Life In 19x19

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 69 to 78
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X 0 . . . . . . O . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . O X O 9 . 3 2 6 X O . . O X . . X . |
$$ | . 8 O X O O 4 1 O O X O . O X , X O . |
$$ | . 7 O X . . . 5 . . X . . O X X O O . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . . . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O X O . . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . . O O O . O . X . . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

First key moment: Black breaks through the top to set up a ko

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 79 to 88
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . 2 . 4 7 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X O 1 8 3 . . . O . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . O X O X 5 X O O X O . . O X . . X . |
$$ | . O O X O O O X O O X O . O X , X O . |
$$ | . X O X . . . X . . X . . O X X O O . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . . . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O X O . . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . . O O O . O . X . . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 9 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

is the first ko threat. shows an intention to lose the ko by making this local exchnage favorable for himself.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 91 to 100
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . O . O X O 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X . X . . . O . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X X X O O X O . . O X . . X . |
$$ | . O O X O O O X O O X O . O X , X O . |
$$ | . X O X . . . X . . X . . O X X O O . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . . . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O X O . . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . 3 O O O . O . X . . . . . . X X W . |
$$ | 9 4 5 6 . X O . . . . . . . . . . 2 . |
$$ | 0 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After Black has recaptured the ko and White played the marked stone in the lower right, Black finishes the ko and White proceeds at taking corner territory while reducing the lower side.

Then Black starts another ko, in the lower left, where previously White had taken some gain

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 101 to 110
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . O . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X . X . . . O . . . X . 6 . . |
$$ | . O . O X X X O O X O . . O X . 4 X . |
$$ | . O O X O O O X O O X O . O X , X O . |
$$ | . X O X . . . X . . X . . O X X O O . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . . . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . 9 . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O X O 2 . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . X O O O 1 O . X . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | X O 5 O . X O . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | O 3 O 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black plays a local ko threat, then ignores White's threat in the upper right and continues the ko at :b5. When White capitalizes on his threat, Black immediately resolves at

KataGo thinks this exchange favors White and the game is almost even now. BUT, White should not surround at now.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 101 to 110
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . O . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X . X . . . O . . . X . O . . |
$$ | . O . O X X X O O X O . . O X . O X . |
$$ | . O O X O O O X O O X O . O X , X O . |
$$ | . X O X . . . X . . X . . O X X O O . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . . . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . 0 . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . X X X X O O . 8 9 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O X O O . . X . . . X . , O . . |
$$ | . X O O O X O . X . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | X . X O . X O . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Instead, White should settle here, creating sufficient influence towards an open center. If Black tries to escape with his group around A, the space through which he can do so is much more narrow.

In the 6th game researched in this thread, against Maeda Nobuaki, the famous composer of tsumego, Takagawa holds a steady advantage around the komi in this no komi game. Contrary to his alleged style, Takagawa takes four corners and makes life with a central group to maintain the lead.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 11 to 20
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . 2 . . . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 , 0 . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . 9 X . . . . . , . . . X . , 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 7 . 4 . . 8 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

closes off the corner. is a reducing capping move, taking influence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 41 to 50
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O O O . . . O . . . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 X 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O X X . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X , O . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . X X 5 7 9 . . , . . . X . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 6 X . O . . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . 0 . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The weak group occurs after cuts. Then invades and Black calmly connects while taking influence towards his weak group. This is not just compromising, it's proper play.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 61 to 70
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . X X O O O . . . O . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . . . . . O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X 2 3 . . |
$$ | . X X O X . 4 . . . . . . . . W 1 . . |
$$ | . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O X X . X . a . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X 9 O 8 . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . O 5 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . X X X X X . . , . . . X . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O O O X . O . . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I thought the marked move and subsequent moves by White were overplays. goes all out and seems to attack from the wrong side. I head expected A instead, taking central profit while attacking.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 101 to 110
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . X X O O O . . . O . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . O . . . . O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . O . . 2 1 6 . . X O X . . |
$$ | . X X O X X O X . O X O 5 . . O X . . |
$$ | . O O X X . . X O 4 O X . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O X X O X X X . 3 O X . . 7 9 . . . |
$$ | . O X X O O O X . X X X . O 8 , O . . |
$$ | . . O X X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . X X X X X X . . , . . . X . , X 0 . |
$$ | . . . O O O X . O . . O . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The fight swerves to the right side, where Black links up his stones. Next Black defends his lower right corner. White's attacks didn't amount to anything.

