Page 3 of 5

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:06 am
by illluck
I agree with magicwand - I'd even go further and say sdk. A lot of the moves really seem awkward - the sequence at bottom right I have never seen before, and feels quite inconsistent.

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:49 am
by unkx80
Why I guessed the way I did.
There's quite a few fairly subtle moves in this game. While some moves look strange, there are others that doesn't look like moves that will be played by kyus and probably even low dans. Two of these moves are W36 and W60.

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:55 am
by wossname
both stronger than me probably, since all the moves seemed reasonable & simple. it's hard to obey fundamentals throughout a game. black's early peep on the lower right, to force white to connect the 1 space jump, is usually considered bad (or so i think), but stronger players will sometimes do it anyway.

i understood every move played, which could mean they are actually players of my own weak strength. p15 most of all seems too passive for this to be a game between really strong players. an amateur high dan would try something flashier, and i think most professionals would play something more active. i'll guess around 2d kgs, although i'll admit i could be very far from the truth.

edit: I just looked at other people's guesses, and i'm surprised that move 40 didn't jump out at me more. it's really the top right quadrant which gives this away for me as probably not being between really strong players - this area is where white should have been treated to some form of attack

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:57 am
by zinger
Toge wrote:
Black has to be in kyu ranks (3k-4k). Move 87 is just weird and the whole yose goes with white leading black around the board. Automatic playing and "sente" moves which gain nothing. I think white is couple of stones stronger dan.


Agree about the endgame. White 140 for example, this is supposedly a pro or high dan move?

heh, I'm gonna look silly if it is pro.

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:13 pm
by flOvermind
After reading some hidden comments here:

The bot theory has some merit. I didn't really think of that possibility, but it would explain a few things. Bots do play a lot of very reasonable moves, mingled with lots of strange or even completely wrong moves. It would explain the confusion.

But as I said in my guess, I can't really tell the difference if those moves are really wrong, or just too subtle for me to understand ;)

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:04 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Ok, Harlequin, everyone has made their guess...

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:18 am
by Harleqin
Well, OK. I shall put it into hide tags, for the case that someone wants to take a stab at it for himself.

This is the fourth game of the fourth FICGS Go Championship between Yang Huayong and Svante Carl von Erichsen. It is a correspondence game server, and the time limits are 30 days + 1 day/move (Bonus time). The challenge match consists of 5 parallel games.

As for the ranks, the FICGS rating system puts them at 4d and 6d.

Huayong won the preliminary 9 player round-robin tournament for the challenge with a clean record against some EGF 1 dan to 4 dan players.

Svante is the current title holder, having won the first title tournament and defended it twice against Lu Ke. His EGF rank seems to be 2 dan.

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:27 am
by tj86430
Harleqin wrote:
time limits are 30 days + 1 day/move (Bonus time).

Not really blitz then :lol:

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:31 am
by Li Kao
So the guy who guessed that you're one of them was right :)
And it also confirms you're Svante on SO which I guessed from the avatar

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:29 am
by CarlJung
Li Kao wrote:
So the guy who guessed that you're one of them was right :)
And it also confirms you're Svante on SO which I guessed from the avatar

:) It seemed like a plausible possibility. The others framed the rank somewhat. The rest was psychology.

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:26 am
by flOvermind
tj86430 wrote:
Not really blitz then :lol:


But in my experience, conversation games are not that different from blitz games. Yes, the thinking time is longer, but not that much longer because you don't sit in front of the board 24 hours and then make a move ;)
On the other hand, you have to find into the game again each day. And everyone has good and bad days, which would account for the (apparently?) highly varying quality of the moves ;)

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:59 am
by Li Kao
CarlJung wrote:
Li Kao wrote:[hide]So the guy who guessed that you're one of them was right :)
And it also confirms you're Svante on SO which I guessed from the avatar

:) It seemed like a plausible possibility. The others framed the rank somewhat. The rest was psychology.


And I called him a bot :twisted:

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:01 pm
by amnal
Fascinating. Thanks for the interesting challenge, Harlequin.

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:19 am
by Harleqin
I would like to discuss some positions from the game.

The first was this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Black now played the two space jump. My feeling is that this is not good, because Black cannot comfortably counter-pincer afterwards due to the white support from the left corner. I think that it is better to either directly approach the lower left corner or to play the kosumi (O4) to settle quickly.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . 1 . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . b . . . . . . O . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I am absolutely not sure about this, and it might be a question of style, but I would be interested in hearing arguments for the two space jump.

The next thing was more severe, I think.


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Here, Black peeped at Q5. I think that this is bad, because Black could have settled much better by attaching in the corner:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . 3 O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . X . 1 2 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


The peep destroys that option, and its only function is to fix the thinness of the two space jump. It would again be better to approach the lower left corner directly.

What do you think of this?

Re: What do you make of this?

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:09 am
by Joaz Banbeck
I think that I see the logic of the peep. The overarching plan, of course, is to counter-pincer. ( Whether or not that is a good plan is another issue. ) White's R6 is, IMHO, too small, for it does not adequately pressure black. If black sees R6 as I do, he concludes that his group is not in danger and can then tenuki to the lower left. But before tenuking, he must take care of one last possibility: he must prevent white from pushing through the two-space jump. He does this in sente, and then he can tenuki. It makes sense, given his goal of the counter-pincer.

Furthermore, he does not mind the exchange of Q5 for R5. With R5, white is over-concentrated. After R5, tewari analysis suggests that R6 is misplaced. It looks like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


But if white were allowed to reposition his R6 stone, he would want it like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


In summary, I think white's R6 was a minor mistake, and the peep was an attempt to exploit that mistake. It is a pity that it was done in pursuit of a dubious goal.