: I think playing at 'a' is the only reasonable choice. I invested in the middle, so I can just take it - why let him break in there?
I'll skim through with LZ, now...
By the way, I finally went ahead and bought a couple of monitors for my laptop. It's very nice to have a big screen to play go on. Much better than going through the laptop. Analysis is better, too, because I can have the game open along with any other tools I want. External monitors - highly recommended
Here is the game we played:
One spot in particular sticks out to me as a big mistake on that part, so I'll highlight mainly that. I don't think that my choice here was good at all: I think playing at 'a' is the only reasonable choice. I invested in the middle, so I can just take it - why let him break in there?
I'll skim through with LZ, now...
By the way, I finally went ahead and bought a couple of monitors for my laptop. It's very nice to have a big screen to play go on. Much better than going through the laptop. Analysis is better, too, because I can have the game open along with any other tools I want. External monitors - highly recommended
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Some thoughts from LZ (omg, this is so easy with two monitors!!)..
Position 1 It seems that my thought about attacking the two stones on the left immediately might have been off. LZ wants me to play on the top: From what I can gather, it seems that the reason is that with my move, black might ignore (indeed, LZ recommends it): So even though I have this plan of attack, I can't get it if black plays in this way. However, after black responded, LZ agreed with my game move: So I take from this that I overplayed, but it turned out OK since my opponent just answered me.
This is the most interesting aspect that I gathered from my skim through the LZ analysis.
Position 1 It seems that my thought about attacking the two stones on the left immediately might have been off. LZ wants me to play on the top: From what I can gather, it seems that the reason is that with my move, black might ignore (indeed, LZ recommends it): So even though I have this plan of attack, I can't get it if black plays in this way. However, after black responded, LZ agreed with my game move: So I take from this that I overplayed, but it turned out OK since my opponent just answered me.
This is the most interesting aspect that I gathered from my skim through the LZ analysis.
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Another move that I thought about a little bit later. I checked it with LZ, and LZ seems to agree that this might have been at least a more complicated variation for black to opt for:
I didn't think of this move until a few minutes ago. Not sure if it'll work, but as white, I'm a bit more nervous.
I didn't think of this move until a few minutes ago. Not sure if it'll work, but as white, I'm a bit more nervous.
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
I had a bit of a hiatus in my routine - my in-laws came to visit on Sunday, and we had to do some preparation for their arrival. I think I should be free to do hobbies for a little while, now - they'll be with us for 3 weeks.
Inseong reviewed the game I posted against AaronP, and had the same advice for me as usual: I don't seem to have the objective of winning the game, but I have the objective of invading my opponent's area, or trying to kill a group. In that game, when Aaron's group became weak, I didn't need to put everything on the line to kill - I could have stepped back and just thought about how to win the game.
Reflecting on that, I wanted to acknowledge to Inseong that I'd try to play a calm game for my next AYD match. I said that I'd try not to invade deeply, or to do anything super fancy. I'd try to just play calmly.
Here is that game:
My attempt to do this early in the game might be characterized in this move (and the couple leading up to it): I just tried to surround some territory on the right. I have the desire to invade the top, without regard to my groups, but I felt this would be something Inseong would just tell me was too aggressive, again. So I went for calmly trying to take territory on the right.
But in the review, Inseong said that he appreciated my idea, but that I should aim for being even more passive. He recommended this: It's lower, less ambitious, and is more clear than the loose move that I played.
...
I should stop now and take note of something. Inseong's recommendation of move here is not necessarily his idea of the best move on the board, but rather, it is his idea of a good way for *me*, a typically aggressive player, to play. He said that with more study and game experience, I will probably get there on my own, but I have been stuck at around the same level for a very long time. I've hit a wall. And he thinks that trying to calm down a bit and be passive will be a shortcut for me to overcome that wall. As it stands, when I am aggressive and play overplays, it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Out of 10 games against equally ranked opponents, maybe it'll work 5 times. So I stay at the same level. Maybe eventually this style can break through the wall that I have, but he thinks that it'll be easier to overcome the wall if I try to achieve a more balanced way of playing. I think that if I do more problems and get better at reading, that's another way... But that's been my thought for years, so maybe I should try something new.
Anyway, I digress...
After killing the right side, Inseong thinks the game is good for me, but I have to avoid dying. After this move: I thought for some time about the double hane, and didn't think that it worked. I was afraid of this: After getting here, I didn't seem to be alive, but I overlooked that black was also low on liberties. Inseong pointed out a continuation: So anyway, I failed that. even after that, i had a chance to kill the top, but I failed that, too. So I lost out tactically.