Takagawa maintained a steady lead without doing any spectacular, except for making a clumsy shape with his weak group.

This seventh game was played in the 1939 Oteai, against Kajiwara Takeo. We can safely call this a masterpiece by Takagawa: he overcame the disadvantage of a no komi game into a five point victory by White, without Kajiwara making any glaring mistake. A first AI analysis suggests that all moves stay safely within the 4 point error margin, only Takagawa finds real good moves way more often.

This is also a good game to study the endgame and see how good Takagawa's endgame could be.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 21 to 30
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . O X , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . X X O . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . 8 7 . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . X . . 0 5 6 . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

is awkward shape and AI Sensei thinks it’s worse than the table shape at We’ll see later that the bad shape will haunt Black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 71 to 80
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . , . . . O X , X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . 9 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 X X . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . 4 8 6 . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . X . O . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 O X . O . . . O X X X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . X . O X X X O . O X O . . . |
$$ | . . . X X O O . O O O . O . X X O . . |
$$ | . . X , O X O . . , . . O X . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . X . O O X O . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . X X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

and are overconcentrated. White had previously played at the top and ignored left side and center. Being allowed to move out with and :b6 is too good. With Takagawa takes the initiative.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 111 to 111
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . O . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . O . O . , . . . O X , X . . |
$$ | . X O . . . X . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X 1 O X . |
$$ | . . X X X . X . . . . . . O X . . O . |
$$ | . . O O . O O O . , . . X O X , O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . O O X X O . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . O . . . O X X X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X . O X X X O X O . O . . . |
$$ | . . . X X O O . O O O . O O . . O . . |
$$ | . . X , O X O . . , . . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . X . O O X . X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . X X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After all groups are safe, so we get an early endgame. Still, White's top side to center territory has not been clearly delimited.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 111 to 116
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 2 X . . . . |
$$ | . a X O . . . . O . . . . O X . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . O . O . , . . . O X , X . . |
$$ | . X O . . . X . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X . X . O . . . . . . . d . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . b . . . . O X 1 O X . |
$$ | . . X X X . X . . . . . . O X . e O . |
$$ | . . O O . O O O . c . . X O X , O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . O O X X O . . . |
$$ | . i O X . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . O . . . O X X X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X . O X X X O X O . O . . . |
$$ | . . . X X O O . O O O . O O . . O . . |
$$ | . . X , O X O . . , . . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . X . O O X . X X X f . |
$$ | . . h . . . g . . X . X X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

When walls off the top, is almost forced, since locally double sente. From White's perspective A now takes the corner, B enlarges the top, C after B even more, D might become sente on the big black group, E definitely is, F is big endgame and so are G, H and I

The game against Go Seigen (White) showed a rapid reduction of the Black advantage in this no komi game. Coming out of the fighting in the lower left Black restored the advantage. When White not only settled easily in his lower right moyo but was allowed to reduce the bottom - while Black played slow moves in the upper left - White took a 10 point lead. Black tried a heavy ko to come back but couldn't win it and resigned.

Key point #1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 21 to 30
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 6 5 b . . 3 c . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . B . X O . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . W . , . . O O O , X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X 0 X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X 1 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . 9 . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The upper left skirmish is the result of a marked pincer on an approach. B5 and W6 are both urgent to establish or challenge the opponent's base. Even and subsequent black moves should be at A, says KataGo and likewise W8 and subsequent should capture at B. After A Black can stabilize at C any time. is an obvious point for mutual development but when pushes through, White has already made the game close.

