Life In 19x19

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:21 am**

I've always had trouble with fuseki. In this particular game I didn't know what to play a couple of times.

White 8 seems to be breaking up black's position, but black 9 gives black good shape. I don't know what to think of this. Then after black 13, I thought for a long time and eventually played 14. A shimari wasn't an option for me, because black would approach with a 2 space jump immediately. Anyone has any other options instead of 14, or does anyone know if it's a good move or not? 15 was annoying, I don't really have any benefits after my pincer and his attachment with 14. Still I pincered, maybe I should have taken the corner. Everything following from 22 I wasn't so sure about, I think I was lucky he didn't clamp my 22 with 25. Up until 54, I thought the game was still even. Anyone has another opinion about this?

So the moves I wasn't sure about: 8, 14, 16, 22. I could really use some comments on this!

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:37 am**

A shimari wasn't an option for me, because black would approach with a 2 space jump immediately.

Denying yourself an excellent move to prevent Black having a good move - seems to me like a classic case of cutting off your own nose to spite someone else.

Go Seigen: The corner is ALWAYS bigger.

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:33 am**

A few comments.

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:35 am**

pancake wrote:I've always had trouble with fuseki. In this particular game I didn't know what to play a couple of times.

I am by no means an expert, but your fuseki looks fine to me. Move 14 is original and interesting. I think the shimari you rejected would also be perfectly fine. Sure, B would approach (so your shimari should be low rather than high), but then W would have sente to approach or invade the lower left corner.

At move 18, I would block the other side (D17) to separate black. If he cuts, you do not have a ladder, but you can still atari and squeeze, giving up your C16 stone to take control of his F17 stone. I think the resulting W thickness would be superior to the B corner profit.

At move 20, I would probably play on the inside (B15) rather than the outside (B18). This is a less severe attack, but B would still have to worry about his weak group, and W could still count on some profit as a result. The appeal of the inside connection is that it defends the W open side, so the B stone at C10 becomes a little inefficient. Still, I could go either way on this, given the location of the C10 stone. If this stone was any closer to the top, then B15 would clearly be better, and if it was any farther away, B18 would be more attractive (to be followed up by a left side extension as a high priority).

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:18 am**

Interesting situation. I am continually baffled by the fuseki myself as well. In this case I have a few questions/comments. See what you think. :blackeye:

First is

. It seems a quite normal choice. At the same time we should realize that White is playing Black's game here. White basically agrees that the right side is the most urgent part of the board. However, the first four moves of this game have been played often by the pros. By a very wide margin :b5:

tends to be an approach in the upper left, the area of asymmetry on the board. In this game, and in a minority of pro games, Black plays first against the upper right. After :b7:

where should White play? One alternative choice would be to simply finish the top left with one of the "a" points below. Another would be to approach the lower left at :w1:

with the intention of setting up a Kobayashi style formation with :w3:

or "b". This says that White believes that he can compete in a moyo building contest and that the upper left will be more advantageous for White than the lower right will be for Black. I am not saying what is best but they are different ways of seeing the position.

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

Second is

. I am with Bill in not liking the slide. It just gives up the invasion at R3 for little benefit to White. I think Bill's 2-space extension is interesting. If Black responds the the kick at :b2:

below, White plays the continuation with :w3:

and

. Suddenly Black is staking the whole game on the lower right territory. If Black plays on the left instead, then the Black right side has weak points at all the points marked "a" and almost none can be considered secure territory. I think the addition of the R3 stone by Black in the game was a big help to the right side.

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

Third is

. Interestingly GoGoD has nearly 21,000 examples of a 4-4 stone and a 3-4 stone in this configuration on an otherwise empty half board. There are 9,300 cases of Black playing "a" next and 6,000 cases of playing "b" next. There are also (count them!) 39 cases of Black playing at :b1:

. The most frequent choice for a reply is actually not in the upper left at all, it is :w2:

. Looking at the games, this is most often played from a White position in the lower right. If we think about it, White :w2:

prevents Black from playing J3 next, which would both attack White and make a double-wing formation. In the upper left, White can think of "d" and "b" as miai. BTW, in the cases where White does not approach the bottom left with :w2:

, he almost always just makes a shimari in the upper left.

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

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:09 am**

Thanks for the response!

Seems like I rejected the shimari too easily after all...

@Bill: I agree with not sliding in the lower right, but I dislike the pincer for black before, since his stones on the right are low.

I thought your 15 was what black was going to play, dunno why he didn't.

After the black attachment at 17, I obviously didn't take enough time to read it out, I think that your variation is better. Also, what mitsun says makes sense. I actually read that one out, dunno why I rejected it.

The thing I like best is your white 30, that's a really nice move! I didn't look at it in the game

.

I do not agree with your move 40 though, With pushing I was aiming at invading the corner, I do not see what your 40 achieves.

