Resisting "nothing to lose" opponents.

[Laman]

I try that. However, as my framework is bigger, even if I kill I still lose more than I win. Also, attacking makes the situation more complex, which I feel as bad, when I'm ahead.

as Kato "the Killer" Masao said: "Fighting is hard, but attacking is easy."

so, if you want to attack effectively, i believe you should play simple and thick moves and let the opponent to show you his magic. my favourite games are when i build a fortress so big that my opponent has to invade and so tight that he can't

[Joaz Banbeck]

Learn to attack.

As usual, Bill hits the nail on the head. When you do become a strong enough fighter, you will regard these invasions as a gift.

I recommend Maseo 'Killer' Kato's book "Attack and Kill".

[Bill Spight]

Learn to attack.

I try that. However, as my framework is bigger, even if I kill I still lose more than I win. Also, attacking makes the situation more complex, which I feel as bad, when I'm ahead.

Well, my style for several years was like yours. Except that I attacked. Step 1. I build moyo. Step 2. Opponent invades moyo. Step 3. I attack.

Notice I did not say, "Learn how to attack." That is part of it, OC. But you described your opponent at attacking, not yourself. So the first step is to learn to attack.

Today you have books about how to attack. If you kill and lose more than you win, you are doing something wrong. (Here is a hint. Attack on a large scale, so that your opponent cannot afford to sacrifice his stones.) As for attacking making things complex, if you make it easy for your opponent to live inside your moyo, you are giving up. It's a balancing act. You do not want to make it easy for your opponent to live, but you do not want to make it easy for him to sacrifice.

[jts]

If you post some of these games, our advice will be much better.

[Bill Spight]

Attack example.



This is not an example of a Black invasion which White attacks, but it does show excellent technique. Takagawa rarely went for the kill, but skillfully used attack to make gains. A cool customer.

[Alguien]

Thank you all for the replies. I actually did think (of rather feel) that a game could be won on fuseki+early middlegame. Maybe because of reading in commented games statements like "the game is essentially over.". I should have understood it meant "the game is over if the player that's ahead, plays at his top level for the remainder of it and doesn't make any major mistakes".

I did finally win this game, but around move 80 I think I was ahead and a few moves later I wasn't so sure I'd win the game anymore. I'm playing a 5H game at the moment, that I'm starting to think I'll lose, and it will be a better example than this one.

(First time I attach a game, I hope it works)

[EdLee]

Many basics problems, especially with broken shapes, for both B and W:

Dave,

(but I was out to dinner and drank a lot of wine tonight ).

Hope the wine (sake? ) was good.

[Alguien]

Many basics problems, especially with broken shapes, for both B and W:

Thank you for the review.

With "broken shape" you mean we let ourselves be cut? I don't know the term.

[EdLee]

With "broken shape" you mean we let ourselves be cut? I don't know the term.

No. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?SqueezingOutTheToothpaste

[Alguien]

With "broken shape" you mean we let ourselves be cut? I don't know the term.

No. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?SqueezingOutTheToothpaste

Oh, I see.

Well, yes that happens to me very often. I'll study the review to see how to identify those moments and what to play to avoid the result.

I think this page, linked to hte one you gave me, will help too (in case someone with the same problem is reading):
http://senseis.xmp.net/?SmallGap

[tapir]

Well, the first of the broken shapes Ed marked very much resembles a certain joseki (sometimes/often?) played in the chinese opening. Although it puzzles me a bit when mid-kyu players consensually play out rather complicated joseki... probably this precedence contributes to missing the basic point about broken shapes.

I wonder why nobody mentioned the obvious one on the initial post: if you are 25 points ahead only IF ALL your frameworks turn to territory (your words) you might as well be behind (or the game is even or you are slightly ahead). Assuming that the whole or all frameworks turn into territory is never a good method to evaluate the position - if you have to turn the whole framework to territory you are already desperate (though you still have a fighting chance). The feeling that you have a clear advantage and the opponent is cornered and has nothing to lose is probably as often a result of your opponents overestimating the framework, lacking patience and thus playing unprepared all-or-nothing invasions as it is of a real advantage.

[HermanHiddema]

With "broken shape" you mean we let ourselves be cut? I don't know the term.

No. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?SqueezingOutTheToothpaste

Oh, I see.

Well, yes that happens to me very often. I'll study the review to see how to identify those moments and what to play to avoid the result.

I think this page, linked to hte one you gave me, will help too (in case someone with the same problem is reading):
http://senseis.xmp.net/?SmallGap

See also: http://senseis.xmp.net/?LameDuGo

[jts]

Well, the first of the broken shapes Ed marked very much resembles a certain joseki (sometimes/often?) played in the chinese opening. Although it puzzles me a bit when mid-kyu players consensually play out rather complicated joseki... probably this precedence contributes to missing the basic point about broken shapes.

Ed makes a rule of pointing out broken shapes in joseki.

I actually haven't noticed mid-kyu players playing any of the joseki variations on the Chinese fuseki (or any other fuseki, for that matter) "by the book".

[crux]

Well, the first of the broken shapes Ed marked very much resembles a certain joseki (sometimes/often?) played in the chinese opening. Although it puzzles me a bit when mid-kyu players consensually play out rather complicated joseki... probably this precedence contributes to missing the basic point about broken shapes.

Ed makes a rule of pointing out broken shapes in joseki.

Yes.. I find this obsession about a single shape issue a bit strange. Considering the example at move 36 - that is a pattern that occurs multiple times in professional games. The pattern may not be a good choice here, but that's a different topic. To criticize it because of the broken shape seems weird. If nothing else, Black's "bad shape" is counterbalanced by White's empty triangle. General rule: it's ok to have bad shape if you made your opponent have equally bad or worse shape (or if it gives you some other advantage).

The example at move 44 is better, that's what the "broken shape" rule is all about.

[tapir]

Well, the first of the broken shapes Ed marked very much resembles a certain joseki (sometimes/often?) played in the chinese opening. Although it puzzles me a bit when mid-kyu players consensually play out rather complicated joseki... probably this precedence contributes to missing the basic point about broken shapes.

Ed makes a rule of pointing out broken shapes in joseki.

Don't get me wrong, I am with Ed on this. Many players wrongly defend their mistakes by "but I have seen in a professional game...". Sure they have, but the professionals are supposed to know what they are doing (and they do look at the context a little more). In the example, I doubt you will find the joseki in question played when Black has this stone to the right of the starpoint and White has already a stone at H3 etc. (if we were guessing professional moves, I would guess a professional would likely answer the high approach by the kosumi at R4 as with the side already small the corner is more important)