32. Magicwand (3d) vs. Kirby (1d)

[Magicwand]

$$Bcm44 Move 44 - Prisoners: B=0, W=0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . X . O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X O O . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . W . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . X . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm44 Move 44 - Prisoners: B=0, W=0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . X . O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X O O . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . W . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . X . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

what i played is usually bad...but i dont want him to giveup two stones on the side.
if he still giveup i will gladly take that side. i am curious how he will answer.

[Kirby]

$$Bcm45 Move 45 - Prisoners: B=0, W=0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . X . O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X O O . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , B . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . X . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm45 Move 45 - Prisoners: B=0, W=0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . X . O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X O O . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , B . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . X . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I need to escape with my stones. A move one space to the left would allow for white to control this too much.

[Bill Spight]

This debate is very interesting.

I used to write reviews for GTL, mostly for players in the 4k-8k range. I must admit that if I was reviewing for white and saw 12-14-16, I would strongly criticize those moves and emphasize this as an important learning point. White fails to get ahead; white crawls on the second line; white gives black strong influence for little territory; white fixes black's would-be cutting point for free; etc. I have been taught these things so repeatedly, that the "wrongness" of 12-16 is permanently branded on my almost-shodan brain.

But here is a strong player, happy to play these moves, and doing reasonably well in the game. No I must wonder: how "wrong" are these moves really? Are they as tragically wrong as I previously thought? Or only a little wrong?

With respect, W12 sucks. (W14 and W16 are corollaries.)

[Magicwand]

With respect, W12 sucks. (W14 and W16 are corollaries.)

thank you.

[Bill Spight]

With respect, W12 sucks. (W14 and W16 are corollaries.)

thank you.

천만에요.

[Kirby]

I am feeling a bit better about this game, now. I'm not sure if my plans will work, but I have some optimism...

[Violence]

Ugh... watching this game frustrates me to no end.

I hate Magicwand's style. I hate his attitude towards players, I hate the reasoning he gives for most of his moves, and how he happens to get away with so much in this game because I feel Kirby is getting intimidated by the bully.

Mind you, I don't hate Magicwand, it's simply what he represents, the club player who plays on instinct and reading, but always has inconsistent thinking. There was a time when I tried to get stronger by playing such players, but I would never grow conceptually. I would never have games where the outcome was decided because my opening and endgame skill was higher(though often true), it was only because I outfought in the middlegame, because these kinds of players will overplay, overplay, and overplay, until the game is simply one huge fight.

And then they review. They always assert that their moves were rooted firmly in their intuition, so whether or not they were correct or not is usually irrelevant to them, because they're so reliant on intuition that they are usually willing to accept their mistakes and lack of understanding of Go theory because they are satisfied with the way they currently play.

Playing against people like that only seems to strengthen your reading and fighting shape. You never really learn new tricks, sharpen your endgame, or develop opening prowess, the game is essentially all middlegame.

And it pains me so much because I've met Mr. Kirby. And I've seen Mr. Kirby play. He's an honest player who looks straight at the board and tries to rationally come up with each move. He's been using this method to get stronger for quite some time, and it always pains me to see a rational, thinking type player, who establishes an early lead and dominating position get beaten by a stronger player who leaves many openings and chances for punishment, but still wins in the end.

Man... if Kirby doesn't win this game, I might have to play a game with Magicwand over this summer.

[HKA]

Ugh... watching this game frustrates me to no end.

I hate Magicwand's style. I hate his attitude towards players, I hate the reasoning he gives for most of his moves, and how he happens to get away with so much in this game because I feel Kirby is getting intimidated by the bully.

Mind you, I don't hate Magicwand, it's simply what he represents, the club player who plays on instinct and reading, but always has inconsistent thinking. There was a time when I tried to get stronger by playing such players, but I would never grow conceptually. I would never have games where the outcome was decided because my opening and endgame skill was higher(though often true), it was only because I outfought in the middlegame, because these kinds of players will overplay, overplay, and overplay, until the game is simply one huge fight.

And then they review. They always assert that their moves were rooted firmly in their intuition, so whether or not they were correct or not is usually irrelevant to them, because they're so reliant on intuition that they are usually willing to accept their mistakes and lack of understanding of Go theory because they are satisfied with the way they currently play.

Playing against people like that only seems to strengthen your reading and fighting shape. You never really learn new tricks, sharpen your endgame, or develop opening prowess, the game is essentially all middlegame.

And it pains me so much because I've met Mr. Kirby. And I've seen Mr. Kirby play. He's an honest player who looks straight at the board and tries to rationally come up with each move. He's been using this method to get stronger for quite some time, and it always pains me to see a rational, thinking type player, who establishes an early lead and dominating position get beaten by a stronger player who leaves many openings and chances for punishment, but still wins in the end.

Man... if Kirby doesn't win this game, I might have to play a game with Magicwand over this summer.

I am a big fan of Eric's but I have to disagree with much of the above. Magicwand is the Simon Cowell of Malkovich - yes his opinions are expressed in often annoying ways - but he is the reason we watch. And he generously takes on all comers, and while his comments are terse, they do Malkovichingly show what he is thinking. I certainly feel like I am in his head - and such a feeling should be, on occaision, disturbing. Furthermore, he is pretty good natured when confronted with reasonable and considered criticsm.

Eric is probably stronger than I am by now, but I do not see his play as that poor - he does tend to be overly tactical in exploiting what he sees as a mistake. And his explanations have been less than convincing at times - but he has always been entertaining. And as frustrating as being beaten by this sort of player can be - we do need to learn to do it.

