Mef wrote:Araban wrote:I find both equally difficult. But I think there are several possible reasons why OP may find it easier to kill than to live:
- ...
- He may be the type of player that likes to play thick and force the opponent to enter the lion's den / framework, so more experience in killing (the invasion) could come from that.
- ...
I think the 2nd option there seems quite likely though perhaps with other effects than the one stated. If you and your opponent typically play solidly, it may be that a large number of the invasions are unreasonable and should die (hence they're easier to kill).
...
Thanks for the observation. Although I am certainly not skilled enough to have a "style," I do indeed prefer to play solidly, i.e., make safe groups and then attack something. As a consequence, I often feel that I'm behind by the middle game, so either I have to kill something or make a risky invasion. My solid positions usually give me a bit of an advantage when trapping an opponent's group, and in fact I win a fair ammount of my games when this is the deciding factor. On the other hand, if there is nothing to kill, I usually have to invade, and McGyver I'm not.
I also think that it's interesting to note that many of the McGyver voters (saying it's easier to live) are players a good bit stronger than me, so probably the reason that me or my opponents are dying is that we're playing unreasonably.
)
