Page 5 of 7
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:47 pm
by Loons
Thoughts on Go Back Principles:
I would propose that we stick to the first played line if at all possible, going back to it after a go-back seems to be <also> not an improvement (though obviously it might take some moves to establish this). What're others' feelings?
My reasoning is that tonnes of moves are fine in the opening, so clearly identifying and go-backing mistakes seems more important than contemplating the hypothetical "best" of two even but different results. Mistakenly or correctly evaluating results as not even is of course, interesting, but I think we probably also want to keep the splitting to a minimum as well (avoid having lots of rather inactive games).
On the diagram vs. SGF front:
What if we keep playing moves as diagrams (very easy and clean looking) but post an updated and complete (ie with variations and verdict) SGF periodically? Perhaps after a go back becomes established/refuted.
Edit: With respect to the posting of sequences for forcing moves or well-established joseki - I think this is fine. Going back on a joseki variation or deviation and forcing a superior result seems interesting.
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:33 am
by cyclops
It was not my intention to derail this game as it seems I did. If I did can you please indicate where my postings are not in line with your proposals. Feel free to go back there, repair my interference and proceed from there. From your post it is not clear to me when it is acceptable to change a previous move. Is it only after some sort of consensus that the move was wrong? If so, who is consensus?
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:39 am
by topazg
I'm happy with that. Is the game here then?
$$Bcm15
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bcm15
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:21 pm
by Loons
$$Bcm17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bcm17We seem here courtesy of cyclops, though Ed at one point posted a
local variation that went longer. Edit: Hang on, my claim that this is our "original" sequence seems just a little spurious. As you will.
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:12 pm
by nagano
$$Bcm17
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bcm17
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:51 am
by EdLee
$$Bm19
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bm19
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:27 am
by Loons
$$Wcm20
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20White's attacking. We did play all those fourth line moves. "Chase with the knight's move," so they say.
Also on the proverbial front - "profit while attacking." White can bring his lower left group out to the centre, and perhaps start consolidating top while harrying black's group.
Admittedly, white has concerns elsewhere- bottom right shimari is becoming a little lonely. Black's moyo plays on bottom and right are as yet unchallenged.
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:44 am
by topazg
$$Wcm20
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20Without a working ladder, it makes sense to cut, no?
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:34 am
by Loons
Some food for thought.
I hadn't deeply considered topazg's move. I would have moved out peacefully as black, because it seems to me danger favours white, here. If black can aggressively settle that group, excellent!
The ladder is black's and the (eg.) shoulder hit's value cannot break it.
Even with a good ladder, I feel pressured here as black, so I might continue like this:
$$Wcm20 What happens next?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20 What happens next?(Sorry about the broken shape, Ed
. It's still reducing liberties!)
Seems this one would be a bad idea even if we had played the marked ladder breaker before
, ignoring B4 and the black group's status:
$$Wcm20
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20Looking forward to the inevitable go-back.
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:41 am
by topazg
$$Wcm20 What happens next?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20 What happens next?My suggested continuation
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:55 pm
by Loons
More food for thought:
Harder question:
As a point of contrast, might we have been able to use
cut in another way?
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:46 pm
by EdLee
W would fight with B. My first feeling is this fight is good for W, so
was too much.
$$Wm20
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wm20
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:37 pm
by nagano
$$Wcm20
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20
Re:
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:44 am
by topazg
EdLee wrote: W would fight with B. My first feeling is this fight is good for W, so
was too much.
...
Agreed, the loose ladder works for White, which means Black doesn't have time to save the cutting stone, which means he shouldn't have played it in the first place.
$$Wcm20
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Wcm20, "a" and "b" all look interesting - I'm thinking
is best because Black "c" is not only a double wing, but a pretty vulnerable point in White's formation at the top.
Re: Go Back - Game 2
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:03 am
by perceval
topazg wrote:
@topatg: err i am lost : what loose ladder ?
. It's still reducing liberties!)
, ignoring B4 and the black group's status:
cut in another way?
, "a" and "b" all look interesting - I'm thinking