---
My feeling during the game started out as trying to be calm, but when provoked by the opponent - when I wanted to try to kill the right, and got into that mindset... It was hard to shake for the rest of the game. So I can't say that I played in a "calm" way after that. I still had ambition of killing his middle group, at the expense of my own....
---
So from here, I can think of two ways to improve:
1. Get better tactically. Double down. My traditional study, outside of games, is to do go problems. That being said, it's true that I slack sometimes. I don't do enough problems every day, and I skip some days. If I keep going every day, that's gotta help.
2. Try to find a way to study that will induce me to play calmer. Inseong thinks this is a faster way to overcome my wall... So to do this, I have to think.. Why do I play aggressively? Upon reflection, I think it's because:
- I treat local areas on the board like go problems. My natural course of study is to do go problems - black to kill, find the tesuji, etc. So while this is good for my skill, maybe it has some effect on making me lose site of the big picture.
Considering these two, trying to be objective, I still have the feeling that #1 is the way to go. Problems are hard for a reason - they are training and make you stronger. I think I've just slacked off too much with them.... BUT, I have held this philosophy for years, and no change has happened. I don't think it's a very scientific approach to just go on my theory that go problems are superior way to study, and keep with it forever.
And I don't have a major tournament I'm preparing for right now (I won't go to the Cotsen this year, because I'm coaching soccer). It's a long time until the US Go Congress. So why not do a small experiment? I will review pro games - a study that I feel is kind of useless, sometimes - for 30 days. And not modern pro games, where things seem to have a more tactical/aggressive feeling. I'll pick older games. I was scrolling through games that I have, and I kind of like games by Ishida Yoshio. Not sure if I'll keep with him or not.
Anyway, my resolution is this: Review one game a day, memorizing the opening, and thinking about it a little bit. This will have a priority over doing go problems - I'll still try go problems if I have time. But I think it's worth a shot to do a small experiment with what I have long believed to be a study having little value. No tournaments coming up, so why not.
That being said, here is the first game I went over today at lunch:
Day 1: Cho Chikun vs. Ishida Yoshio
Interesting game. A couple of things stuck out to me:
Position 1 The marked move above seems obvious, but it's kind of cool to me - not sure if I would have thought about it in the game - maybe I would have. Anyway, it prevents this: So why not?
Position 2 This move surprised me - I thought, what's the matter with playing here? Seems OK for black to me. But my interpretation is that after white connects, white can clamp: So the move in the game is a little better for that. I don't totally get it, but it's my interpretation.
That's all I have for now. Seemed to be a pretty calm game. But I guess that's what I'm aiming for. Maybe I'll get some inspiration
Inseong reviewed the game I posted against AaronP, and had the same advice for me as usual: I don't seem to have the objective of winning the game, but I have the objective of invading my opponent's area, or trying to kill a group. In that game, when Aaron's group became weak, I didn't need to put everything on the line to kill - I could have stepped back and just thought about how to win the game.
Reflecting on that, I wanted to acknowledge to Inseong that I'd try to play a calm game for my next AYD match. I said that I'd try not to invade deeply, or to do anything super fancy. I'd try to just play calmly.
Here is that game:
My attempt to do this early in the game might be characterized in this move (and the couple leading up to it): I just tried to surround some territory on the right. I have the desire to invade the top, without regard to my groups, but I felt this would be something Inseong would just tell me was too aggressive, again. So I went for calmly trying to take territory on the right.
But in the review, Inseong said that he appreciated my idea, but that I should aim for being even more passive. He recommended this: It's lower, less ambitious, and is more clear than the loose move that I played.
...
I should stop now and take note of something. Inseong's recommendation of move here is not necessarily his idea of the best move on the board, but rather, it is his idea of a good way for *me*, a typically aggressive player, to play. He said that with more study and game experience, I will probably get there on my own, but I have been stuck at around the same level for a very long time. I've hit a wall. And he thinks that trying to calm down a bit and be passive will be a shortcut for me to overcome that wall. As it stands, when I am aggressive and play overplays, it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Out of 10 games against equally ranked opponents, maybe it'll work 5 times. So I stay at the same level. Maybe eventually this style can break through the wall that I have, but he thinks that it'll be easier to overcome the wall if I try to achieve a more balanced way of playing. I think that if I do more problems and get better at reading, that's another way... But that's been my thought for years, so maybe I should try something new.
Anyway, I digress...
After killing the right side, Inseong thinks the game is good for me, but I have to avoid dying. After this move: I thought for some time about the double hane, and didn't think that it worked. I was afraid of this: After getting here, I didn't seem to be alive, but I overlooked that black was also low on liberties. Inseong pointed out a continuation: So anyway, I failed that. even after that, i had a chance to kill the top, but I failed that, too. So I lost out tactically.
---
My feeling during the game started out as trying to be calm, but when provoked by the opponent - when I wanted to try to kill the right, and got into that mindset... It was hard to shake for the rest of the game. So I can't say that I played in a "calm" way after that. I still had ambition of killing his middle group, at the expense of my own....
---
So from here, I can think of two ways to improve:
1. Get better tactically. Double down. My traditional study, outside of games, is to do go problems. That being said, it's true that I slack sometimes. I don't do enough problems every day, and I skip some days. If I keep going every day, that's gotta help.
2. Try to find a way to study that will induce me to play calmer. Inseong thinks this is a faster way to overcome my wall... So to do this, I have to think.. Why do I play aggressively? Upon reflection, I think it's because:
- I treat local areas on the board like go problems. My natural course of study is to do go problems - black to kill, find the tesuji, etc. So while this is good for my skill, maybe it has some effect on making me lose site of the big picture.
Considering these two, trying to be objective, I still have the feeling that #1 is the way to go. Problems are hard for a reason - they are training and make you stronger. I think I've just slacked off too much with them.... BUT, I have held this philosophy for years, and no change has happened. I don't think it's a very scientific approach to just go on my theory that go problems are superior way to study, and keep with it forever.
And I don't have a major tournament I'm preparing for right now (I won't go to the Cotsen this year, because I'm coaching soccer). It's a long time until the US Go Congress. So why not do a small experiment? I will review pro games - a study that I feel is kind of useless, sometimes - for 30 days. And not modern pro games, where things seem to have a more tactical/aggressive feeling. I'll pick older games. I was scrolling through games that I have, and I kind of like games by Ishida Yoshio. Not sure if I'll keep with him or not.
Anyway, my resolution is this: Review one game a day, memorizing the opening, and thinking about it a little bit. This will have a priority over doing go problems - I'll still try go problems if I have time. But I think it's worth a shot to do a small experiment with what I have long believed to be a study having little value. No tournaments coming up, so why not.
That being said, here is the first game I went over today at lunch:
Day 1: Cho Chikun vs. Ishida Yoshio
Interesting game. A couple of things stuck out to me:
Position 1 The marked move above seems obvious, but it's kind of cool to me - not sure if I would have thought about it in the game - maybe I would have. Anyway, it prevents this: So why not?
Position 2 This move surprised me - I thought, what's the matter with playing here? Seems OK for black to me. But my interpretation is that after white connects, white can clamp: So the move in the game is a little better for that. I don't totally get it, but it's my interpretation.
That's all I have for now. Seemed to be a pretty calm game. But I guess that's what I'm aiming for. Maybe I'll get some inspiration
be immersed
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Slacked in studying a little bit last week, and have been feeling kind of down... Maybe it's a cycle, so let's snap out of it. I have another 5k running race this Saturday, so maybe that'll get me back in gear.
Anyway, I still had the obligation to play an AYD game on Saturday. I played against ticktock, aka Calvin, who is a member of the L19 forum. Unlike me, Calvin has been improving a lot, so I was not at all confident prior to the beginning of the game. My general impression of Calvin's play is somewhat based on my own observations, and also influenced by Inseong's comments on his games - Calvin knows a lot, and does well when things go as expected in the game, but is a lot calmer than I am. I'll pick a fight sometimes when the result is unclear, whereas Calvin is more reasonable. That gave me more reason to be nervous, because it meant that I'd probably play an overplay, and Calvin would punish it.
Despite that, I entered the game, again with the intention of playing calmly, and avoiding fights.
Here is the game:
What sticks out to me the most, if I'm to review my personal feeling while playing the game, is what happened at this position (I'm white): My thoughts were something like this:
Devil Kirby: Hmm. Calvin has nice potential on the right side. My group is not totally alive in the bottom left. And he also has growing potential on the bottom. What do I have? Not much...
Devil Kirby: What if Calvin plays here?
Devil Kirby: Man, that bottom potential is growing nicely. And my groups on the left and right are not alive, yet... Devil Kirby: And if those groups are weak, it'll be easy to make territory on the bottom... So I'd better invade, now.
Angel Kirby: But Inseong told me to play calmly - don't be too greedy of my opponent's territory. The result of the game isn't as important as learning how to play well without invading and making a weak group...
Angel Kirby: Ok, I'll concede that it's possible that invading on the bottom is a good move. Maybe it's the best move... But if you play there, you'll just play another typical Kirby game with a weak group someplace. Inseong will again review the game, and say that you played in your typical style. The point of playing in the AYD isn't strictly to win everything - it's to practice new ideas and to get better at other things. How will you ever improve your territory building skills if you don't try it out, now? Maybe you won't win in that case, but at least you can get good practice in playing a calm, non-aggressive game...
