So, where are my opponent's weaknesses?

[Fedya]

The last time I posted a game for review several months back, somebody responded:

I think you are playing too cautiously. You are concerned with fixing your own weaknesses, but never seem to consider that your opponent has weaknesses for you to exploit. Next time your opponent makes a forcing move, look for ways to resist and fight back, instead of passively defending. And look carefully at your opponents position for weaknesses you can attack.

I've tried to keep that in mind when I play, and the results have been, well, a bit underwhelming. I feel as though I've had a lot of games where things seem to go wrong the minute I play a move that's intended to be taking advantage of an opponent's weakness, except that the weakness doesn't turn out to be one. In this game, White 36 ends up being a problem for me, although White 46 and 74 I think are even bigger problems. I just don't see anything else to exploit, however.

[DrStraw]

R10 is the first move I feel needs comment. No that all the previous ones were optimal. But R10 leaves you with a weakness behind and no extension in front. Either hold back to R11 to remove the weakness and add the extension or play all out at R8 and hope to get Q11. Your comment on move 29 very aptly sums this up.

Having said that, I don't think the right side is important as both opposing stones are on the third line. I would be looking at the upper left. The ogeima shimari is intrinsically weak and the two black stones in the upper left are eminently attackable. How about Wd13, Bd12, Wg12?

[Shaddy]

You're tending to make your opponent thick, which is causing your problem. You need to delete moves like p12 from your vocabulary.

[Uberdude]

I will start my comment earlier than DrStraw:

c10, whilst not particularly bad (if at all) is rather passive. More active would be the kick and then when black extends you jump or knight's move. But the kick does leave behind a weakness for yourself at c9.

Then l3 and the sequence at the bottom gives black what he wants, both p3 and j3. Now black still has a problem at r3 and c3 so it's not the end of the world, but if you want to make life hard rather than easy for your opponent you need a different plan. One is to play l3 and then if black plays p3 you p2 hane (to make o2 gote) and then lightly skip to h3. h3 makes your invasion at c3 more severe, so black would be sensible to defend against that at b3, and you can then tenuki, with o2 remaining as a big point for both (not just territory but it stabilizes your group and also makes black have some problem at r2). Another idea is to not play l3 but the q2 slide. Whatever joseki black then chooses white looks fine.

As DrStraw says r10 leaves a weakness. A 3 point extension on the third line is not connected (unless you give a ponnuki as in the game which is usually bad). As well as his suggestion to attack, I like c3. Defending at l5 is also possible but feels too slow.

o2 is definitely too passive, you let black fix r3 in sente.

s18 is passive: it's an endgame move. The game is still in the opening. s18 is sometimes big if it's needed for your base or stops black getting one, but o17 group is healthy.

Black r12 is indeed a problem and you have no good answer. You could have played s18 at p14 which would mean you can capture r12 with q11: fixing your weakness.

You were fortunate black played r13 rather than ponnuki, it meant you got sente. But what to do with it? DrStraw's peep and cap looks possible. I might still simply c3 for territory as I'm not sure what the benefit of the attack is, though it should stop black's centre getting out of hand.

But for move 46 you seem to think this is the same as black's r12 split. That was of a 3 space extension on its own on the 3rd line. A 3 space extension in the centre with many stones around is very different.

RE move 66 looking for black weaknesses, he doesn't really have any (other than h9 group but you can't kill it and chasing it doesn't achieve much. Black played quite solidly and calmly. In such a situation you just need to make more territory than him to win.

[Knotwilg]

I made an analysis of weaknesses and how to possibly exploit them, at
I invite other players to critically look at my suggestions

[Fedya]

Thank you everybody for your comments.

One impression I get, however, is that you all seem a bit blithe about opponents playing under ones's stones. "You can run out into the center!" is the suggestion. But my experience has tended to be that having to run out into the center means I've wound up with a weak group that I'll have figuring out where the two eyes are going to come from (unless they connect to something else). In the actual game, Black was able to play under my group in the bottom right anyhow, and look what happened to that group.

And Shaddy, I presume you meant to say at the end of your post that I should stop considering moves like Q12?

There's still more to look at....

