Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:

marvin wrote:Thanks for all the comments
I had no idea there are so many blunders after move 310. (Maybe I should study endgame someday:P) blunder that i find very stupid is move 299, instead of connecting the two stones...

Checklist might help, especialy when I have enough time.
EdLee:
I think I make more blunders later because moves are not that interesting and
I have already made many moves. And I lose concentration.(Which is odd because I have very good concentration for physics, math but I find that different kind of concentration somehow)
(Difference in ranks is not 4 stones(more like 2), my ranks have not convergated(just made the Tygem acc))

I kind of expected that playing many games under time pressure will help but nobody suggested that so sloving this problem is apperently not so easy.

So I will try to save some time for endgame and think about moves and ask myself: is it a blunder?

Another thing i must try is if I make more/less mistakes if I try to play seriously/ not so seriously

I made a couple of edits. Nothing you were not aware of after the game, I am sure.

Fatigue can be a problem. It might help to eat a power bar or something. Mental fatigue can be cured by a brief rest. Even a matter of seconds can help. Do you get tense when you play? Relaxation, as Robert said, can help.

You might enjoy studying the endgame. Lots of things you can overlearn.

I don't know if asking yourself if your play is a blunder is such a good idea. It shows a negative mindset. Better to ask yourself what your move accomplishes. (Endgame study can help you answer that question quickly and reliably. ) As Kotov suggests, ask yourself what your candidate moves are. That question will help you to avoid overlooking a play.

Something that helped me, both with relaxation and with not overlooking something, was to take a second or two before making my play and just look at the whole board. In that relaxed state of mind I could sometimes see good moves that I had missed while focused on reading a small region of the board.

This is a really great thread. Bill,I noticed that you referenced Kotov here. I assume you mean his chess classic Think Like a Grandmaster. When I was an expert player back in high school I always wanted to read this work because I felt as though it was the psychological element that was holding me back in chess. I no longer play chess but suffice it to say that I am of a similar strength in go and I still face some of the same psychological challenges. Would you recommend this work for a go player?

Something else that might be worth mentioning, though it's really just food for thought and not actual advice, is that it's pretty much common knowledge among musicians that if you want to be able play something reliably then practicing till you get it right is not good enough. You must instead practice getting it right. For a musician it's usually pretty obvious how to do this, but it's harder with go. Once I've solved a go problem it feels natural to move on to new one, but I'd feel like I was wasting my time if I approached my double bass practice in the same way.

I think this may be what Bill's getting at when he talks about overlearning, and it seems like good advice (unsurprising given the source), but I'm not sure that's the best way of thinking about it. To me, overlearning implies that you should throw bucket loads of time at it until it becomes so ingrained you can't possibly get it wrong, but practicing getting it right is more about the quality of the time you do spend on it. It's about instilling good habits by repeating good behaviours/thoughts/whatevers, and is a necessary part of overlearning, but should be the aim of every moment of practice regardless of quantity.

snorri wrote:...
On a more serious note, I think it's great that the term "blunder" seems to have a clear usage in this thread. I think it's important to distinguish blunders, i.e., mistakes far beneath the players expected strength, from ordinary mistakes. I agree with others that there are no easy fixes. Trying to hard to avoid mistakes might make one's play too conservative, which itself can be a mistake depending on the position. Even for mistakes that are fairly below our level, some will slip through simply due to time constraints.
...

