Life In 19x19

I don't think the invasion at 47 is risky, just not as big as defending on the left. After that, if White does not defend the bottom, it would be a good time to invade.

Shaddy wrote:I don't think the invasion at 47 is risky, just not as big as defending on the left. After that, if White does not defend the bottom, it would be a good time to invade.

Yes, my main point was also that defending left is bigger, but I was not very clear.

btw. Shaddy, if you could share what kind of typical results you would expect from the game 47, I would be delighted, and peti29 probably too

Let me second Shaddy's idea. The invasion allows White to build up strength and then use it to invade the left side. Better to play, say, the jump to E-06, which enlarges the Black framework on the left side and threatens to invade on the bottom side.

peti29 wrote:Yesterday I only played one game in which I totally overpowered a 6k.
I can't decide if it means that I'm finally getting better or my opponent just had a bad day...

Of course we cannot tell much from just one game.
If we want to know the quality of that particular one game, first you need a much higher-level person
to look at both your moves and your opponent's moves. Then he/she can assess the levels of the moves, the basics, etc.
Maybe you both played well, maybe he had a bad day, maybe you both played lousy -- who knows?
It's baby steps. Lots and lots of baby steps. When they finally add up, you'll notice a significant improvement. But not before.

One thing that I advise is to watch stronger players, upper Dan level. You're not going to understand their play for the most part but you'll begin to absorb a better sense of shape. I hit my wall at 5k and stopped playing for a month. I literally didn't play a single game but I couldn't NOT be around go. So I watched the higher fans daily for a month. Then the next time I played I was smoking 2k players easily after getting smashed by 6k players. During my month hiatus I also went over some pro games and tesuji and life and death. Just a few problems a day, when I was waiting in line or on break at work. I really recommend the smartgo kifu app.

I think I might have passed my long standing wall - or more precisely I might be passing through it right now. If I had more time on my hands maybe I could become even stronger. This way it's only going to be probably 4k.

Some "symptoms" I'm noticing for those stuck at 6k:
- some early fuseki considerations. E.g. I used to mindlessly approach the next one-stone enemy corner. Now I tend to make a shimari if that's more beneficial to me, etc. This is one area I feel I could boost my strength: now would be the time to study various popular openings and typical counter actions.
- I still don't count territory, but what I caught myself counting is liberties of groups. Thanks to this I now dare to make cuts where I previously wouldn't.
- My reading is better. E.g. I remember it being a major step when I learned to spot snap-backs before they formed. Now I can set up snap backs as a form of defense. Also I'm a lot more inclined to try and kill groups that are not 100% alive yet. (I downloaded a tsumego app onto my phone with which I can practice while traveling on the bus - that helps a lot.)
But there is still plenty of room for improvement here - I make many mistakes.
- (My joseki knowledge is still very low. Another area for improvement, if I had the time.)
- I now see that "geometric" concept of chasing groups which are "behind enemy lines". It's hard to explain but I mean the situation when the running enemy group is inside the "shape" which forms when you connect your edges/walls using an imaginary line.
- I start to understand dan level games. (And I don't mean the 10 sec fight-fests which are overly popular on KGS and are still too complex for me to understand.)


I'm on a winning streak, but I still lost to a 2k with 4 handicap yesterday (only 2.5 pts though).

peti29 wrote:I think I might have passed my long standing wall -
or more precisely I might be passing through it right now.

In my experience, when we are in a fog, especially a very thick fog, we cannot see anything
and we have no idea where we are, or where we are heading. The fog can be so dense and thick that
it takes years to get out of, if we ever get out at all.

In my experience, I know of only two ways to be certain we've had a breakthrough:

• We have not only cleared the fog, but have traveled a distance, so that we can clearly see, OK, we are now here,
  and we can clearly see the fog was over there, with some clear distance behind us; or
• A much higher-level person informs us of our breakthrough. (Even if we cannot see it ourselves, for the moment.)

Maybe you have an entirely different set of experiences. Good luck.

The most important thing you can learn from what everyone here is telling you, peti, are these 3 things: reading ability, style, and fundamentals. Every correction they make in those game reviews revolves around those 3 things. Reading ability is pretty important for obvious reasons, and so is having good fundamentals and a good sense for what's going on during a game. By style, I don't mean that you prefer moyos to territory or vice versa, I mean something else. The style I'm referring to is how crude and vulgar you're moves are and how efficiently they're actually accomplishing whatever goals you have for them. Improving those three things are pretty much all you need to do to improve at any level.

moboy78:
I'm sorry, but your comment only makes me frustrated. I don't understand fundamentals, and I don't understand style. (At least I get reading ability )
I've heard referring to fundamentals many times but I don't get it.

What is "fundamentals"? Is it data? A collection of shapes, tesuji and joseki? Then why is it called "fundamentals"? Because to me "fundamentals" sounds like something deep. Some basic truth about how the stones work, maybe even the meaning of moves. But I have no idea how something like that could be learned/practiced. Probably if you are already a master of the game then you'll understand "fundamentals" but it doesn't work the other way around. Besides, those are only concepts created by the human mind. If quantum computers would play each other there would be no meaning to moves only algorithmic search. Then again, GO is played by humans so maybe there is meaning to moves after all.

At least I understand what style is. But again, what exactly makes a move "vulgar"? How should I know what the most elegant/effective way is to achieve "my goals" - esp. when my goal is usually not to screw up totally. How can one improve their style?
Is it only a collection of proverbs? E.g. not to play empty triangle; 123 jump; prefer 1 sp jump to knights move; don't atari if it's not a must?
Applying stylish moves is hard IMO (even if I knew what the most stylish move was - which I don't) I'd still limit my play probably needlessly. I think some of those style considerations are only tradition, but even if they are usually good, there are still plenty of cases when they are not good or not the best move. Again, I feel this is not a path to improvement, rather something you automatically get once you're there.