We all are rooting against him, or most of us I suspect, but that has made his games widely followed and full of interest. I would hate the current wave of criticism towards him to lead to him backing off - for me, he is the most interesting thing here right now.

[zinger]

Ugh... watching this game frustrates me to no end.

I hate Magicwand's style. I hate his attitude towards players, I hate the reasoning he gives for most of his moves, and how he happens to get away with so much in this game because I feel Kirby is getting intimidated by the bully.

Mind you, I don't hate Magicwand, it's simply what he represents, the club player who plays on instinct and reading, but always has inconsistent thinking. There was a time when I tried to get stronger by playing such players, but I would never grow conceptually. I would never have games where the outcome was decided because my opening and endgame skill was higher(though often true), it was only because I outfought in the middlegame, because these kinds of players will overplay, overplay, and overplay, until the game is simply one huge fight.

And then they review. They always assert that their moves were rooted firmly in their intuition, so whether or not they were correct or not is usually irrelevant to them, because they're so reliant on intuition that they are usually willing to accept their mistakes and lack of understanding of Go theory because they are satisfied with the way they currently play.

Playing against people like that only seems to strengthen your reading and fighting shape. You never really learn new tricks, sharpen your endgame, or develop opening prowess, the game is essentially all middlegame.

And it pains me so much because I've met Mr. Kirby. And I've seen Mr. Kirby play. He's an honest player who looks straight at the board and tries to rationally come up with each move. He's been using this method to get stronger for quite some time, and it always pains me to see a rational, thinking type player, who establishes an early lead and dominating position get beaten by a stronger player who leaves many openings and chances for punishment, but still wins in the end.

Man... if Kirby doesn't win this game, I might have to play a game with Magicwand over this summer.

Interesting. I have also met players like you describe - I think most of us have. But I am happy to have them around! Playing with them toughens up my fighting which is just what I need. If I don't get an objective post-mortem, I can live with that.

Maybe it is like swimming. You can study swimming all you want, know how to tell good strokes from bad, recite proper breathing technique, etc. But you can't really swim until you get in the pool. I think Magicwand has spent more time in the pool than most of us.

[Violence]

I don't mean to say that we'd be better off without magicwand, his presence here is, of course, welcome. What I hate is his style winning out over Kirby's. I do believe that sharpening middlegame and fighting is very important, I just personally have played this type of player so many times now that I get a bit irritated whenever I see this style of play. Whenever I see Kirby make a lapse in judgment because of an intimidating looking play, I wince, because it reminds me of my own experiences with what I've come to call "barbarian-style."

And I doubt that I'm stronger than Mr. Arnold.

Maybe I do need to play a game against him this summer.

[fwiffo]

If you can be bullied in the middle-game, all it can mean is that your middle-game fighting skills are weak. It's that simple.

Bullies exist at all levels. When I was 5-6 kyu, I would get bullied by a certain kind of player who had no opening theory at all and would play all kinds of unreasonable cuts and attachments and invasions to start crazy contact fights as soon as possible (and they would play fast to try to intimidate.) I'm a very by-the-book type of player, and I knew the moves were unreasonable. Uncivilized barbarians! But I couldn't really punish them because my reading just wasn't good enough. It was frustrating to "win" the opening (where I'm strongest) and then get clobbered in the middle-game, because I couldn't punish overplays (even though my middle-game skills were pretty decent against non-bullies.)

So I am very familiar with that sense of frustration, and I'm glad to know it exists in players that are stronger than me.

But eventually my reading got better, and my sense of connection and cutting got better, and now those are the kinds of players I beat. Now the players that beat me do so because they have a better sense of shape, or direction of play. Or they do out-read me, but I don't get bullied by overplays. And when I do run into a bully, they don't seem strong anymore, they seem desperate. And they seem end up with lots of dead stones.

I'd say magicwand needs to play against some of our high-dans. It seems like he's played a lot of Malkovich games against low-dan players and kyus. Either he'll get punished for overplays, or he'll prove they're not overplays, or we'll see a different style of go from him. However it goes, it'll be interesting.

[Bill Spight]

Interesting. I have also met players like you describe - I think most of us have. But I am happy to have them around! Playing with them toughens up my fighting which is just what I need. If I don't get an objective post-mortem, I can live with that.

Maybe it is like swimming. You can study swimming all you want, know how to tell good strokes from bad, recite proper breathing technique, etc. But you can't really swim until you get in the pool. I think Magicwand has spent more time in the pool than most of us.

I am reminded of getting my Lifesaving merit badge in Boy Scouts. The final test was to "rescue" one of the instructors. The thing is, once you reached the "drowning" man, he tried to drown you! (People afraid of drowning will often try to climb on top of a rescuer, but this was much worse.)

[Kirby]

Hmm, a lot of comments. I wonder if this means that the optimism I mentioned earlier is unwarranted... I guess we'll find out soon. I wonder how Magicwand will respond...

[Bill Spight]

I am feeling a bit better about this game, now. I'm not sure if my plans will work, but I have some optimism...

Hmmm. Just when I was getting worried.

[Bill Spight]

what i played is usually bad...but i dont want him to giveup two stones on the side.

I need to escape with my stones.

I think that this contrast is instructive.

I also think that this fight will reveal the power of White's central thickness. We have already seen its value, simply as a ladder breaker.