Life In 19x19

Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/

Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?t=10706

Page 1 of 13

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:53 pm
by EdLee
Hi S2W,

In game 1 with Xxxxa, if on :b6: you kicked at E3 as in your variation, and W replied with the normal extend F4 in your variation,
then you are happy about this exchange: W is very inefficient. Distinguish between helping W make good shape,
versus forcing W into an inefficient shape -- the :b6: E3 - :w7: F4 exchange is good for B, bad for W.
( :w5: was probably strange. ) After that, in your variation, :b8: at E6 feels a little slow. Tenuki instead.

:b10: did you consider K3/K4 area to attack W's only weak group ?

:b18: big but not urgent (F17 and E14 directions are miai -- you cannot get both anyway): did you look at Q9/R9 area ?
That's W's only remaining big area, there is no miai for that -- compare with the difference of F17-E14 miai.

:b20: this shape is not great: locally, C15 kosumi is better shape. Also, did you notice W has a weakness at Q9 ?

:b26: your comment was correct: this feels strange.

:b32: yes, reply locally. Did you consider the E7 hane (head of enemy stones) ?
Your :b32: is a big point, of course, but did you notice the 2 weaknesses at H17 and M17 (miai, again, for W) ?

:b34: unbearable.

:b42: did you consider E7 atari ?

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:31 pm
by Bill Spight
A few comments on game 1. :)

Re: Re:

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:36 pm
by S2W
Ed, Bill thanks again for the fast responses. Bill - I'm going over your review now and will post replies below.
EdLee wrote:In game 1 with Xxxxa, if on :b6: you kicked at E3 as in your variation, and W replied with the normal extend F4 in your variation,
then you are happy about this exchange: W is very inefficient. Distinguish between helping W make good shape,
versus forcing W into an inefficient shape -- the :b6: E3 - :w7: F4 exchange is good for B, bad for W.
( :w5: was probably strange. ) After that, in your variation, :b8: at E6 feels a little slow. Tenuki instead.
This is something I need to work on - intellectually I've heard the arguments for making your opponent over-concentrated, but in the heat of the game I find the allure of a future monkey jump is hard to pass up.
EdLee wrote: :b10: did you consider K3/K4 area to attack W's only weak group ?

:b18: big but not urgent (F17 and E14 directions are miai -- you cannot get both anyway): did you look at Q9/R9 area ?
That's W's only remaining big area, there is no miai for that -- compare with the difference of F17-E14 miai.
I guess I'm always a little wary of taking the fight to white to early in a handicap game. My strategy is to play defensively because I found I tend to loose handicap games because I've let a big group get killed (case in point) or it's been isolated and had to run across half the board to safety. In the early part of this game I felt pretty good about my position on the top and lhs - and I had a living group inside whites moyo - so I was thinking I would save an invasion/reduction of white for later - or just profit from an extra move if white went to fix. That said I didn't even think of k4 and r9 was more what I was thinking about in terms of an invasion if it came to it.
EdLee wrote: :b20: this shape is not great: locally, C15 kosumi is better shape. Also, did you notice W has a weakness at Q9 ?
Good to know that the kosumi is the better option - I'd wondered about it at the time but I was fuzzy on which was the correct choice.
EdLee wrote: :b32: yes, reply locally. Did you consider the E7 hane (head of enemy stones) ?
Your :b32: is a big point, of course, but did you notice the 2 weaknesses at H17 and M17 (miai, again, for W) ?
For e7 see below (fear of loosing corner). I realized the actual point I played was weak, but I was hoping to invite an invasion and profit while running it out (not dying horribly would have been a much better response than the one I came up with though). Would playing at L16 been a better move locally?
EdLee wrote: :b42: did you consider E7 atari ?
I was looking at it for a while, but I chickened out because I wasn't sure how alive my corner was. In the end I thought my opponent would either have to fix (and give me sente) or I'd hit it once the corner was 100%.

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:28 pm
by S2W
Bill thanks again for the review - I got a lot out of all of it (and I'm slapping myself even more over the corner).