I am rather on the opposite side of this idea. Distinguishing 'blunders' from 'ordinary' mistakes can take our eye off the importance of those ordinary mistakes. The blunder at 299 represents a failure to see three moves ahead. But what about 285? That is a failure to count to three (as in 1, 2, 3).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc The game sequence - 4 a blunder?
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . O O X X X X X . O X 2 X X O . . . . |
$$ | O . O X O X O X . . O X O 6 4 O X O . |
$$ | O O O O O O O X X . O X O O O X . X . |
$$ | O X X O . O X O . , O X O X X X X . . |
$$ | X . . X O X X O X X O X X 1 3 . X . . |
$$ | . X X X X X X X . O . O 5 X . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . O X X O . O . . X O O X . |
$$ | . X X . X . O O O . . O . . . O . . . |
$$ | X . . X X O . . . O . O . O . . . X . |
$$ | . X X O O O O O O , . O . . O O O O . |
$$ | O X X O X O O . O O . O X X O X X O . |
$$ | . O X O X X O . . . O . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O . . O O . . . O . X . O . |
$$ | X O O O O O O O X X O . . . . X O . . |
$$ | X X X O . O . X X O . . . O . X X O . |
$$ | O . X O . O X . X , O . O . . X O O O |
$$ | . X X O O X X X . X O O X O . X X O . |
$$ | X . X O X X . . . X X O X X X . X X O |
$$ | . O X O . . X X X O O O X . . . X O . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Alternative 1 - Black wins in a walk, 3 liberties to 2
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . O O X X X X X . O X 2 X X O . 6 . . |
$$ | O . O X O X O X . a O X O . 5 O X O . |
$$ | O O O O O O O X X . O X O O O X . X . |
$$ | O X X O . O X O . , O X O X X X X . . |
$$ | X . . X O X X O X X O X X 1 3 . X . . |
$$ | . X X X X X X X . O . O 4 X . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . O X X O . O . . X O O X . |
$$ | . X X . X . O O O . . O . . . O . . . |
$$ | X . . X X O . . . O . O . O . . . X . |
$$ | . X X O O O O O O , . O . . O O O O . |
$$ | O X X O X O O . O O . O X X O X X O . |
$$ | . O X O X X O . . . O . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O . . O O . . . O . X . O . |
$$ | X O O O O O O O X X O . . . . X O . . |
$$ | X X X O . O . X X O . . . O . X X O . |
$$ | O . X O . O X . X , O . O . . X O O O |
$$ | . X X O O X X X . X O O X O . X X O . |
$$ | X . X O X X . . . X X O X X X . X X O |
$$ | . O X O . . X X X O O O X . . . X O . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After 4 White can only reduce Black to at best three liberties. Meanwhile White can not achieve more than two. Here 5 and 6 are miai, Black will always win by playing whichever White does not try. More to the point, Black can simply cut at "a", that stone also has only 2 liberties.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Five points better than the game?
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . O O X X X X X 6 O X 2 X X O . . . . |
$$ | O . O X O X O X . 4 O X O . . O X O . |
$$ | O O O O O O O X X . O X O O O X . X . |
$$ | O X X O . O X O . , O X O X X X X . . |
$$ | X . . X O X X O X X O X X 1 3 . X . . |
$$ | . X X X X X X X . O . O 5 X . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . O X X O . O . . X O O X . |
$$ | . X X . X . O O O . . O . . . O . . . |
$$ | X . . X X O . . . O . O . O . . . X . |
$$ | . X X O O O O O O , . O . . O O O O . |
$$ | O X X O X O O . O O . O X X O X X O . |
$$ | . O X O X X O . . . O . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O . . O O . . . O . X . O . |
$$ | X O O O O O O O X X O . . . . X O . . |
$$ | X X X O . O . X X O . . . O . X X O . |
$$ | O . X O . O X . X , O . O . . X O O O |
$$ | . X X O O X X X . X O O X O . X X O . |
$$ | X . X O X X . . . X X O X X X . X X O |
$$ | . O X O . . X X X O O O X . . . X O . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Even if Black does not think he can connect, the other cut is worth five points more than the game?

I think that it is wrong to emphasize studying basic shapes to avoid 'blunders' like the miss at 299. It can cause us to take our eyes of other fundamental issues that we equally need in order to improve. Bill said it best in another post above, 'blunders' has a negative connotation that can limit our thinking. We should keep our minds open to all kinds of improvements.

285 and 299 are for me same kind of blunders. And there are more of them

marvin wrote:How to lower blunder rate?

Play for years. Play blitz?

I'm quite a blunder-prone player, but over the last year or so I seem to have managed to reduce my blunder rate quite significantly. It's not something I expressly set out to do, and I'm not quite sure how it happened. Over that time period my European rank has increased about 1 stone (http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Pl ... y=14337147) and whilst I think my peak strength has increased a bit, I feel a large part of this is down to my reduced blundering and actually managing to win all those games I was winning at move 150 but used to throw away with blunders, often in byo-yomi. I am still a slow player but cope better with the pressure of overtime now. Also I have been playing more real-time go again instead of just turn-based OGS and whilst this is fairly mindless blitz on KGS that doesn't really improve my understanding of Go it has quite possibly helped me reduce blundering by training my high-speed reading/decision-making.