Reinforcing or pressuring unsettled groups in a corner is bigger here than developing unchallenged corners or build towards the side. This is a tough balance: sometimes playing away to develop a corner is bigger.

Key point #2

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 41 to 41
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O 1 . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X 3 . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

loses sente. Instead

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Better
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . X . X O . . . . . O X X 2 4 . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X . 3 . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O 1 |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

here would force White to add :w4 so that Black can play first in the upper left again.

Key point #3

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Moves 98 to 99
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O X . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . X X . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . O d . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . b X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O X O . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O X X . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O X O X X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O c . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 2 X a . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After this exchange, White has a two staged ko available, starting with throwing in at A. The presence of this ko is tightly linked to the capture or conection at B. If Black wins that ko or reinforces at C, then Black B klls the corner. Otherwise said, Black B now makes the ko heavy for White, while White B makes the ko heavy for Black.

At the same time, D is a vital point for the black and white groups running into the center. The relative strength in the center moreover affects the urgency for Black to live locally in the upper left.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Mistake
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O X . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . X X . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . O 2 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O X O . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O X X . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O X O X X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W B X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White decided to secure his corner, activating the ko potential at the bottom. However, this allowed Black to take the vital point in the center.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Connect
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O X . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . X X . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . O 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . O . . . b . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X . X 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O O O O . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O X O . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O X X . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O X O X X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O a X 9 X O O 6 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X 3 4 5 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What if here? puts pressure on White. Black can use ko threats to connect, sacrifice the stones in the corner (:w11: at A) and build a moyo around B. This is White's best sequence still and the game is close.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Mistake
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O X . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . X X . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . O 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . a . . . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X . X . 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O O O O . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O X O . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O X X . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O X O X X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O b . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W B X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White can of course increase the value of the lower left fighting by connecting at but that turns into a very favorable sente by Black, who builds up the bottom. Black can now raise at A, or capture at B and sacrifice the left side, in order to further expand the moyo on the right side.

Key point #4

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 121 to 130
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X 7 . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O X . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O . . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . X X 6 . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . O . 3 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . O O 4 9 . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O X X X O X X 5 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X O O 8 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O X O O O O . O . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O . . O X . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O . O X X . . 1 . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . X X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

When threatens to fully surround the top left, Black bails out with . This allows White to reinforce the center, which will later help reducing Black's right side and bottom.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Better
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . O X X O X . |
$$ | . . O , . . . O . , . . O O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O X X X . |
$$ | . . . . X X . O 5 . . . . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . O . . . X X O . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O O 4 . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X 3 O . X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . O O O 1 . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O X X X O X X X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X O O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O X O O O O . O . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O a . O X . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X X O . O X X . . X . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . X X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

KataGo thinks Black can seize the upper hand in the fighting this way

One more game to go before I post my conclusions of this study. I can only repeat that I have appreciated kvasir and others weighing in, while overall the experiment didn't catch a lot of buy-in. The original poster lamenting the lack of material on Takagawa couldn't bother to acknowledge or participate, except when being called out, so I infer the interest in the topic was never genuine.

I have enjoyed following the series of games.

A couple of quick observations:

- The person whose style jumps out most strongly to me is Go Seigen. In my subjective view, it so often feels that his opponents are unable to contain him. When pressed, he can break out into tactical complexity and flexibility in a way that seems to have been difficult to deal with.

- I do wonder if AI can give a misleading sense of certainty e.g. it's so easy to think 'this was clearly the mistake' (as identified by AI) that one can get locked into thinking there's only one option to play, and fail to explore the many possibilities and choices. (My own view is that of course you do have to take account of what AI says, but it could take hours to verify - and I probably only spend 15 minutes on a whole game review).

dust wrote:I have enjoyed following the series of games.

A couple of quick observations:

- The person whose style jumps out most strongly to me is Go Seigen. In my subjective view, it so often feels that his opponents are unable to contain him. When pressed, he can break out into tactical complexity and flexibility in a way that seems to have been difficult to deal with.

- I do wonder if AI can give a misleading sense of certainty e.g. it's so easy to think 'this was clearly the mistake' (as identified by AI) that one can get locked into thinking there's only one option to play, and fail to explore the many possibilities and choices. (My own view is that of course you do have to take account of what AI says, but it could take hours to verify - and I probably only spend 15 minutes on a whole game review).

Thanks.

In my commentaries I try distinguishing "KataGo prefers A" from "KataGo thinks this is a mistake". The latter starts from a drop in point difference of 3-4 or more which is confirmed after longer analysis, playing out some of the variations. I also try understanding why. If I don't spend that time or don't get why, I usually refrain to "prefers".

In the game Go Seigen made a choice in dealing with that complex situation by stressing the weight of the ko in the lower left, rather than strengthening the corner. KataGo assessed that as a ~5 point mistake, by having Black sacrifice the corner, save the left side and then build a big moyo. I think Go Seigen saw those lines but may have had a different evaluation of the moyo versus the capture.

Of course, I'm an amateur evaluating Go Seigen using superhuman powers I can barely handle. I think readers know this and hope they make their own assessments, not blindly trust mine.

On Go Seigen: I agree. A long time ago I replayed many Go Seigen games. They were of a different kind. Very dynamic, unpredictable, uncanny ... Not that other pros are so easy to second guess but Go Seigen always appeared to be like thin air, escaping any attempt to be grabbed/grasped. Using AI I can get closer, probably seeing some lines he saw. I'm tempted to go there again.

I have a feeling that the waters got muddied a little.

The thread started (I infer) from a possibly unsupported claim that Takagawa was a good player to study if you are an amateur. The thread seems to have tried to assess that initially but later (and not necessarily because of Dieter's own comments) went down the rabbit holes of comparing Takagawa to AI and then Takagawa to Go Seigen.

So we are left with the still unsupported claim that Takagawa is the one most worth studying. Yet we can make progress with that, we'd still have to examine HOW we study him.

A possible approach is to start by eliminating those who are NOT worth studying.

I'd say Go Seigen is top of that list! Precisely because of all those magical qualities given above. By all means play over his games for enjoyment, and I know several people who have done that, some more than once. But you have to understand that watching Messi play does not lead you to play like Messi. Even Messi's team-mates train with him, work with him, can ask him questions, and are top pros themselves - but they still can't play like Messi. If you are more interested in playing football than watching it, and so go to a coaching class, the coaches won't even try to teach you Messi's tricks. The most they will say is that if you work as hard as him, you will improve.

And, as a sort of confirmation of that, I can't recall ever seeing any go pro advising anyone to study Go Seigen (in the stylistic sense we are talking about here).

But do you know something, it is very rare, in my experience, for pros to advise studying any one player's style. The nearest to that would be various comments lauding Shuei. But if you look at those carefully, you will more often than not find that the pro is saying something like, "I admire Shuei", which is far from saying, "You should study him."

Shusaku sometimes pops up, but he's a special case. For one thing, he died young and never made it to the top. For another, he was the object of an obsession by a fellow Hiroshima-ite, Ishigaya Kosaku, who published and actively promoted a large collection of his games. Since, at that time, there were no other large collections of one player's games readily available, it made sense to point to these games of Shusaku - not because he was the best but because he was available. Furthermore, he was recommended above all because of his style of playing that ensured that he never lost with Black, because there was no komi. That is now something of a lost art. So, again, play over his games for entertainment, by all means, but studying to improve probably means looking elsewhere.