---

I think I'm inside the wall. I'm Han Solo! Forever cemented into that damned wall. I don't care, I'm fed up. Yesterday I played a series of bad games again. Some I lost and some I won but I was again playing mindlessly - probably because I was too tired to play. At least I wasn't playing tragically (like I usually do when tired) only simply bad - that's improvement if you look at it that way.
But there were still fuseki situations I had no idea what to do, there were walls I could not use, there were running groups I wasn't able to kill and there were stupid reading mistakes (but at least I can spot those).

I thank you all for your time! And I'm very sorry for wasting it. I think I'll be staying in my wall a little longer yet. You know, it's warm and all.

If I ever get stronger I'll post it here (if I don't forget).
Bye for now,
Peter

peti29 wrote:makes me frustrated.
I don't understand fundamentals...
I've heard referring to fundamentals many times but I don't get it.
I don't care, I'm fed up.

Hi Peter, your frustrations, questions, and experiences are actually very common for many people, including myself.

I like your house building example.

I don't think I'll ever "give up" on go. First of all because it is not some kind of a project for me but a game I enjoy.
I may retreat from intensely trying to get better though - but not just yet. I still think I'm in (if however slow) motion after years of stagnation.

My life may become so that I won't have time (or eagerness) to play for a few months or even years. But as long as there are GO servers available I'll eventually return.

As I have stated many times, for those who know me, "Lessons in the fundamentals" is a great book to read but it doesn't really teach you anything about the fundamentals. It talks about fundamentals a whole lot in the sense of using the word "fundamentals".

It was only when I read Minue's "Haengma tutorial for beginners" that the fundamentals of Go became clear to me, rooted deeply in the rules of the game:

- why straight is better than diagonal (almost the same efficiency but not the same strength)
- why urgent moves come before big moves (or "stability before development" stemming from the fact that it requires less work to defend stones than to attack them)
- what thickness really means (and why amateurs who are bread with territory scoring always underestimate the value of making a group of existing stones safe)

You can read this article at Sensei's Library: http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorialForBeginners

I remember I was thrilled when reading it and thought "this is what Kageyama should have told us".
Before that I collaborated on an article myself called "Basic instinct" which explains basic moves and their fundamental reason.

It is somewhat provocative to dismiss Kageyama, I know. I think he wrote for a Japanese audience, who somehow was already past the first level of the fundamentals, so that referring to them without really explaining them was sufficient.

And last but not least, Robert Jasiek definitely tries to explore moves and sequences beyond the colloquial "good shape" and all. I haven't read enough of him though to really judge the merits of his books.

Knotwilg wrote:As I have stated many times, for those who know me, "Lessons in the fundamentals" is a great book to read but it doesn't really teach you anything about the fundamentals. It talks about fundamentals a whole lot in the sense of using the word "fundamentals".

{snip}

It is somewhat provocative to dismiss Kageyama, I know. I think he wrote for a Japanese audience, who somehow was already past the first level of the fundamentals, so that referring to them without really explaining them was sufficient.

When I was 2 kyu I bought a set of slim volumes by the Nihon Kiin on the fundamentals. They were eye openers for me, as my grasp of the fundamentals was pretty bad. Really elementary stuff. For instance, the first example of a basic tesuji was the solid connection.

Kageyama is an entertaining author, but I have not read "Lessons in the Fundamentals" nor the Japanese version. The straightforward translation of the book is "Amateur and Pro". I suppose that in the text he talks about fundamentals, which would explain the Engish title, but the Japanese title does not convey the idea that it is about fundamentals. I would guess that it was aimed at players around shodan or low digit kyus.

I'm really fascinated by haengma. Thx for mentioning Minue's article! I've also read the haengma parts (not the advanced yet though) of the Baduk Made Fun and Easy series.
I started to read Attack and Defense from the Elementary series but I'm only at the beginning of that.

I'm trying to become more thickness oriented from territory oriented (though in reality I think I'm rather moyo oriented then territory oriented - but I'm not sure).
For one thing my games are becoming more interesting this way (but I'm not seeing the improvement in strength yet). I play many close games nowadays and many which I ought to win but I make some trivial mistake and I lose them.

My question: why did I lose this game so badly? I was feeling good throughout the game and though I thought maybe I was going to lose because of the two big white corners nowhere did I anticipate a 20+ points loss. I play black (I thought I'd play a mini Chinese but I didn't prepare - I'm not very familiar with it).

- I didn't want to strengthen white's wall so I tenukied there. I thought the B-5 stone is not dangerous because it's already shoulder-hit. I played many (probably too many) tenukies in this game.
- I should have played B-17, right? I went for the potential of development on the top side but maybe I should have pressured those white stones instead.
- doesn't feel right. I should have put more thinking into playing this move. I was like "3 stones of wall >> 4 spaces of jump", there.
- - I didn't want to make that white group strong so I think I was too afraid to go near. It ended up developing way too easy. At the end I tenukied, not knowing what to do.
- - "shouldering" that space for myself on the bottom seemed a good idea. I'm not sure it was good or bad.
- for some reason I felt a simple connection would not be enough there. I don't know why. So I played this fancy move.
- is ja-choong soo, right?
- at : ok, white has two big corners, but black has a big corner too and all the influence in the world. How did I end up losing?
- was clever
- maybe :b125: should be at N-5 but I still managed to make good points
- :w142: was big, so was :w150: (thanks to my stupid shape)
- :b199: I thought this was worth more. I'm still not sure which one is bigger. (:b207: was stupid)