L19 Hahn Tournament - Draw and Standings

[Mnemonic]

It looks like you are allowed to resign in these games. I didn't realize this, and told Jordus that I didn't think we could. That was my fault.

To me resignation just means accepting the worst possible outcome. In a normal game it is a just an normal lost, in any tournaments with point systems it is the worst possible point score for you. So it doesn't really matter if you lose by 30 or 100 or 364 points, they are all the same and synonymous with resignation. So if you are clearly more than 30 points behind: resign.

[ez4u]

I played Karaklis today and won by 33 points.

[Kirby]

The game wasn't intended to be a joke, but it really was my mistake about the resignation. If you notice the comments, I talked with Jordus about it in the middle of the game.

To be honest, I never really read up about how we are doing the points, Herman's method, or anything else, really. I just knew that Hahn tournaments depend on the result.

So I figured that the point difference mattered, so I didn't see how a resignation would fit into the system. But it looks like a resignation is the same as winning by 30 points here, I think. So we can say that the game with me vs. Jordus was a win by 30 points for white.

Either way, I did not mean to mislead anyone. I didn't realize that resignation was a possible option for either player.

If we need to redo our game, I'm OK with that, too. I really didn't realize that resign was OK, so in some ways, I mislead Jordus.

[Kirby]

I also find this game, and result, rather surprising - without wishing to prejudge what happened, I do think the players owe the rest of us an explanation. (Perhaps Jordus deliberately played to let everything die when told he couldn't resign, or something - I don't know.)

I played the game seriously, although I think I was more aggressive than I should have been. Sometimes I took risks that I thought might not work, but I thought that such was the theme of this tournament.

However, I thought that resign was not possible, so I told Jordus that. This was my mistake, and I am sorry for telling him this.

[topazg]

Meh, Jordus and Kirby seem happy, both seem to realise that +30 is the same as +R for future games, and hopefully everyone enjoyed throwing stones around

Absolutely no point in making anyone feel bad over a game of Go in a tournament format finding its feet.

Good game both

Can everyone please make sure I've completed all the latest games recorded properly in the crosstable - I think it's completely up to date so far.

[karaklis]

I played ez4u and lost by 33 points (in spite of 7 handi stones).

It was a strange game. I ended up with 6 living groups, my opponent had only one. Except for one snapback that I missed, I could not find big mistakes of mine, but still I lost. I wonder what I can learn from this. And here's the game:

[daniel_the_smith]

It was a strange game. I ended up with 6 living groups, my opponent had only one. Except for one snapback that I missed, I could not find big mistakes of mine, but still I lost.

I think I found the problem. 6 groups = 12 eyes you had to make. Each eye you have to make gives your opponent a certain number of forcing moves. Even if white only got one or two forcing moves for each eye you had to make, that's like 12-24 free moves. For example, look at the little group you made on the top-- by my count white got at least five useful forcing moves while you made 2 points. The other groups are not so tiny so it's not so obvious with them, but if you count the number of plays white got in sente against them, I think you'll find that white played many more sente moves than you did. I'm not trying to say "play more sente", I'm trying to say "play into positions that leave your opponent with fewer sente plays".

To quote myself, "If you're busy making eyes you aren't winning the game."

[cyclops]

I think Daniel means that you should try to keep your handicap-stones connected.
With 17 for example you immediately jumps in between of two white stones. Better is to play D6. If it doesn't connect to D10 later, you can at least connect it to the centre.
B19 -> c5; B21 -> f5 or m5; B25 -> c15.

I know it sounds easy and I know I would probably lost as much as you but I think you exerted very little pressure on white. It seems you were afraid and felt hopeless. Your opponent took advantage and played cat and mouse. Even then he tought it was more fun to let your groups survive.
You better post this game in the Game analysis section. Stronger people than me will give you real good advice. You can have a look at the advise HermanH gave me recently about a game I lost against hailthorn in the D group.

[daniel_the_smith]

I think Daniel means that you should try to keep your handicap-stones connected. ...

Well, that might be a good sub-goal, and indeed it was my goal at some point in the past; but white can get just as many forcing moves against black's tenuous connections as against black's barely living groups.

It is not enough to live.

It is not enough to connect.

It is not even enough to have strong groups.

All of those things are desirable-- essential, even. But to win--especially to win at the next level up--something more is required.

"Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. More than anything, you must be thinking of carrying your movement through to cutting him." (source)

[Tofu]

I just played Mnemonic. Game attached.

[Mnemonic]

Hey, I suck again. I think the big mistakes of this game were how I handled the two invasions. Besides being an utter failure they damaged my already weak group on the right side. Don't really know what I should have done differently.

[Tryphon]

Maybe not doing another invasion (80@n5, but it seems yoy were already bahind...) ?

[daniel_the_smith]

Comments on the invasions and a few other things.

[Mnemonic]

Thanks daniel. I guess the biggest (strategic) mistake was my handling of the chinese enclosure. If I could have build up some influence the invasions may not have been necessary. Of course that does not excuse my poor reading

One other thing I wondered about Is my approach at correct or should I have played at 5-2 or 33?

[daniel_the_smith]

One other thing I wondered about Is my approach at correct or should I have played at 5-2 or 33?

What you did looked best to me.