There was a time when Takagawa was lauded to players in the West as the one to study. That was (being cynical about it, perhaps) because go was being pushed in the West by the Japanese Foreign Ministry, and Takagawa was the pure Japanese Honinbo (Go Seigen not being allowed to play in the Honinbo at crucial times). Truth to tell, western players were seen more as dogs who could almost walk on their hind legs, and so were given simplistic advice to learn some tricks. But's that's not necessarily a bad thing, even today. Almost all top pros are better than other top pros for reasons that even these other top pros haven't yet fathomed, so a much simpler model does seem called for.

And a model of what? A style??!!?? My own sense is that it is gigantic conceit for any amateur to try to affect a style. They just haven't got the technical mastery to employ any style consistently effectively.

Again just my gut feeling, but I strongly suspect that the best advice is to forget about even-game fuseki study and to play lots of high handicap games (preferably with stronger players but use big komis if necessary). Learn to use the handicap stones. That will teach you more than enough to deal with all sorts of fusekis. And those early Japanese writers in Go Monthly and so on, did recommend precisely that. But most Western players insist on playing only even games, and even those few who affect to enjoy them tend to be strong players who love flaunting their superiority (yes, I'm in a cynical mood, today!). So the result is that most dogs here still can't quite walk on their hind legs and still can't do any decent tricks. (But show us a tree and we can squirt on it!)

When I try to make sense of this situation, the best I can come up with is the notion that oriental players mostly learn from parents, siblings or schoolfellows, and in those situations, aided and abetted by the general culture, of course, they respect age differences and naturally play lots and lots of handicap games. Indeed, all the various biographies of pros I have read recount how they graduated from 9 stones to even games against, say a parent, and then were sent to a teacher, where the cycle of taking large handicaps started again (Takagawa falls into this category). In the West, however, we nearly always learn as individuals, and at an age and in a culture where we are disinclined to take handicaps as matter of false pride - I don't recall ever seeing a chess game at odds except in magazines, for example). That individualism makes us (unwisely, I think) reject handicap games in go, and even when we do play them, we are tolerating them, not embracing them.

The best place I can think of for examining how pros learn is the autobiographical book by Takemiya in which he details his progress (with games, at first with his father) from 9-stones upwards. The book is in Japanese but I put the games in the GoGoD database, myself, so I know they are available.

It is hard to find a collection of high-handicap (5 stones upwards) games by one player taking large handicaps apart from that one, but it is easy to put together a collection together with various pros. I know because I've done that as well.

One good example to start with here might have been Takagawa taking 9 stones against Honinbo Shusai (GoGoD 1925-04-03a), and there are several 9-stone games by Takemiya. At 5 stones, there are Shusai v Fujisawa Kuranosuke (1930-12-13a), Shusai v. Fujisawa Tamotsu=Hideyuki (1937-01-13a), Segoe v. Sugiuchi Masao (1935-00-00a), Ino Seiho v. Kato Masao (1958-12-14b), Gu Shuiru v. Chen Zude (1953-10-00a), various with Cho Chikun, etc etc.

I can recommend these games because I databased them myself and so am familiar with them. My recommendation is based on the observation that the young pro nearly always won, but always did well stylistically (as you'd expect because they were mostly trial games to become pro). For that reason, you don't really need commentaries. Again, I know that because I've read them. You just have to latch on to the young pro's line of thought (e.g. splitting attacks or any other strategy that shows using the handicap stones together - there is never, ever any praise for just taking four corners, even if you win!) and then follow it through. The quality most often praised is consistency. That ranks much higher than finding the occasional tesuji or even efficiency. In contrast, when a pro gives an amateur a large handicap, Black's play tends to be riddled with mistakes and is devoid of consistency. The commentary tends to be a sift through the garbage pail. But once you can grasp how a budding pro, rather then an amateur, can play with a high handicap, you can see how he transfers those skills to lower handicaps (again there is much material in the database).

John Fairbairn wrote:I have a feeling that the waters got muddied a little.

The thread started (I infer) from a possibly unsupported claim that Takagawa was a good player to study if you are an amateur.

