Life In 19x19

I would add to the excellent points above that it's important not to fixate on protecting 'your' territory all the time, as often the reduction if your opponent continues can be significantly smaller than the value of getting a move somewhere else. It's also important to notice when two points are roughly equal (miai) and make sure that you get at least one of them. These are both related to attitude, as mentioned earlier.

Thank you so much for all the wonderful replies, everyone. They gave me a lot to consider. I'm currently too busy to reply further, but here are a couple of games I played via Panda Net. One I lost due to time because there was some sort of delay on the server and I wasn't aware it was my turn.

Hmm, it doesn't seem to be working. I uploaded the SGF to Eidogo, and then pasted the number code between the sgf tag code. Is that correct? I'm not sure how to add my SGF files as an upload directly from Eidogo, so I added them as an attachment to this post.

Attack for fun and profit!

Here are some comments, mainly focusing on passivity and attack. Enjoy!

Bill,

Thank you so much for taking the time to analyze the opening of this game and add in comments and variations. I learned quite a bit. A lot of the simple changes to my game completely blew my mind! Especially that peep into the extension to create a base on the lower side. It was so obvious! Oh, and that pincer on the upper side - of course! That was part of the reason I played the 3-4 point in the first place. Stupid of me to let white get all that on the upper side. I definitely learned a lot here.

Timed games aren't something I'm used to after playing offline with my friend for so long with no time constraints, so sometimes I panic and play dumb moves.

Sometimes I carefully consider all of my options and then make a dumb move.

Hello Fadedsun and others,
I can understand your question. I hope you find your way.

Your question made me wonder if I should perhaps raise a similar question but to the opposite: "should I play more passively?"

Recently, on 2 different occasions, one real life game, and one online game, my opponent (better than me) said afterwards that I played agressively.
I was baffled. I thought my playing style in those games was friendly and easy-going. No attacks or experiments.
I won both games. Both other players were several stones stronger than me (around 8k).

What do you think, would this make an interesting thread?

Hi sybob,

Have your game(s) reviewed. Example: post your game here.

Most likely, the biggest problems lie in the basics.

sybob wrote:Recently, on 2 different occasions, one real life game, and one online game, my opponent (better than me) said afterwards that I played agressively. . . .

I won both games. Both other players were several stones stronger than me (around 8k).

Verrrrrry interesting.

sybob wrote:Hello Fadedsun and others,
I can understand your question. I hope you find your way.

Your question made me wonder if I should perhaps raise a similar question but to the opposite: "should I play more passively?"

{snip}

What do you think, would this make an interesting thread?

Sure.

jdl wrote:Sometimes I carefully consider all of my options and then make a dumb move.

Really? I do the reverse

sybob wrote:Your question made me wonder if I should perhaps raise a similar question but to the opposite: "should I play more passively?"

Roughly speaking, playing too passively is a general mistake of style. Playing too aggressively can be seen in terms of mistakes of technique or direction or timing. "Black should attack White's group, but by enclosing it not eye-stealing." "Black is chasing White's group into the framework, rather than building up the framework." "Black should first build up some strength, aiming to attack that group somewhat later". And so on.

I'm reluctant to say people are "too aggressive" as such.

I have I suppose a personal categorisation of "orthodox mistakes": types of errors that are standard enough, and for which standard advice can be given. The comments above relate to "orthodox" errors in attacking. Attacking is, anyway, basically more straightforward than defending, which tends to require both resourcefulness and finesse (live tidily).

Passivity can manifest itself in small plays, endgame started too early, overconcentration, "automatic" answers, reluctance to play tenuki, undervaluation of sente, ignoring the opponent's weak groups, ... really it has many facets. Curing any one of these by conceptual development is challenging.

Bill Spight wrote: Verrrrrry interesting.

Mwa, not really. Just having a good day, and opponents not being as sharp as they could.
So, I consider it lucky wins. Made me wonder though.

sybob wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Verrrrrry interesting.

Mwa, not really. Just having a good day, and opponents not being as sharp as they could.
So, I consider it lucky wins. Made me wonder though.

Well, as the great bridge writer, Victor Mollo, pointed out, good players are lucky. Meaning both that they take advantage of their opportunities, and also that they create them. A certain aggressiveness creates opportunities.