[Uberdude]

One impression I get, however, is that you all seem a bit blithe about opponents playing under ones's stones. "You can run out into the center!" is the suggestion. But my experience has tended to be that having to run out into the center means I've wound up with a weak group that I'll have figuring out where the two eyes are going to come from (unless they connect to something else). In the actual game, Black was able to play under my group in the bottom right anyhow, and look what happened to that group.

I don't quite understand this, do you mean l2 etc? He only got that because you played h3 which meant you had to answer k2 above (which was correct at that point, though maybe h3 wasn't so amazing unless you use the thickness to attack his left centre group) rather than at l2. But that group being small and thus vulnerable to getting low on eyespace was because of the point I made about l3 and giving black both p3 and j3 (and o2 slow: l5 would have been more useful later).

[EdLee]

...you all seem a bit blithe about opponents doing some general thing.
"You can do some general thing!" is the suggestion.
But my experience has tended to be that doing some general thing means
I've wound up with some general bad result...

( edited to make a point )

Hi Fedya,

Are you looking for some general heuristics on
when to do some general thing (run out), and when not to ?

( Please see also understanding, starting from around posts 51, 52. )

I feel as though I've had a lot of games where things seem to go wrong
the minute I do some general thing...

There is exactly one game in this thread (so far).
People have posted their comments, suggestions, etc.,
about certain moves specific to this game.

If you want to know your mistakes in your other games,
you need to have them reviewed. One by one. Move by move.

There is no way to know your mistakes in your other games
unless you have them reviewed, one game at a time, move by move.

There may be one underlying mistake in all your games.
There may be a few.
There may be many.

My bet is the problems lie in your basics. Basics shapes, basic tesujis, etc.
And in bad habits. The only way (I know of) is to have your games reviewed.
Find out your problems one by one, move by move.
Fix them one by one.

[EdLee]

I should stop considering moves like Q12?

Hi Fedya, No.

This is the big problem with trying to look for a generic, one-size-fit-all heuristic, in Go.

You need to learn to understand the power of B's ponnuki after @ P12.
That the exchange on this specific board was very good for B.

There are infinite cases where moves like @ Q12 are good.
There are infinite cases where they are less good.
Where they are neutral.
Somewhat bad.
Terrible.
Once again, it's a continuum.

As we see on this forum and on KGS, etc., many adults' tendency is
look for generic, one-size-fit-all solutions.
Your question above is an excellent example.

[Knotwilg]

If you want to know your mistakes in your other games,
you need to have them reviewed. One by one. Move by move.

What most people are looking for when seeking advice is a useful heuristic, not being led by the hand. At a meta level your comment that every generic question is wrong, is criticizing itself. Not every call for a heuristic is equally ill advised. Some moves are intrinsically worse than others. In this case, the technique he used for connection was indeed giving a ponnuki that under these circumstances hurts more than it would under other circumstances. But what if the question were "should I stop playing out ladders that don't work for me?" then the answer is yes in 99% of the cases and if the question is "should I resign when I'm not sure about the position" then the answer is "no".

If every situation in Go were so particular that you cannot judge it on an abstract level, learning to play Go would be impossible because no previous game could tell you anything about the next one. I understand your quest against all too brutal heuristics but the antidote of considering every move as a completely new situation, is equally wrong, if not worse.

[Fedya]

Uberdude:

It wasn't just the group on the bottom. Shaddy made a comment about my move C10 that I didn't have to be too worried about the slide, by which I presume he meant Black sliding to B10. Perhaps my feelings are also influenced by having an ongoing game on one of the turn-based servers where I took the strategy of running into the center, and the group feels decidedly weak.

Ed Lee:

My question about Q12 was also in response to Shaddy, who wrote:

You need to delete moves like p12 from your vocabulary.

I didn't play P12 in the game, so I was looking for clarification of that comment. I figured he might have meant Q12, since the other commenters seem to have a problem with that move.

[Shaddy]

Yes, q12, sorry. Don't play that move until you understand thickness better.

[EdLee]

I didn't play P12 in the game,

Hi Fedya, yes, typo or not, the P12 ponnuki result was very good for B;
so it's good to study how it happened, which leads to .