I hope moves can speak more then words, if you still dont understand I will try to explain further. I am 100% sure i'm correct (Please download the SGF and check all the variations, I tried my best to compare shapes to give a bigger understanding)
Haha, I would like to play one of these malkovich but this month I'm finishing High School, have a national championship to win, and are going to China for more then 1 week to participate in the world amateur go championship, so at least for a month I wont have time Three stones might be a bit much if it's not a fast game, I also think agree with that, I'm not that strong giving handicap cause I dont overplay so much
I think you are strong at fighting magicwand, but I dont think you know that much about Go theory (I did not want to insult you with my post, but as you speak quite freely about your opponents strength I thought it would be funny to have a little bit of insulting tone to you as well ^^)
Edit: Forgot to add text to the variation in lowerright so updated the sgf.
Last edited by Fredrik on Wed May 05, 2010 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think you are strong at fighting magicwand, but I dont think you know that much about Go theory (I did not want to insult you with my post, but as you speak quite freely about your opponents strength I thought it would be funny to have a little bit of insulting tone to you as well ^^)
i can see that you are very solid in theory. and probably also in fighting.
yes i will agree manytimes i play an overplay when i am playing against weaker player.(its from 20 years of handycap game for money in go club)
but i also play very solid game when i have to play such game.
as you already sensed that i really dont think or read too hard on every move because i dont need to.
but the tenuki that you talked about i disagree.
i pretty much know all the variations you showed me. and dont really have to read to know the out come after my invasion. but i didnt like the endstate of black having big moyo that i might not be able to handle.
if you read my comment about black having moyo too large that there isnt one move that will stop invasion. i think that is something to think about. i dont think you can say for 100% that what i say is wrong. (maybe 90%?) anyway...i felt more comfortable playing such way because of that reason. and i am not sure if i was behind...there were toomany variable that will change the outcome of the game so i consider my style as a aggresive points loving style. if i had to play that yose again i would play same way.
but thank you for your kind advise.
for my sarcastic remark on my opponent is one of my virtual characteristic i try to build. (like my lack of capital letter). i hope they dont get offended after the game.
its all in good intension of making game more intresting.
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown" Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
first: i apoloize for not playing as a textbook style.
but what i play is an aggressive style backed with strong reading and intuiation.
it is a style unique to korean players. (ex. like lee sehdol)
i think experiencing non-textbook style can be valuable and somwhat fun.
below is what i expect from my opponent. it will make things more complicated so i will have advantage. and will reveal the weakness in black moyo like "a"
that tight approach may solidify top left into big points after some attack on the black stones in the middle. i am thinking that big moyo might turn into a big dragon that will be hunted.
I'm afraid to say that I think Fredrik is correct. When I saw your lower right position without seeing the sequence, I thought that white must had made a mistake somewhere. The game sequence confirms this.
I used to write reviews for GTL, mostly for players in the 4k-8k range. I must admit that if I was reviewing for white and saw 12-14-16, I would strongly criticize those moves and emphasize this as an important learning point. White fails to get ahead; white crawls on the second line; white gives black strong influence for little territory; white fixes black's would-be cutting point for free; etc. I have been taught these things so repeatedly, that the "wrongness" of 12-16 is permanently branded on my almost-shodan brain.
But here is a strong player, happy to play these moves, and doing reasonably well in the game. No I must wonder: how "wrong" are these moves really? Are they as tragically wrong as I previously thought? Or only a little wrong? Or maybe not so clear at all? After all, white kept sente.
Even if they are not so wrong after all, I don't think I will ever be able to change how I think about them. My mind is stuck that way. I wonder how many wrong ideas are permanently stuck in my mind, and how I can unlearn them, if at all.
Main Entry: zing·er Pronunciation: \ˈziŋ-ər\
1 : something causing or meant to cause interest, surprise, or shock
2 : a pointed witty remark or retort
I used to write reviews for GTL, mostly for players in the 4k-8k range. I must admit that if I was reviewing for white and saw 12-14-16, I would strongly criticize those moves and emphasize this as an important learning point. White fails to get ahead; white crawls on the second line; white gives black strong influence for little territory; white fixes black's would-be cutting point for free; etc. I have been taught these things so repeatedly, that the "wrongness" of 12-16 is permanently branded on my almost-shodan brain.
But here is a strong player, happy to play these moves, and doing reasonably well in the game. No I must wonder: how "wrong" are these moves really? Are they as tragically wrong as I previously thought? Or only a little wrong? Or maybe not so clear at all? After all, white kept sente.
Even if they are not so wrong after all, I don't think I will ever be able to change how I think about them. My mind is stuck that way. I wonder how many wrong ideas are permanently stuck in my mind, and how I can unlearn them, if at all.
I used to write reviews for GTL, mostly for players in the 4k-8k range. I must admit that if I was reviewing for white and saw 12-14-16, I would strongly criticize those moves and emphasize this as an important learning point. White fails to get ahead; white crawls on the second line; white gives black strong influence for little territory; white fixes black's would-be cutting point for free; etc. I have been taught these things so repeatedly, that the "wrongness" of 12-16 is permanently branded on my almost-shodan brain.
But here is a strong player, happy to play these moves, and doing reasonably well in the game. No I must wonder: how "wrong" are these moves really? Are they as tragically wrong as I previously thought? Or only a little wrong? Or maybe not so clear at all? After all, white kept sente.
Even if they are not so wrong after all, I don't think I will ever be able to change how I think about them. My mind is stuck that way. I wonder how many wrong ideas are permanently stuck in my mind, and how I can unlearn them, if at all.
Even if you get a great position on one part of the board, it does not mean you won't collapse at another. The reason that white is still doing ok, is that black didn't play very well in the upperright corner. However, that does not change that white's play in the lowerright corner was not acceptable
I'm afraid to say that I think Fredrik is correct. When I saw your lower right position without seeing the sequence, I thought that white must had made a mistake somewhere. The game sequence confirms this.
Since many stronger players agree that i was wrong so i will agree.
but i will continue to play same move until i personally feel that wrongness through my own skin.
magicwand is very hardheaded character.
thank you for your kind advice.
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown" Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
(Please download the SGF and check all the variations, I tried my best to compare shapes to give a bigger understanding)