I wanted to ask you about one point in particular. More than all the others your variation to move 10 made me aware of a big hole in my go knowledge.

Namely: When should you use a double approach?

I realized I don't really understand it's purpose other than as a response to a tenuchi. In the context of this game though is there something that makes it better than playing R6 directly? Or should I think of it as being a correction to a mistake made by playing move 10 the way I did?

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:20 pm
by EdLee
S2W wrote:When should you use a double approach?
Hi S2W,

A very common trap: I myself also fell into it the first few years.
I would also ask similar questions — see if you can spot the trap —
when to tenuki ? when to invade ? when to reduce ?
when to cut ? when to jump ? when to extend (nobi) ?
when to connect ? when to push ? when to hane ? when to connect solidly ?
when to fix with a tiger's mouth ? when to not fix at all ?!
when to attach (contact enemy stones) ? when not to attach ? ...
( the list is almost endless. )

This is the trap: I was looking for some general, nebulous
one-size-fit all answer. Because that would be so convenient !
Learn it once, apply forever, in many ( or ALL ) situations.

There is no such thing in Go.

A generic one-size-fit-all reply: when it's good for you.
Another version: it depends. ( Depends on what, you may ask. Reply: Exactly. )

Other common variations: when the trade is good for you;
when you gain more territory than your opponent;
when you gain more power than your opponent;
when good aji is more important (than other factors);
when it's better for yose (later);
when you cannot lose the cutting stones;
when you should just give up the useless stones;
when eyespace is more important (than other factors);
when no ko threats is more important (than other factors);
... the list goes on endlessly, again.

Adults ask questions like these. Adults love general patterns, general guidelines. Proverbs.

Kids don't (usually) ask these questions.
A teacher would show a double approach to a child; the child accepts it.
The next time, the teacher shows another double approach in another situation; the child accepts it.
Yet another time, the teacher shows when a double approach is bad in another situation; the child accepts it.
Over time, over tens and hundreds and thousands of different situations, the child gains experience.

This is how a child learns to walk. The child does not ask, "When do I put my left foot forward?"
"When do I put my right foot forward?" "When do I skip (instead of a regular step)?"
"When do I stop (all together)?!" "When do I step sideways? "
"When do I step backwards?" The child walks, and falls -- rinse and repeat.

This is a perennial discussion -- many many threads, thousands of words (and hours) have been spent
on this and similar topics here on this forum, on KGS, etc.
Some people would raise the point that learning to walk or to talk is fundamentally different than learning Go.
Others would point out that some general guidelines are useful for beginners;
or, when we reach a new "beginning phase," which happens repeatedly in our growth curve.

That's all good.

But the bottom line is this: in Go, the exceptions are the rule.

Corollary: the first (and only) rule in Go -- There is no rule. (Same in the martial arts. :) )

I'm sure Bill (and others) will have their brilliant replies, other ideas. This is my take, from my own experience,
and from watching the teachings and experiences of many other people.

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:41 pm
by EdLee
S2W wrote: intellectually I've heard the arguments for making your opponent over-concentrated, but in the heat of the game...
Same trap. See previous, post 15. :)

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:46 pm
by EdLee
S2W wrote:I guess I'm always a little wary of taking the fight to white to early in a handicap game. My strategy is to play defensively...
Good question...
...and good point: (in addition to the same post 15 about traps,)
playing overly defensively with your handi stones is not a good way to use them (not efficient).
An efficient way to use your handi stones is to attack.
This is a generic, one-size-fit-all reply -- to figure out when to attack, when to defend,
with or without your handi stones, you need tons of experience, actual Go combat experience, and reviews.

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:24 pm
by EdLee
Hi S2W,

Factoid:
Supplement to Post 15:

There is at least one pro, a few years ago
she did a series of online audio lectures on the double approach.

Something like 12 to 14 lectures, each about 40 to 45 minutes.

