Life In 19x19

Uberdude wrote:I think John is suggesting that early approach is about trying to look intimidating and scary, much like a tattoed pit-bull owner, and that a calmer approach is more likely to lead to improvement. Checking pro games I see Seo Bongsu was fond of that approach and he is known for his aggressive style. He got pretty far in the world and would have been the top Korean player were it not for Chon Hunhyun. I seem to recall he didn't have a pro (Japanese) teacher and was quite popular with amateurs for his brutish fighting.

I think Seo Bongsu is known for his fighting style, rather than aggressive style.

To me someone who plays 'aggressively' would be a 'one trick pony' - and there is an element of criticism about it.

'Fighting' has a connotation of a much more flexible approach - including when to duck and dive, and stooping to conquer.

Here's a recent game of mine (1d level) where I discuss several moves up until 100 in terms of

- aggressive and good
- aggressive and bad (or "unreasonable")
- defensive and good
- defensive and bad (or "passive")

If opponents lose against you and tell you you're too aggressive, then they must have been too defensive, otherwise they would have punished your overplays. Perhaps you were just playing aggressive in a reasonable way and they were upset with the loss.

All comments welcome.

Knotwilg wrote:
All comments welcome.

This game, like most, is decided by serious mistakes. So maybe it is too harsh to call a mistake, But it feels like a mistake to me: I think I became stronger when I saw the logic of invading at 3-3 here, and letting Black have the framework. If White doesn't like that, playing D12 rather than E14 makes sense to me: try first to settle the group. The D5 stone does affect choices, though.

I don't like , though. Black can't have a framework strategy if White dominates the centre. This kind of mistake is being pattern-minded: it isn't really on an axis too passive to too active.

seems OK. As Black I would be aiming at E13, to redeem my early stones. So, I don't like . I would be tempted by G4, and agree to fight in the top right if needed.

seems over-concentrated, and leads Black into plenty of trouble. Up to I would say Black has shown a lack of skill in knowing how to defend quietly. Poor shape, really.

is on one of the key points of Black's formation, and as Black I would answer at Q14, I think. Settle one group. Black plays a "standard pattern", but the idea of standard patterns in the middlegame is basically fallacious. The L15 stone might have combined with Black at E13, but the direction is wrong.

Comments end here. Black has too "automatic" a view of the game.

So maybe it is too harsh to call a mistake, But it feels like a mistake to me: I think I became stronger when I saw the logic of invading at 3-3 here, and letting Black have the framework. If White doesn't like that, playing D12 rather than E14 makes sense to me: try first to settle the group. The D5 stone does affect choices, though.

I don't like , though. Black can't have a framework strategy if White dominates the centre. This kind of mistake is being pattern-minded: it isn't really on an axis too passive to too active.

Thanks Charles, but I don't understand how can be a mistake if next is also a mistake. What other option does Black have than following the pattern? In my opinion he can only strengthen the corner by sacrificing the stone. This would completely abandon the framework strategy.

I agree that D5 affects matters and it doesn't work to my advantage, as the corner remains open. I thought the whole pattern was rather good for Black, especially when reduces the influence.

Knotwilg wrote:Here's a recent game of mine (1d level) where I discuss several moves up until 100 in terms of

- aggressive and good
- aggressive and bad (or "unreasonable")
- defensive and good
- defensive and bad (or "passive")

If opponents lose against you and tell you you're too aggressive, then they must have been too defensive, otherwise they would have punished your overplays. Perhaps you were just playing aggressive in a reasonable way and they were upset with the loss.

All comments welcome.

I found this game very illustrative of the defensive/agressive discussion. Thank you for posting.
E.g. you say is defensive, but i'd say it is (very) agressive. It is so agressive that it is even the start of white killing the large black group, isn't it?
E.g. (alternative move 1) you say l10 is defensive. But I would think that it is a 'larger' move than k2. Yet, you choose to play k2.

Time to learn more on the subtleties of defensiveness/agressiveness. Your addendum of (un)reasonable is very insightful for me.

Knotwilg wrote:

So maybe it is too harsh to call a mistake, But it feels like a mistake to me: I think I became stronger when I saw the logic of invading at 3-3 here, and letting Black have the framework. If White doesn't like that, playing D12 rather than E14 makes sense to me: try first to settle the group. The D5 stone does affect choices, though.

I don't like , though. Black can't have a framework strategy if White dominates the centre. This kind of mistake is being pattern-minded: it isn't really on an axis too passive to too active.

Thanks Charles, but I don't understand how can be a mistake if next is also a mistake. What other option does Black have than following the pattern?

Yes, I realised that there is a kind of anomaly here. I was thinking of an old pro game, and an article I once wrote. Perhaps I'll find them.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black to play.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 . X 7 2 . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . , . . . 4 . W . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Did you read as far as this ladder? Initially the marked stone does break it. If I can still read anything at all.

Knotwilg wrote:In my opinion he can only strengthen the corner by sacrificing the stone. This would completely abandon the framework strategy.

OK, you are applying go logic.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black to play.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

and here aim for a large-scale game. It isn't obvious that the D5 stone is well placed here. Playable for both?

Thanks Charles

I don't dig

can block at the other side for almost for free and it's White's scale that increases, not Black's. is then merely a consequence from Black having sente to start with.

Conversely, White doesn't have a move at because it would provoke connecting along the 4th line. Instead White might aim at an invasion. But does a poor job preventing it. So for me the value of is not big in the opening.

Knotwilg wrote:Thanks Charles

I don't dig

can block at the other side for almost for free and it's White's scale that increases, not Black's. is then merely a consequence from Black having sente to start with.

Conversely, White doesn't have a move at because it would provoke connecting along the 4th line. Instead White might aim at an invasion. But does a poor job preventing it. So for me the value of is not big in the opening.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c White to play.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . X . . . B . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is not my kind of go. But I see that Black has a four-stars framework, while White cannot unify across the lower side: near a and near b seem to be miai. So from a certain "organic" point of view, Black has played consistently. Disclaimer: I'm not Takemiya.

Just a quick comment Knotwilg, in your variation for white taking the 3-3 for move 8 you had black blocking the left side. That's inconsistent with the san-ren-sei. Black should block to the right to develop the top side. For 11 I would also think about approaching the lower right to break the ladder allowing you to come back to the press and push and cut.

Uberdude wrote:Just a quick comment Knotwilg, in your variation for white taking the 3-3 for move 8 you had black blocking the left side. That's inconsistent with the san-ren-sei. Black should block to the right to develop the top side.

Of course ...

For 11 I would also think about approaching the lower right to break the ladder allowing you to come back to the press and push and cut.

Really? I don't know that variation. Indeed, that may be a useful way to look at the position.

Knotwilg wrote:

For 11 I would also think about approaching the lower right to break the ladder allowing you to come back to the press and push and cut.

Really? I don't know that variation. Indeed, that may be a useful way to look at the position.

The usual thinking is that if white doesn't have the ladder (or nearby supporting stones) the press is an overplay and push and cut is the punishment.