Life In 19x19

Tentano wrote:I feel a little better, though. It was an "even" game, in the sense that it had proper handicap.

It most likely was not the proper handicap.

How many games did you play with this B opponent at 6 stones ?
If you played him/her at 6 stones for 100 games and the win/loss ratio was around 50/50, then yes, 6 stones are about right.

From B's moves in this game, if you play him/her 100 games at 6 stones, you'll likely win 95 games or more. You think this is "even" ??

Tentano wrote:I got away with so much nonsense, it's a crime. Especially near the end. I was already leading by twenty points or more. I admit it was mean, and I admit I enjoyed it.

If you go to a nursery school, you can also easily beat up 100 little kids.

You should not feel good about this. You should feel shame.

Stop fooling yourself.

Well, somehow this person got a rating which was 6 stones away from mine.

I agree that this seems a little optimistic, but isn't it my civic duty to help readjust ratings to their proper level?

Maybe if I was deliberately sandbagging or taunting my opponents, it would be bad sportsmanship. I just hit automatch and got this opponent. I actually have it set to +/- 6 stones, to hopefully sometimes take handicap while usually just giving it.

Playing handicap games is about seeing what I can get away with. As I come to understand my opponent, I go closer to the edge of what I really can get away with. This isn't mere cruelty.

Once I go too far and things don't work as well or they blow up, the weaker player gets to win. Even if I don't, the things I take advantage of will be closer to their level and they might be able to recognize what I did and how to stop it next time.

Of course, you could disagree with that, but I wouldn't tell you how to play your games.
I certainly would never tell you how to feel about playing your games.

Hi Tentano, there's no problem with how the game was set up.

Maybe it was not obvious to you the handicap was not correct,
so you thought it was a "fair" game, based solely on the automatch settings.

I read your original comments as almost bragging, having beat up someone with an improper handicap. This was the part I didn't care for, and so my harsh comments. You had no intention to sandbag, which is good. If I misunderstood your sentiments, I'm sorry.

Apology accepted, grudge buried and gone.

I wish misunderstandings always went away this easily.

At KGS 4k, I recommend (and myself use) +/-4 stones as handi, since 1d/8k are probably relatively stable ranks

The limits are intentionally that wide. I accept that sometimes I give too many stones as well as too few. If someone is rated to get 6 stones from me but only really needs 3, shouldn't I just lose to that person and push them up a little?

I hope it also helps against being stuck in a rating because you're stuck playing the same people. If you're always on at the same time and nearly everyone only accepts "same rank or higher", it can be hard to become unstuck.

Besides, the rare few times I actually manage to match up with a higher-up who has it set as wide as me is like pure gold.

I hope this is true for the lower-ranked players, too. That I can improve someone else's day while I'm only trying to entertain myself. It's the best kind of dual purpose move.

tentano wrote:The limits are intentionally that wide. I accept that sometimes I give too many stones as well as too few. If someone is rated to get 6 stones from me but only really needs 3, shouldn't I just lose to that person and push them up a little?

I hope it also helps against being stuck in a rating because you're stuck playing the same people. If you're always on at the same time and nearly everyone only accepts "same rank or higher", it can be hard to become unstuck.

Besides, the rare few times I actually manage to match up with a higher-up who has it set as wide as me is like pure gold.

I hope this is true for the lower-ranked players, too. That I can improve someone else's day while I'm only trying to entertain myself. It's the best kind of dual purpose move.

This is why I set 4 or less. I don't handle playing against handicap too well, so I tend to overplay too much. Against 4 stones I can more or less play normal and just wait for a blunder or opening, against 6 I feel already lost. Also, at the 8-12k you are likely to catch a "picked up go again" or "fast riser" who are totally out of that rank. From 8k upwards ranks last much longer, so the games feel more even. This can be also solved by just improving to 2k so +/-6 gets you 8kyus

I've always just set automatch for +- 1. I prefer even games.

oren wrote:I've always just set automatch for +- 1. I prefer even games.