I estimated, as an adult, with a job and family, etc.
a reasonable amount of time would be about one month per lecture.
To reach a level — let's call it, "not entirely clueless."

So, to get a very rudimentary idea about
the double approach from this series: about one year.

This is another angle to your original question, " When to double approach? "
Catch-22:
When we start, whether as an adult or a child, we lack experience.
This is one reason adults look for guidelines, general patterns, and proverbs:
because from our own experience in life and in other areas,
we've figured out lots of general guidelines and "wisdoms" that are very helpful for ourselves.

That's OK. But a better understanding also requires actual experience.
Tons of it. Because we need to learn when the rules apply,
and when they fail miserably. This takes time, experience,
and hard work (study and review). Eventually, we learn to
un-learn the rules.

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:14 am
by EdLee
Hi S2W,

Another view:
A short question: "When to double approach?" —
this appears to be a simple and reasonable question,
why is it so involved (difficult) to answer ?

Short reply: because of the immense number of variations.

Longer reply: Before we can even begin to look at
the double approach variations, we think about the pre-requisites:
what kind of background knowledge do we need ?
  • Basic contact fighting skills. This is endless, but:
    (*) one year's worth of study and experience is a good start.
  • Basic shapes. Same note as (*).
  • Basic tesujis. Same note as (*).
  • Basic life-and-death. Same note (*).
  • Basic assessment of the board. Same (*).
So, one can try to answer your questions about the double approach,
(and others will), but it's not so easy to include
the amount of material in this thread.

( Example: the number of likely life-and-death variations
arising from the double approach is in the
hundreds or thousands — I'm not surprised if millions or more. )

All the same, no better time to dive into
studying the double approach than right now! — that's my opinion. :)

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:34 am
by S2W
Hello Ed,

I understand your point about not searching for a one size fits all answer. Go is complex after all and there are always caveats to any situation. However, when I ask a fuzzy question like "When to use the double approach?" or "When to resign?", I'm really searching for a fuzzy answer with the understanding that it won't apply all the time.

Perhaps the thing that I didn't express well enough, was the depth of my own ignorance (<- bet you that gets quoted). Specifically, regarding the double approach, I don't see it used that much in my games and as I mentioned before when I do its usually as a response to a Tenuchi (fair enough that's understandable as a way to play it) or as a "whoops I chose the wrong direction - lets jump over here instead" (also understandable).

What Bill's post seems to suggest is that there is a third way to use the double approach - as a strategy in its own right without relying on the tenuchi - or possibly as a type of probe. If this is true (and again I'm still not 100% sure that this is the case - again the depths of my ignorance are great), then there must be a reason behind choosing it over the other options available, and I'm guessing there are some heuristics that can help you to know when to consider such a move.

However, I will try to ask a more specific questions in the future (and append one on the double approach shortly) - with a caveat of my own. Most of the time I only have access to my ipod for typing on the journal - which I find slow and painful compared to a keyboard - so forgive me if I take shortcuts from time to time.

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:50 am
by Charles Matthews
S2W wrote:What Bill's post seems to suggest is that there is a third way to use the double approach - as a strategy in its own right without relying on the tenuchi - or possibly as a type of probe. If this is true (and again I'm still not 100% sure that this is the case - again the depths of my ignorance are great), then there must be a reason behind choosing it over the other options available, and I'm guessing there are some heuristics that can help you to know when to consider such a move.
"Joseki choice" is one of the harder parts of the game for novices - probably up there with the endgame, though for diametrically opposite reasons. All you have to do (!) is to be able to imagine the outcome of the standard lines, impose them on the board position, and then assess the result (i.e. make a judgement). The factors in the judgement are best learned in examples, e.g. Yang Yi-lun's type of teaching.

So to simplify that a little, people tend to look what is in the adjacent corner areas (strong and weaker groups, high and lower stones, for example). It is harder to achieve anything against strong groups and low, well-fortified stones. Then this kind of reasoning can be used in a more approximate way, such as "if I'm building a group here, I'd prefer it to be on the right side rather than on the lower side".