Thanks John. First, I meant Ferran, not you, but I already regretted making a sour remark because Ferran is not responsible for the time I decide to spend. It's just that I tried to take a positive approach to his lament and was a little disappointed that it didn't spark any further engagement of his. Instead, I cherish - and should - the engagement from others, like kvasir, dust and now yourself.

John Fairbairn wrote: The thread seems to have tried to assess that initially but later (and not necessarily because of Dieter's own comments) went down the rabbit holes of comparing Takagawa to AI and then Takagawa to Go Seigen.

Indeed, analysis by AI took over, and that's because I like to do that . I'm ambivalent about the usefulness of that myself. I'd prefer Michael Redmond being with me instead of KataGo, to help me understand the flow of the game, but KataGo it is and I'm immensely grateful for that.

John Fairbairn wrote: So we are left with the still unsupported claim that Takagawa is the one most worth studying. Yet we can make progress with that, we'd still have to examine HOW we study him.

The hypothesis I took from his style description is: "If you want to learn how to play for influence, avoid complex fights and then win in the endgame, then replay his games to learn how he, as a professional, does so". The ten games I studies only partly confirm that hypothesis. The biggest problem I encountered was unexpected: nearly all of the games I chose were no komi. "How to win a no komi game as Black" now seems a better idea for the study of those games.

John Fairbairn wrote: A possible approach is to start by eliminating those who are NOT worth studying.

I'd say Go Seigen is top of that list! Precisely because of all those magical qualities given above. By all means play over his games for enjoyment, and I know several people who have done that, some more than once. But you have to understand that watching Messi play does not lead you to play like Messi. Even Messi's team-mates train with him, work with him, can ask him questions, and are top pros themselves - but they still can't play like Messi. If you are more interested in playing football than watching it, and so go to a coaching class, the coaches won't even try to teach you Messi's tricks. The most they will say is that if you work as hard as him, you will improve.

Having formerly replayed many Go Seigen games, I agree, while I did take from those games the idea to play a high stake ko and win a game by winning it or losing it in a smart way.

John Fairbairn wrote: And, as a sort of confirmation of that, I can't recall ever seeing any go pro advising anyone to study Go Seigen (in the stylistic sense we are talking about here).

Could you tell me again how T. Mark Hall gained two stones by "merely" transcribing them?

John Fairbairn wrote: But do you know something, it is very rare, in my experience, for pros to advise studying any one player's style. The nearest to that would be various comments lauding Shuei. But if you look at those carefully, you will more often than not find that the pro is saying something like, "I admire Shuei", which is far from saying, "You should study him."

Shusaku sometimes pops up, but he's a special case. For one thing, he died young and never made it to the top. For another, he was the object of an obsession by a fellow Hiroshima-ite, Ishigaya Kosaku, who published and actively promoted a large collection of his games. Since, at that time, there were no other large collections of one player's games readily available, it made sense to point to these games of Shusaku - not because he was the best but because he was available. Furthermore, he was recommended above all because of his style of playing that ensured that he never lost with Black, because there was no komi. That is now something of a lost art. So, again, play over his games for entertainment, by all means, but studying to improve probably means looking elsewhere.

There was a time when Takagawa was lauded to players in the West as the one to study. That was (being cynical about it, perhaps) because go was being pushed in the West by the Japanese Foreign Ministry, and Takagawa was the pure Japanese Honinbo (Go Seigen not being allowed to play in the Honinbo at crucial times). Truth to tell, western players were seen more as dogs who could almost walk on their hind legs, and so were given simplistic advice to learn some tricks. But's that's not necessarily a bad thing, even today. Almost all top pros are better than other top pros for reasons that even these other top pros haven't yet fathomed, so a much simpler model does seem called for.

And a model of what? A style??!!?? My own sense is that it is gigantic conceit for any amateur to try to affect a style. They just haven't got the technical mastery to employ any style consistently effectively.