@ez4u: I thought about the first diagram, but I dislike it when the board is divided into 2 parts. That's the only reason I rejected it.

I agree with the second diagram, that would be better then sliding. The reason I rejected 2 in the third diagram, was that black didn't really have a good move on that side, since his corner would always be open. But maybe you have a different opinion about this?

Again, thanks for all the responses, really helped a lot!

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:47 am**

pancake wrote:I do not agree with your move 40 though, With pushing I was aiming at invading the corner, I do not see what your 40 achieves.

induces

, which strengthens the Black stone at C-10. If White also allows Black to play at C-11, what is the point of :w38:

? And

? And in fact, the whole maneuver starting with :w30:

? White strengthens Black in the center and on the left side in order to invade on the 3-3?

There is a similarity to the maneuver of playing a capping play or high keima to induce a response on the side before invading the corner. But in those cases White has not already built up strength in the area. Shouldn't that strength be used to invade the left side instead of the corner?

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:37 am**

I asked a pro about move 40. She said that ofcourse, the few moves before that were bad. But 40 was good because of 2 reasons: It makes black overconcentrated when I enter the corner and when black plays at 40, it's almost sente. You said I don't want black to play at your 40, but that's just gote for black, so no need to defend there.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:54 am**

pancake wrote:She said that ofcourse, the few moves before that were bad. But 40 was good [...]

That reminds me of something Day[9] said (in the context of Starcraft, but I think it applies to go as well):

Find the point in the game where things start to go really wrong. Then work on fixing that, and only that. Don't even bother to analyze anything that occurs later, because that's not a situation you want to be in in the first place

Or, translated to the situation at hand: If you're going to play these wrong moves, you're doing it because you have a plan, and you should stick with this plan. If you realize the plan is bad, fix it, and don't play the wrong moves in the first place. Then you'll never be in the situation where you have to think about a good followup to a bad plan

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:59 am**

flOvermind wrote:
pancake wrote:She said that ofcourse, the few moves before that were bad. But 40 was good [...]

That reminds me of something Day[9] said (in the context of Starcraft, but I think it applies to go as well):

Find the point in the game where things start to go really wrong. Then work on fixing that, and only that. Don't even bother to analyze anything that occurs later, because that's not a situation you want to be in in the first place

Or, translated to the situation at hand: If you're going to play these wrong moves, you're doing it because you have a plan, and you should stick with this plan. If you realize the plan is bad, fix it, and don't play the wrong moves in the first place. Then you'll never be in the situation where you have to think about a good followup to a bad plan

I've thought about this a bit. It would seem to imply that everyone should be strongest in fuseki, which is impossible. Clearly *some people* need to be stronger in attacking, or in L&D, or in yose, than they are at fuseki. But for anyone who's not a pro, won't the first serious mistake be somewhere in the opening, or at best early middle game? You should be in a position where, if you fall behind in fuseki and then your opponent makes a mistake, you should know how to take advantage of that to regain the lead.

If we applied this rigorously it would make reviewing handicap games impossible, wouldn't it? "Your mistake was to give him a handicap. Don't do that next time. You started out thirty points behind and you didn't quite make it up. "

That said, perhaps all game reviews can teach us is to think harder about fuseki, and the other skills are best developed in other ways. (Doing problems, or whatever.) But it still wouldn't be because we should concentrate on the first mistake and be resigned to losing the situations that come afterwards..

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:32 pm**

Oh, I don't think you should stop analyzing after the first mistake in the game, that would indeed be stupid. After all, who has perfect fuseki? But you should stop analyzing when you're in a losing position. It's a lot more productive to analyze how not to get into a losing position in the first place

The same logic can be applied to sequences instead of the whole game. Even when the game is not lost after a mistake in a sequence, it still doesn't really make sense to find a better continuation of a bad sequence, does it? That is, when a sequence goes wrong, find the wrong move, explore better alternatives, and then move on to the next big mistake in the game.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:30 am**

flOvermind wrote:Oh, I don't think you should stop analyzing after the first mistake in the game, that would indeed be stupid. After all, who has perfect fuseki? But you should stop analyzing when you're in a losing position. It's a lot more productive to analyze how not to get into a losing position in the first place

Winning a lost game is an important skill.

When I think about my own play, I think my biggest skill is playing orthodox "book" moves and playing well in a game where I hold an advantage. When I get behind, my play just ends up being too soft. I suspect that I should only analyze games where I am behind by a comfortable margin.

The same logic can be applied to sequences instead of the whole game. Even when the game is not lost after a mistake in a sequence, it still doesn't really make sense to find a better continuation of a bad sequence, does it? That is, when a sequence goes wrong, find the wrong move, explore better alternatives, and then move on to the next big mistake in the game.

I like this idea. But you do have to know how to continue the sequence regardless of how your opponent plays.

Life In 19x19

Fuseki

Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki

Re: Fuseki