In that way you can get clues as to direction, and they can be valuable even if (a) your opponent doesn't know the joseki you do, or (b) it is a special context and joseki don't necessarily give a right answer, or (c) there are too many variations (e.g. the normal low approach to a 4-4 point, where there are about 10 main ways to play, but you still have to choose a side), or (d) the variations include running fights, so they don't really end, or (e) sente is very important, so tenuki is an option.

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:56 pm
by EdLee
Hi S2W,

I'm on an iPhone 4S sometimes (right now), which is difficult enough.
I can't imagine typing on an iPod !!! Wow.

Your fuzzy question is OK ( I used to ask them a lot;
I've since learned. :) )

In this limited thread space, you'll usually see two types of replies:
- fuzzy ones (words, words, words — e.g. posts 15—19, 21);
- very short, specific ones, with only a few shallow variations.

Both are merely a start, like the first 1/2 step in a 1,000-mike journey. :)

tenuki.

Heuristics often are traps in Go. You want to start to learn about
the double approach ? Play it everywhere, then have the games reviewed.
You'll die many horrible deaths. You'll also get some
good results from the double approach.

Words alone don't cut it. Let's see specific variations! :)

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:42 pm
by Bill Spight
S2W wrote: Perhaps the thing that I didn't express well enough, was the depth of my own ignorance (<- bet you that gets quoted). Specifically, regarding the double approach, I don't see it used that much in my games
You can be the first kid on your block to use it. :D
What Bill's post seems to suggest is that there is a third way to use the double approach - as a strategy in its own right
Indeed it is a strategic option in its own right. :) It may be best to view a double approach (there are others) as a counter-pincer. Responding to a pincer with a counter-pincer is a common option in just about every joseki.

In the actual game the result after the 3-3 response was predictable. It is then obvious that Black has to do something about the huge White framework, and what do to about it is not obvious. It is like the old joke where the patient tells the doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I do this," and the doctor replies, "Then don't do that." Why make problems for yourself?

The double approach avoids that problem and besides, there is plenty of room for the double approach stone to make a base.

As Charles Matthews indicates, this is a question of judgement. You develop judgement by exercising it. Experience is your teacher. There is an unavoidable aspect of go of jumping into the river to learn how to swim. One reason, IMO, for not studying joseki too early on in your go career is that if you merely follow joseki you are not exercising your judgement. (There is judgement, too, in the choice of joseki, as Charles indicates.) In any event, sooner or later in every game you will have to rely upon yourself. The sooner the better, IMO.

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:09 pm
by S2W
Thanks for clearing that up Bill.

Ed/Bill/Charles I've taken your advice about trying it out and played two double approaches on dgs - in 30 days or so we should see how they work out ;).

I also did a search of some pro games to see if I could find when the double approach was played in a similar context and the likely continuation. For my own edification here's what I found/worked out as a possible continuation:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Moves 10 to 14
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . O . , . . . 4 . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Admittedly I didn't find any pro games with a stone quite so close on the rhs - but there were a few with weak groups on the equivalent of the upper rhs and the response was still to attach to the :b1: stone (then again maybe there is a stronger response here). This allows black the opportunity to approach the upper right group and settle their stones with something like :b5: (this last move may be wrong - I'm winging it a bit).

It seems the advantage here over just playing :b3: straight out is that white has to respond twice to :b1: giving black the extra time to attack. White gets a large potential but there is still aji in the first black stone and the territory is perhaps not that big/solid anyway because black can still come back to the corner or play the monkey jump from the other side.

How did I do?

Re: Full of passionate intensity... S2W's Study journal

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:23 pm
by S2W
Ps. For next time: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" - loads of blood, lots of terrible play, will I emerge victorious?
Of course you will you pretentious git - otherwise you wouldn't post it.
Pps. I also played the infamous center shimari on wbaduk - and won! That was a weird game. Unfortunately no kifu as usual.
All times are UTC-07:00
Page 1 of 13

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited