Kirby's Study Journal

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:32 pm

Kirby wrote:
daal wrote:...

Admit it, you just want an excuse to get back to your old ways of not playing gote.
OK, I admit it. But maybe more than that, I'm more and more confused by this game.

If you're not confused, you're not trying. That's the joy of it all!

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:40 pm

So, still confused by yoyoma's cryptic zen message, I decided to continue with my plan to try to balance studying a bit more with playing. I spent a good amount of time studying joseki. There were several variations that I analyzed, but here are a couple of items that I thought were interesting:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The peep at

and connection at

, above, complete the joseki. Since this joseki seemed good for making black thick, with influence, I wondered why black might not try to expand this further by not connecting at the peep immediately:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This seemed better for the marked area... The conclusion that I came to, which I don't know is correct, is that white can strengthen himself if he chooses later in the game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm3 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X 2 O 1 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . C C C . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . C . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Depending on the marked area, maybe this could be more beneficial for white than having just a single stone from the peep. What do you think? This is the best I could come up with.

The other position I thought was interesting was this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . W . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The marked white stone above, is said to be an even result between black and white.

I feel more inclined to play like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 3 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

However in this position, apparently, white is a little worse, and black's position is more "dynamic". I tried to think of the reason for this.

My guess is that if we switch the order of moves, and black plays

anyway:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Maybe it feels better for white to play on the left:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . W . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Perhaps this means that the exchange of approaching the corner benefits black more...?

Also, I wondered about the reason I like the approach of the corner:
1.) I'm used to it - it's a habit.
2.) It doesn't let black get in a move there:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

However, maybe #2 doesn't matter that much, since I could still potentially invade the bottom right...

What do you think?

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:16 pm

Kirby wrote:
Bill Spight wrote: My first impression from the 30 min. graph is that you run into difficulty around move 125. That suggests to me that you have not planned adequately. Remember that often the answer to the question, "What do I do in this position?" is "Don't get into that position." May I suggest, following Jowa's advice, that you take time around move 100 to assess the position and plan your play?
This sounds reasonable. From the graph, I don't see a strong indicator to select move 100 (rather than another number before 125), but doing this would likely help with the position around move 125 And if Jowa has already given this advice, perhaps it's a good idea, considering the data seems to support it.

Bill Spight wrote: I don't know that you are playing too quickly. If you go into byo-yomi around move 146, then you have made around 73 moves in 30 min., or around 25 sec. per move. That does not seem too quick to me. (Or am I drawing the wrong conclusion from the graph? )
I believe you are reading the graph correctly

BillSpight wrote: How about setting aside 5 min. for assessment and planning at around move 100? And while we are at it, 5 min. for move 50 and 5 min. for move 30? (Following Jowa's advice. ) I know that that comes to half your main time, but isn't main time for taking longer than 30 sec. on single moves?
I like this idea.

BillSpight wrote: BTW, what kinds of positions cause you to take the most time? That may suggest what to study.
To be honest, I sometimes feel sick of my attitude. I'm not exactly sure how to classify what I view to be a "difficult situation", but I get into a difficult situation, and often feel, "Why did I let myself get into this position?"...

But more than this, what I'm really sick of is when I find myself playing so nonchalantly. I know that a position could have further thought, but I feel, "Well, I've been in a situation like this before. I can play this way. It'll probably be OK. Maybe there's a way to stop what I'm playing here, but my opponent probably won't find it."

The poisonous aspect of this attitude is... that it's sometimes correct. Sometimes my opponent doesn't respond in the most severe way, and I get away with it. As a result, I get an attitude that feels like, "There's a significant chance that if I don't exert much effort at all, I'll be in fine shape. I could exert a lot more effort to figure out the *right* solution, but there's a low probability that this will make a difference."

I hate this attitude. But I have it often.

I certainly share the 'nonchalance' problem. And I think if I graphed my time use it would show some similar patterns to yours. I interpret it as I spend too much time thinking about my problems (once they arise) and not enough time thinking about my opportunities (while they are still available). The trouble with thinking about opportunities is that they are not standing there waving flags at us (unlike problems where that sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach and the "Oh, Ohhh!" that inadvertently slips out signals that the you-know-what is about to hit the fan).

Opportunities may be found in clever ways to save some stones under attack but they may also be found in clever ways to sacrifice those same stones and make profit elsewhere. But when the clock is ticking how do we partition our time so that we spend part of it analyzing plan A and another part of it on plan B, which just happens to be the complete opposite of A? And do it again next move, and again the move after that, and... Personally I am trying to consciously restructure my thinking during a game to do this more. That involves having a clearer overall assessment of the game held firmly in mind and updated more often to guide me in looking for opportunities, "OK, if my main opportunity to make more territory will be over there and this move won't really help, what else I can do other than play this normal-looking move...?" There is still a long way to go though.

billywoods · Post by **billywoods** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:12 pm

Kirby wrote:
$$Wcm3
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X 2 O 1 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O X . . , . C C C . O . . . |
$$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . C . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm3 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X 2 O 1 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . C C C . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . C . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

My guess: white

here is sente, and you don't gain all that much from the extra black stone.

yoyoma · Post by **yoyoma** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:47 pm

Kirby wrote: The peep at and connection at , above, complete the joseki. Since this joseki seemed good for making black thick, with influence, I wondered why black might not try to expand this further by not connecting at the peep immediately:

$$Wcm1
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What does black do if white cuts at A? Or maybe B, threatening A next or to go out next?

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:38 pm

ez4u wrote:...
Opportunities may be found in clever ways to save some stones under attack but they may also be found in clever ways to sacrifice those same stones and make profit elsewhere. But when the clock is ticking how do we partition our time so that we spend part of it analyzing plan A and another part of it on plan B, which just happens to be the complete opposite of A? And do it again next move, and again the move after that, and... Personally I am trying to consciously restructure my thinking during a game to do this more. That involves having a clearer overall assessment of the game held firmly in mind and updated more often to guide me in looking for opportunities, "OK, if my main opportunity to make more territory will be over there and this move won't really help, what else I can do other than play this normal-looking move...?" There is still a long way to go though.

Thinking in terms of opportunities certainly seems more optimistic. I would say I probably mostly do this when I am playing someone weaker. If I have a handicap I'm playing against, I have to think of opportunities to make up for being behind.

OTOH, when I play against someone stronger, my attitude is more of the type, "Please don't hurt me too much..."

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:40 pm

yoyoma wrote:
Kirby wrote: The peep at and connection at , above, complete the joseki. Since this joseki seemed good for making black thick, with influence, I wondered why black might not try to expand this further by not connecting at the peep immediately:

$$Wcm1
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What does black do if white cuts at A? Or maybe B, threatening A next or to go out next?

Excellent point! This totally eluded me. I bet this is a big reason that it is better to simply defend the peep.

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:35 pm

Kirby wrote:
yoyoma wrote:
Kirby wrote: The peep at and connection at , above, complete the joseki. Since this joseki seemed good for making black thick, with influence, I wondered why black might not try to expand this further by not connecting at the peep immediately:

$$Wcm1
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . C C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O X . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O C O C O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What does black do if white cuts at A? Or maybe B, threatening A next or to go out next?
Excellent point! This totally eluded me. I bet this is a big reason that it is better to simply defend the peep.

Right now White has the standard invasion at "c", which takes advantage of the cutting point at "a". If White cuts at "a", Black is happy to capture the cutting stone and eliminate the aji on the left side. Meanwhile if White is able to cut at "b", Black can easily invade the bottom using the aji of the marked stones.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O B . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . B . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In GoGoD we see the following. Roughly half the time Black pushes at "a" below (10 of 21 cases) and White plays elsewhere (9 of 10 cases), leaving the situation for later. The rest of the time Black plays the atari at "b" (8 of 11) before connecting at "c". There are 3 cases of simply connecting at "c", after which "b" may no longer be a forcing play.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Continuations $$ $$| . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . . . . . . $$| . . . . . . X a . . . $$| . . . . . X c O . . . $$| . . X X X O X . . , . $$| . . O O X O b X . . . $$| . . O . O . O . . . . $$| . . . O . O . . . . . $$+ - - - - - - - - - - -[/go]

Below is the one case where White pulls back. In this case

sets up a ladder on the left starting with "a" and Black chooses to respond on the left. As a result White is able to cut in sente. This is a good example of leaving the original peep for use later.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Yamada Kimio - Tei Meiko; 20th Ryusei; 2011-05-02 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . , . . X O X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 7 O 9 X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X 0 . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . a X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . 2 1 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 6 3 4 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . O . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:19 pm

ez4u wrote:...
Right now White has the standard invasion at "c", which takes advantage of the cutting point at "a". If White cuts at "a", Black is happy to capture the cutting stone and eliminate the aji on the left side. Meanwhile if White is able to cut at "b", Black can easily invade the bottom using the aji of the marked stones.
$$Wcm1
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X X O B . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O O X O . B . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . a X b 1 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O B . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O . B . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Thanks for the stats, ez4u. Indeed, 'c' is one of the invasions that I studied a bit. From yoyoma's comment, I figured that a cut like 'a' wouldn't be played immediately in response to

, but it would be aji that could be exploited later.

That being said, I think I messed up the position. Before the tiger connection, I meant to atari white. This is the position I meant to diagram:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm1 $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X X O B . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X O 2 B . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . O 3 O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

ez4u wrote: In GoGoD we see the following. Roughly half the time Black pushes at "a" below (10 of 21 cases) and White plays elsewhere (9 of 10 cases), leaving the situation for later. The rest of the time Black plays the atari at "b" (8 of 11) before connecting at "c". There are 3 cases of simply connecting at "c", after which "b" may no longer be a forcing play.

Fascinating. I wonder if the push at 'a' is still common after the atari exchange, as I meant to diagram originally. If so, it's reassuring to know that some pros thought that way!

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:19 pm

I decided to play a game today, as I've been studying for the past couple of days. I had a couple of drinks, but I won by a bit.

Here's the game:

I felt pretty good about this game. I think my study made me confident.

I lost a large group, which was disappointing. But I think I was able to play OK.

I don't have any particular diagrams that I was curious about this time (maybe because of the drinks!), but comments are welcome!

Shinkenjoe · Post by **Shinkenjoe** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:03 am

Cant he just monkey jump at move

with E1 ?

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:31 pm

Shinkenjoe wrote:Cant he just monkey jump at move with E1 ?

I believe so, yes. So perhaps I should have played L5 at 47. If he defended the ladder, maybe H2 would work out for me next.

In either case, before this, I didn't expect to get cut, so it was kind of my fault with that.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:32 pm

Today I studied a little bit of one of the Speed Baduk books.

I saw a diagram:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | W W W X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . W . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The commentary suggests that the marked white group has 4 liberties. To me, while a ko is involved, it appears that there are only 3 liberties.

Do we count an extra liberty because of the ko? I don't really get it.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:32 pm

Kirby wrote:Today I studied a little bit of one of the Speed Baduk books.

I saw a diagram:
$$Wc
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | W W W X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . W . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | W W W X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . W . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
The commentary suggests that the marked white group has 4 liberties. To me, while a ko is involved, it appears that there are only 3 liberties.

Do we count an extra liberty because of the ko? I don't really get it.

I think I might get it, but it's just my guess. Maybe this if 4 liberties, since white can play as follows:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | O O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O . O W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now, black requires more moves to capture the stones:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | 2 . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | O O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O 3 C C 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm5 $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | O 2 . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | O O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O 3 W 1 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Is this why it's 4 liberties?

frankie99 · Post by **frankie99** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:08 pm

Kirby wrote:Today I studied a little bit of one of the Speed Baduk books.

I saw a diagram:
$$Wc
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | W W W X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . W . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | W W W X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . W . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
The commentary suggests that the marked white group has 4 liberties. To me, while a ko is involved, it appears that there are only 3 liberties.

Do we count an extra liberty because of the ko? I don't really get it.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | O O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O . O W B . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I don't think exchanging the marked white stone for the marked black stone, counts as an increase in liberty.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | X X X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | W W W X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . W . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

(edit: added diagram for clarity)

May be they counted in the following way:
a1, c1 are liberties; liberty count = 2.
Black playing e1 is one liberty; liberty count = 3.
Black capturing the white stone at d1 is one liberty; liberty count = 4.
^makes no sense to me. ><

I totally agree with you that it should be three, since white can be captured in three moves.

Life In 19x19

Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal

Re: Kirby's Study Journal