This is the only plausible move I saw. And I didn't think too hard. But looking at this, I think I should have played my previous move in the opposite direction. I think it would have been easier. Life just got a whole lot tougher for me in this game. I'm prepared to sacrifice some stones if need be.
I seem to be taking risks by not responding, but I'm confident I won't die there if I don't respond, so I'm going to play elsewhere. I like this move because I've decided I'm going to try and target as much of the right side as possible for now. As for W's wall, I plan to attack that next.
This game is hard for me. Both of my B groups on the left side are very unsettled, but I don't want to become over-concentrated either.
Do you think playing there here would be better than what I played move 13? Er, I hope this is a legal question. If not, feel free to tell me.
That loses the corner and kind of hurts your group above, if the white stone above gets to connect. I prefer the obvious hane to D7, as it has less effect on your group above, better separates the lone stone, and gets out more.
Do you think playing there here would be better than what I played move 13? Er, I hope this is a legal question. If not, feel free to tell me.
That loses the corner and kind of hurts your group above, if the white stone above gets to connect. I prefer the obvious hane to D7, as it has less effect on your group above, better separates the lone stone, and gets out more.
As a french singer I like says : "Ça sent la peur, ça pue la mort !" (Smells like fear, stinks like death).
I'm not very good at covering all variations, so I may fail. First move must be this one (first reduce the space, normally with a hane, but here it's gote), vital points must be 2-1, but even if I fail, I'll have a nice wall I think he tenukied too early, or he reads better than me, what is quite easy...
A thinking : I find MHO's position on the right edge weird. The low central stone invites to reduction and seems to negate the two hoshi, but I suppose it's a matter of taste.
This seems to ensure that group doesn't die. I considered letting it be killed. But I thought that might be too large of a risk. Or maybe it's more stupidity talking to even consider letting my bottom left group die. The reason I considered it is because I'm wary of the wall white is building. However, I've determined that saving these stones has value. And I'll probably be able to diminish the value of the wall anyway. Hopefully.
Actually, looking at this board, I feel I have a significant advantage over W because W doesn't have too much solid territory yet. I feel confident I can win on this board. But, of course, I could be missing something. I'm only 9k-10k so it's highly likely that I am.
Following Kageyama, if I want to kill, first reduce (a) then the vital points (b). But B will try to enlarge with c, I'll be forced to play d, and I'm not sure of the following.
Worse, if I don't kill, I'll be left with a weakness in my wall at e.
For the time being, the kill was not my goal when I started the sequence in this corner. I wanted to make a wall and then approach right bottom corner.
So I'll play the atari at c. Since it prevents B to widen his space after a-b, B will answer. I'll have reinforced my wall in sente, it'll be time to approach the corner.
Re: 118. hailthorn vs. Tryphon
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:38 pm
by hailthorn011
Sorry for the slow response. It's been a rather hectic week. I should be able to respond with more regularity from here on out though! Again, sorry.
This seemed like the ideal move to make creating life here easy. Once this is settled, I plan to extend to the bottom middle star point and void W's wall, in sente preferably.
Re: 118. hailthorn vs. Tryphon
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:56 pm
by Tryphon
No problem. I should be the one in a hurry in 2 weeks
I think my move is sente : if he doesn't answer (a, from what I see), b kills.
I then can take d or around. Furthermore, the ponnuki stabilizes the wall and irradiate some power towards the formation at c. I may be able to take profit while attacking those stones, at the top for example.
Re: 118. hailthorn vs. Tryphon
Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 4:54 pm
by Mnemonic
I guess this should be out in the open. As some of you might know we are searching for new members for the Teamovich game and I had this exchange with Tryphon, partly by posts and partly by PM.
Mnemonic wrote:There are currently 3 low level Malkovich games going on: robinz vs 1986 and Tryphon vs hailthorn. 1986 is (obviously) robinz level, so around 8k. The Tryphon vs hailthorn game is (sorry guys) ddk level. But they are both actively involved in the community and are unlikely to bail.
Tryphon wrote:I'd be glad to be part of it, but I must warn you : I'm not DDK (I don't feel insulted at all by your remark about my game with hailthorn, but I'm 7k DGS, 8k OGS, and play even with 7k KGS. I'd be glad you point the moves I made that made you believe I was DDK).