Oh, I think so too.

John Fairbairn wrote: Again just my gut feeling, but I strongly suspect that the best advice is to forget about even-game fuseki study and to play lots of high handicap games (preferably with stronger players but use big komis if necessary). Learn to use the handicap stones. That will teach you more than enough to deal with all sorts of fusekis. And those early Japanese writers in Go Monthly and so on, did recommend precisely that. But most Western players insist on playing only even games, and even those few who affect to enjoy them tend to be strong players who love flaunting their superiority (yes, I'm in a cynical mood, today!). So the result is that most dogs here still can't quite walk on their hind legs and still can't do any decent tricks. (But show us a tree and we can squirt on it!)

Someone on this forum advised me some time ago to play many high handicap games against KataGo or other AI, absence of strong amateurs willing to do so. I did that but I'm not sure if it was more useful than any other game. (not sure is no euphemism here, I mean not sure).

John Fairbairn wrote: When I try to make sense of this situation, the best I can come up with is the notion that oriental players mostly learn from parents, siblings or schoolfellows, and in those situations, aided and abetted by the general culture, of course, they respect age differences and naturally play lots and lots of handicap games. Indeed, all the various biographies of pros I have read recount how they graduated from 9 stones to even games against, say a parent, and then were sent to a teacher, where the cycle of taking large handicaps started again (Takagawa falls into this category). In the West, however, we nearly always learn as individuals, and at an age and in a culture where we are disinclined to take handicaps as matter of false pride - I don't recall ever seeing a chess game at odds except in magazines, for example). That individualism makes us (unwisely, I think) reject handicap games in go, and even when we do play them, we are tolerating them, not embracing them.

In my early days, before Internet or AI, I did play a lot of handicap games and eventually overcame the best player in our club. Sadly he was only 6 kyu. I'm forever grateful to him but it took me a while and a few kilometers to find the first dan who wanted to play me. Later, when even teaching beginners, I had to tolerate a lot of entitlement of "no handicap please, I want to play the real game".

John Fairbairn wrote: The best place I can think of for examining how pros learn is the autobiographical book by Takemiya in which he details his progress (with games, at first with his father) from 9-stones upwards. The book is in Japanese but I put the games in the GoGoD database, myself, so I know they are available.

It is hard to find a collection of high-handicap (5 stones upwards) games by one player taking large handicaps apart from that one, but it is easy to put together a collection together with various pros. I know because I've done that as well.

One good example to start with here might have been Takagawa taking 9 stones against Honinbo Shusai (GoGoD 1925-04-03a), and there are several 9-stone games by Takemiya. At 5 stones, there are Shusai v Fujisawa Kuranosuke (1930-12-13a), Shusai v. Fujisawa Tamotsu=Hideyuki (1937-01-13a), Segoe v. Sugiuchi Masao (1935-00-00a), Ino Seiho v. Kato Masao (1958-12-14b), Gu Shuiru v. Chen Zude (1953-10-00a), various with Cho Chikun, etc etc.

I can recommend these games because I databased them myself and so am familiar with them. My recommendation is based on the observation that the young pro nearly always won, but always did well stylistically (as you'd expect because they were mostly trial games to become pro). For that reason, you don't really need commentaries. Again, I know that because I've read them. You just have to latch on to the young pro's line of thought (e.g. splitting attacks or any other strategy that shows using the handicap stones together - there is never, ever any praise for just taking four corners, even if you win!) and then follow it through. The quality most often praised is consistency. That ranks much higher than finding the occasional tesuji or even efficiency. In contrast, when a pro gives an amateur a large handicap, Black's play tends to be riddled with mistakes and is devoid of consistency. The commentary tends to be a sift through the garbage pail. But once you can grasp how a budding pro, rather then an amateur, can play with a high handicap, you can see how he transfers those skills to lower handicaps (again there is much material in the database).

Very useful. Thanks!