I also prefer even games, but

• By getting to play a weaker player I may give him some pointer and pay back a little on what others have taught me
• It's faster to get a game
• I may get a dan player who may give me a pointer (or a beating)

Hi Tentano,

Today it really hit me just how much work I've committed myself to.
Nearly 40 books of varying length.
Each book takes over two months to finish with, with only six of them being used concurrently.
This will take well over a year, unless some of them start to be really redundant after many similar problems have been solved.

Somehow that does not discourage me much. I want to step up to a higher level. Very, very much.
This means it's okay if it takes a lot of effort.

Another thing I noticed is that my view has started to deepen a little. Lately I've been a little bit better at winning complicated fights.
It's not that big of a change, just yet. It's there, though. I can see just slightly better in real games.
For such a small change, it sure feels enormously exciting.

I don't seem to win more games, but I definitely feel excited about what reading ability I will gain over time.
I haven't even gone through the working set of books ONCE yet, and I'm already feeling a difference. That means by the time I'm sick of seeing intimately familiar with all of these books, the difference may be very large indeed.

I've been reviewing some of the problems I marked off from 1001 L&D problems, there's two which stand out for me.

1.problem #370, about ko threats

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Both a and b kill
$$| . . . . . . . . . .
$$| . X X . . . . . . .
$$| O O X X . X . . . .
$$| . O O O X . . . . .
$$| X X O O O X X . . .
$$| a b X . O . . . . .
$$-------------------[/go]

I had to think about this one a bit after seeing the solution in the book.
It just proclaimed b as the received answer, while I had arrived at a which most definitely kills it.
So why is b better?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B option a, cont
$$| . . . . . . . . . .
$$| . X X . . . . . . .
$$| O O X X . X . . . .
$$| O O O O X . . . . .
$$| . 6 O O O X X . . .
$$| 7 5 . O O . . . . .
$$-------------------[/go]

Three doomed attempts to salvage something of the group, and the kill is complete.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B option b
$$| . . . . . . . . . .
$$| 5 X X . . . . . . .
$$| O O X X . X . . . .
$$| 4 O O O X . . . . .
$$| X X O O O X X . . .
$$| . 1 X 2 O 3 . . . .
$$-------------------[/go]

Two doomed attempts to save it.
That is, one less ko threat.

It's a pity there's nowhere near enough space in tsumego books to explain this sort of thing.

2.problem #233

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$| . . . . . . . . .
$$| . . . . X X X . .
$$| X X X X O O X . .
$$| O O O O . O X . .
$$| X X . X O . X . .
$$-----------------------[/go]

Check out how many legal moves you can play within the black wall.

tentano wrote:I've been reviewing some of the problems I marked off from 1001 L&D problems, there's two which stand out for me.

1.problem #370, about ko threats

$$B Both a and b kill
$$| . . . . . . . . . .
$$| . X X . . . . . . .
$$| O O X X . X . . . .
$$| . O O O X . . . . .
$$| X X O O O X X . . .
$$| a b X . O . . . . .
$$-------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Both a and b kill
$$| . . . . . . . . . .
$$| . X X . . . . . . .
$$| O O X X . X . . . .
$$| . O O O X . . . . .
$$| X X O O O X X . . .
$$| a b X . O . . . . .
$$-------------------[/go]

I had to think about this one a bit after seeing the solution in the book.
It just proclaimed b as the received answer, while I had arrived at a which most definitely kills it.
So why is b better?

<snip>
Two doomed attempts to save it.
That is, one less ko threat.

It's a pity there's nowhere near enough space in tsumego books to explain this sort of thing.

First of all, a doesn't kill, it makes a seki.

But even if you were correct that it killed too, it's worse not just for ko threats but also liberties. If black's surrounding group got in trouble and needed to capture the dead group it's best to kill in the way which gives fewer liberties. There might be some more complicated situation in which one way kills with fewer liberties and another with more liberties but fewer ko threats and then you can't unequivocally say which is better (locally), but here it's easy because only one way kills .

If it makes a seki, I don't see how.

Could you please show it?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$| . . . . . . . . . .
$$| X X X . . . . . . .
$$| O O X X . X . . . .
$$| a O O O X . . . . .
$$| X X O O O X X . . .
$$| X X X b O X . . . .
$$-------------------[/go]

Black can't fill with a killing shape, since he has to play both A and B.