First of I'm sorry I underestimated you, but my remark was based on the observation that the robinz vs 1986 game was closer to my level than your game. (Yes hailthorn, I'm throwing you under the bus and I'm very sorry for it ) Having looked over it the only clear mistake I've see was your placement of , it should have been at C16. But it is hard to call this a DDK mistake since DDK's hardly know any joseki, let alone 3-5 josekis. And yes, before anybody throws a database at me, I looked it up. C17 has been played by professionally, but I fail to see the significance of it on this board. There have been some other minor things but I'm hardly allowed to critic them since they are feeling based and I'm at best a stone above you.
I think I might have made some enemies with this post (Again hailthorn, I'm sorry for throwing you under the bus) but since I'm German I like to have things out in the open without people bitching behind somebody’s back.
Re: 118. hailthorn vs. Tryphon
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 1:33 am
by Tryphon
Mnemonic wrote:First of I'm sorry I underestimated you, but my remark was based on the observation that the robinz vs 1986 game was closer to my level than your game. (Yes hailthorn, I'm throwing you under the bus and I'm very sorry for it ) Having looked over it the only clear mistake I've see was your placement of , it should have been at C16. But it is hard to call this a DDK mistake since DDK's hardly know any joseki, let alone 3-5 josekis. And yes, before anybody throws a database at me, I looked it up. C17 has been played by professionally, but I fail to see the significance of it on this board. There have been some other minor things but I'm hardly allowed to critic them since they are feeling based and I'm at best a stone above you.
There's no offense. To the contrary, if you could continue to underestimate me, it could be an advantage the day we'll play each other
To be true, I don't know my ranking, because I don't play much since the birth of my son last September. But before that, I played mostly in real life and on turn-based servers in the range 5k - 10k. I may have regressed a little, but I won all my games against DDK players on OGS (excepted one), so I proposed hailthorn 3 handicap stones, but he declined.
As for C17, you'll see in comments that I considered C16, and considered more or less the same as C17. I played C17 for a matter of taste. I suppose the true reason is that I planned to attack some time the edge, and that playing a contact play would reinforce MHO's formation.
I suppose we can consider this game as over, since Hailthorn won't come as regularly for some time.
Re: 118. hailthorn vs. Tryphon
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:45 pm
by hailthorn011
Mnemonic wrote:I guess this should be out in the open. As some of you might know we are searching for new members for the Teamovich game and I had this exchange with Tryphon, partly by posts and partly by PM.
Mnemonic wrote:There are currently 3 low level Malkovich games going on: robinz vs 1986 and Tryphon vs hailthorn. 1986 is (obviously) robinz level, so around 8k. The Tryphon vs hailthorn game is (sorry guys) ddk level. But they are both actively involved in the community and are unlikely to bail.
Tryphon wrote:I'd be glad to be part of it, but I must warn you : I'm not DDK (I don't feel insulted at all by your remark about my game with hailthorn, but I'm 7k DGS, 8k OGS, and play even with 7k KGS. I'd be glad you point the moves I made that made you believe I was DDK).
First of I'm sorry I underestimated you, but my remark was based on the observation that the robinz vs 1986 game was closer to my level than your game. (Yes hailthorn, I'm throwing you under the bus and I'm very sorry for it ) Having looked over it the only clear mistake I've see was your placement of , it should have been at C16. But it is hard to call this a DDK mistake since DDK's hardly know any joseki, let alone 3-5 josekis. And yes, before anybody throws a database at me, I looked it up. C17 has been played by professionally, but I fail to see the significance of it on this board. There have been some other minor things but I'm hardly allowed to critic them since they are feeling based and I'm at best a stone above you.
I think I might have made some enemies with this post (Again hailthorn, I'm sorry for throwing you under the bus) but since I'm German I like to have things out in the open without people bitching behind somebody’s back.
I know this response is rather late, but this is the first time I happened to glance at this since the past few months have been rather hectic. Don't worry about it though. I'm not offended. I'm not very good and I'm not ashamed to admit it lol.
) Having looked over it the only clear mistake I've see was your placement of 
, it should have been at C16. But it is hard to call this a DDK mistake since DDK's hardly know any joseki, let alone 3-5 josekis. And yes, before anybody throws a database at me, I looked it up. C17 has been played by professionally, but I fail to see the significance of it on this board.