Devil Kirby: Shuddup, I wanna win.
I think Angel Kirby might have tried saying something like that, but I couldn't hear him anymore. This is the sequence that followed:
And before I knew it, I had another set of weak groups: Something that didn't occur to me at this point was that there was still a chance to try and listen to Angel Kirby, again. Inseong pointed out that I could potentially recover by saving the outside, and trying to recover with my inside group:
Though, this still seems like a bit of a loss. But I should try to remember that, even if I give in to my desires, I might be able to stop and retreat, if I can just swallow a bit of a loss.
Inseong also thought that this was an overplay: Devil Kirby thought this was very natural - I made a big loss on the bottom, so now's my chance to make it up.
Inseong had this observation:
Inseong: Let's say you are behind by 20 points. Your intention seems to be, "I need to grab 20 points", so you try to make moves to get back the 20 points. But the way to get 20 points is not to try to immediately grab 20 points - you might fall further behind, and then be behind by 40 points. Instead, try to gain a smaller amount - 5 points, maybe. You are still behind, but little by little - 5 points here, 3 points there... You can make up the 20 points.
I think his reasoning makes sense, but then again, Devil Kirby isn't a very reasonable fellow.
Note: It's worth noting that black can make a ko with H19 - we both overlooked this, and it can change the result of the game. Nonetheless, while this reading error is something to work on, I want to focus on staying calm.
Anyway, I still had the obligation to play an AYD game on Saturday. I played against ticktock, aka Calvin, who is a member of the L19 forum. Unlike me, Calvin has been improving a lot, so I was not at all confident prior to the beginning of the game. My general impression of Calvin's play is somewhat based on my own observations, and also influenced by Inseong's comments on his games - Calvin knows a lot, and does well when things go as expected in the game, but is a lot calmer than I am. I'll pick a fight sometimes when the result is unclear, whereas Calvin is more reasonable. That gave me more reason to be nervous, because it meant that I'd probably play an overplay, and Calvin would punish it.
Despite that, I entered the game, again with the intention of playing calmly, and avoiding fights.
Here is the game:
What sticks out to me the most, if I'm to review my personal feeling while playing the game, is what happened at this position (I'm white): My thoughts were something like this:
Devil Kirby: Hmm. Calvin has nice potential on the right side. My group is not totally alive in the bottom left. And he also has growing potential on the bottom. What do I have? Not much...
Devil Kirby: What if Calvin plays here?
Devil Kirby: Man, that bottom potential is growing nicely. And my groups on the left and right are not alive, yet... Devil Kirby: And if those groups are weak, it'll be easy to make territory on the bottom... So I'd better invade, now.
Angel Kirby: But Inseong told me to play calmly - don't be too greedy of my opponent's territory. The result of the game isn't as important as learning how to play well without invading and making a weak group...
Angel Kirby: Ok, I'll concede that it's possible that invading on the bottom is a good move. Maybe it's the best move... But if you play there, you'll just play another typical Kirby game with a weak group someplace. Inseong will again review the game, and say that you played in your typical style. The point of playing in the AYD isn't strictly to win everything - it's to practice new ideas and to get better at other things. How will you ever improve your territory building skills if you don't try it out, now? Maybe you won't win in that case, but at least you can get good practice in playing a calm, non-aggressive game...
Devil Kirby: Shuddup, I wanna win.
I think Angel Kirby might have tried saying something like that, but I couldn't hear him anymore. This is the sequence that followed:
And before I knew it, I had another set of weak groups: Something that didn't occur to me at this point was that there was still a chance to try and listen to Angel Kirby, again. Inseong pointed out that I could potentially recover by saving the outside, and trying to recover with my inside group:
Though, this still seems like a bit of a loss. But I should try to remember that, even if I give in to my desires, I might be able to stop and retreat, if I can just swallow a bit of a loss.
Inseong also thought that this was an overplay: Devil Kirby thought this was very natural - I made a big loss on the bottom, so now's my chance to make it up.
Inseong had this observation:
Inseong: Let's say you are behind by 20 points. Your intention seems to be, "I need to grab 20 points", so you try to make moves to get back the 20 points. But the way to get 20 points is not to try to immediately grab 20 points - you might fall further behind, and then be behind by 40 points. Instead, try to gain a smaller amount - 5 points, maybe. You are still behind, but little by little - 5 points here, 3 points there... You can make up the 20 points.
I think his reasoning makes sense, but then again, Devil Kirby isn't a very reasonable fellow.
Note: It's worth noting that black can make a ko with H19 - we both overlooked this, and it can change the result of the game. Nonetheless, while this reading error is something to work on, I want to focus on staying calm.
be immersed