Life In 19x19

Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/

Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?t=1583

Page 3 of 15

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:41 pm
by Kirby
Aphelion wrote:Numsgil, Kirby
...

Aphelion wrote:...Its a little frustrating because I don't quite know what he wants in the game, the biggest feeling is that he wants the game to end. ...


This is a very interesting observation. I'd like to discuss it more, but I'm not sure that I have much to add.

I guess I can say that I sometimes do want a game to end, with me ahead. I wonder if this is an unnatural feeling. When you are playing go, do you prefer for the game to keep going for a long time?

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:44 pm
by Kirby
I'll make a thread to discuss this...

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:58 pm
by Kirby
youngjae wrote:
Aphelion wrote:Numsgil, Kirby
First of all, I'm not sure how Magicwand uses "flow" and I am not nearly as strong, so my words are purely what I feel about the subject. Heck, I'm not sure Magicwand has a specific meaning in mind other than some intuitions he has about the game. He seems to be a player who goes more by experience and instinct rather than hard theory.

The way I feel flow is simply... a lack of awkwardness in your moves. I think its possible to play calmly and still have your moves flow well. By this I mean having a coherent idea behind the game that you steadily build toward, not lurching from move to move. It might be easier to "grasp the flow" by playing aggressively, since that seems to be the most direct way to control the the game. Besides having a consistent plan its also about a good sense of timing and sente, and know which moves are the urgent ones that can dramatically change the nature of the game.

Kirby is quite a few stones stronger than me, but sometimes when I watch his games against Magicwand I feel like he is digging in trenches and just trying to prevent white from doing something instead of aiming at something himself. Its a little frustrating because I don't quite know what he wants in the game, the biggest feeling is that he wants the game to end. It feels like a matter of just coping from move to move and maintaining an advantage, and as a result his moves don't seem to come as naturally as Magicwand's.

I feel like I haven't expressed myself quite clearly, and the main reason is I'm simply too weak to substantiate my ideas with solid examples or reading. If some one stronger can point out if I am on the right track or where I have erred, I'd be grateful.


Aphelion, Numsgil, Kirby
I am not sure if Magicwand is using the word 'flow' in this context but I suspect he is. There is a Go term that exists only in Korean, which is 'Haengma'. Haengma is very difficult to translate into other languages, but it basically refers to how the stones move, hence the word 'flow' or 'flow of play'. It tends to refer to not only how efficient or effective a move is, but also how well a move works with other local stones. Good haengma is a move which helps to make good shape and also a move which is easy to continue to play from. Good haengma also makes it difficult for your opponent to come up with a severe counter-measure.

I hope this helps a bit ^^.


Interesting, youngjae. Thanks for the insight. There's another conversation that's been going on about haengma, by the way: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1588&start=20

Do you agree with what people are saying there?

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 pm
by Magicwand
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm11
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . 9 X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:08 am
by youngjae
Kirby wrote:
youngjae wrote:
Aphelion wrote:Numsgil, Kirby
First of all, I'm not sure how Magicwand uses "flow" and I am not nearly as strong, so my words are purely what I feel about the subject. Heck, I'm not sure Magicwand has a specific meaning in mind other than some intuitions he has about the game. He seems to be a player who goes more by experience and instinct rather than hard theory.

The way I feel flow is simply... a lack of awkwardness in your moves. I think its possible to play calmly and still have your moves flow well. By this I mean having a coherent idea behind the game that you steadily build toward, not lurching from move to move. It might be easier to "grasp the flow" by playing aggressively, since that seems to be the most direct way to control the the game. Besides having a consistent plan its also about a good sense of timing and sente, and know which moves are the urgent ones that can dramatically change the nature of the game.

Kirby is quite a few stones stronger than me, but sometimes when I watch his games against Magicwand I feel like he is digging in trenches and just trying to prevent white from doing something instead of aiming at something himself. Its a little frustrating because I don't quite know what he wants in the game, the biggest feeling is that he wants the game to end. It feels like a matter of just coping from move to move and maintaining an advantage, and as a result his moves don't seem to come as naturally as Magicwand's.

I feel like I haven't expressed myself quite clearly, and the main reason is I'm simply too weak to substantiate my ideas with solid examples or reading. If some one stronger can point out if I am on the right track or where I have erred, I'd be grateful.


Aphelion, Numsgil, Kirby
I am not sure if Magicwand is using the word 'flow' in this context but I suspect he is. There is a Go term that exists only in Korean, which is 'Haengma'. Haengma is very difficult to translate into other languages, but it basically refers to how the stones move, hence the word 'flow' or 'flow of play'. It tends to refer to not only how efficient or effective a move is, but also how well a move works with other local stones. Good haengma is a move which helps to make good shape and also a move which is easy to continue to play from. Good haengma also makes it difficult for your opponent to come up with a severe counter-measure.

I hope this helps a bit ^^.


Interesting, youngjae. Thanks for the insight. There's another conversation that's been going on about haengma, by the way: http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 8&start=20

Do you agree with what people are saying there?


I think John Fairbairn is pretty well spot on. It looks like quite an interesting thread though.In the case of this thread though I wished to suggest that haengma is what Magicwand frequently refers to when he says 'flow'. I am studying Go in Korea and haengma is considered to be very important.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:11 am
by Kirby
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm11
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . 0 O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I debated for awhile on this move. It seems a little over-concentrated, but I think it leads to the result I like best, though. Here's what I expect:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O 3 X 6 . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X 1 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Something like this might play out... And I feel OK with this.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:00 am
by Magicwand
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm21
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

if i atari..then it seems ajikeshi.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:19 am
by Kirby
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm21
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Even if white lives, I can't imagine that this is good for him, since black is getting stronger in the process... :?:

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:25 pm
by Magicwand
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm21
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
i have successfully separated his group. 4 stones are much easier because i dont have middle stone to think about.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:16 pm
by Jedo
What are people's thoughts on N15 as a move? It seemed good in theory, but now Kirby may be having second thoughts. This is the kind of thing that always happens to me in handicap games: white plays an overplay capping move like the one Magicwand did. I think "oh I'm not going to be scared and play passively and let myself get shut in, im going to fight!" but what ends up happening is some kind of questionable sequence which involves a lot of pushing and cutting. By the end of it though, that entire side of the board just ends up being a mass of small groups where no one has any points...success for white. Does anyone else have this kind of problem? In Kirby's example, is there another choice between aggressively pushing and cutting and meekly living?

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:36 pm
by Kirby
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm21
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Same comment as before: I have no idea how this is good for white. My groups are all pretty safe, he still has to muck around for life, and I am getting stronger. He hasn't put the capping stone that he initially played to much use... After he lives, I'm going to think about where to play next. I'll try to evaluate which area of the board is bigger, depending on the shape of my stones when he's done living...

In the meantime, I"ll just grab more points with moves like the one I just played. 3-3 was an option for white before, but now it's not. The splitting stone that I initially played, which didn't have a base is now pretty strong.

I really don't understand why white put his stone into movement.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:50 pm
by Magicwand
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm21
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . X O . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . O , . X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:05 am
by Hummingbird Cyborg
If I was black, I'd want to ignore that and play something like N17.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:32 am
by Joaz Banbeck
Hummingbird Cyborg wrote:
If I was black, I'd want to ignore that and play something like N17.


Yes, not only this move but the previous black move. Indeed, I'm surprised that Magicwand didn't take it himself.

Re: Magicwand vs. Kirby: Four Stones Revisited

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:13 am
by Kirby
I guess there is some aji at R15. I have to think about this for a little bit.
All times are UTC-07:00
Page 3 of 15

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited