It is currently Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:42 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1499 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1481 Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:42 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8815
Liked others: 2600
Was liked: 3006
Uberdude wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote:
Thoughts from LZ with barely any playouts...

{snip}

That's all I have time for now. Maybe with more playouts LZ has a different opinion.,


For analysis, I wouldn't trust LZ with fewer than 10k playouts.



Depends how strongly you want to be sure LZ is right. In a game of Kirby's level if LZ says a move is bad with a few hundred playouts and another is better I wouldn't take it as gospel, but it's probably true at least 9 times out of 10. It's like how a pro can often point out your mistakes just based on shape intuition without doing any reading.


Indeed, that's so. However, as the AlphaGo people took pains to point out, humans don't think like bots. They made too strong a case, IMO. It's true that humans don't calculate probablities like bots do, but we do have a general sense, based largely on experience, of our chances of winning a game, and we do base decisions on that assessment. Since the parallel processing of our brains is unconscious, we do not have any direct notion of anything like the number of playouts, and there may be nothing at all like that in our parallel processing. Familiarity may be similar in some ways to a high number of playouts, or maybe not, quien sabe?

To say that a pro relies upon intuition without doing any reading is, AFAIK, not exactly accurate. The pro may not be doing any conscious reading, but is surely doing unconscious processing. If we don't call that reading, what do we call it? Maybe we need a new term. :)

I have related how, after the first Environmental Go Game between Jiang Jujo and Rui Naiwei, almost 20 years ago, Professor Berlekamp and I were going over the game with Jujo. The previous night I had discovered what I was pretty sure was a mistake by Jujo and we were talking about that. Rui Naiwei stopped by and looked at the board for two seconds and rattled off an 8 move combination that she had overlooked during the game. That sequence was not simply the result of intuition, or she would have found it during the play, when she had devoted more time to conscious reading.

Also, bots are telling us that pro intuition is much more fallible than we thought. Moves that were considered go common sense, even knowledge, we now have to admit are probably errors, and not just minor ones. If we are talking about intuition alone, minus unconscious processing, I'm not sure that we can give pros a 90% grade, or bots, either. Quien sabe? Nobody has researched these questions.

Sure, if we simply play a top bot's preferred play, we will play at a superhuman level. But what about other plays? Even plays that are not on the bot's radar? We know of cases where humans have made such plays, which we can prove are better than the bot's choice. There are surely human plays that are better, but we cannot prove that they are.

You don't have to know much in the way of statistics to see that low playouts are a problem with winrate estimates. That does not affect the bot's level of play very much, because its chosen move typically has a large number of playouts. (Besides, bots do not choose moves based upon winrate estimates alone.) All it has to do to play well is to find a good enough move. Its high number of playouts reflects our confidence in its winrate estimate. If all we wanted to do when reviewing games with bots is to find good moves, there is no problem. But humans also want to find mistakes. And there is where the problem with low playouts hits home. If the supposed mistake has a low number of playouts, we cannot be very confident of its winrate estimate, which is what we use for evaluation. From what I have observed, if the number of playouts is less than 1k, we cannot be confident at all.

Not too long ago I thought that 4k playouts was enough to inspire confidence. And recently I lowered my estimate of the margin of error for Elf to 4%. (I think that it's probably 3% for LZ, but I do not have as much experience with its estimates.) And since then I have been shocked to find an example where Elf is demonstrably off by at least 5% with a playout count of around 6.7k. :shock: Now, maybe this is a rare anomaly, but in the past I have found errors with Leela 11 (now no longer a top bot) of at least 20%.

The way bots work is not familiar to humans, and, unfortunately, it seems like we have been encouraged to think that there is such a thing as an objective winrate, which bots figure out, and the number of playouts does not matter, and furthermore, that you can use the difference in winrates to identify errors. That's malarkey, IMHO. We have to learn how to use the numbers that bots tell us. How many people are working on how to do that? I am, in my spare time. Who else? I don't know.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: gowan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1482 Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:49 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
If I had to give an evaluation, I'd say that today wasn't a great day. My foot doesn't hurt to walk on it anymore, so I made the resolution to start running again this morning. When my alarm went off at 6:30, I didn't get up - call it lack of willpower, lack of initiative, or just plain laziness... I didn't want to get up, so I slept for longer, and didn't work out in the morning. After getting off to a slow start, I had some breakfast, cleaned up, and got to work later than usual. Getting to work later than usual was OK, though, because today is go club day - I'd be working late, anyway. Since I was off track already, I made no plans to do go problems or stick to my usual routine - I had the single goal of getting a code review out for a project I'm working on. I was able to focus a bit, but progress was slower than I'd hoped. In the early afternoon, I had been making some progress on the project, but my wife texted me and told me that she had smelled something bad in my laptop bag at home. She noticed there was a dish inside of it, so she went to dump out the contents of my laptop bag in the sink... And out fell a dead rat. She was freaked out, and wanted me to home and take care of it. Incidentally, she started getting some allergic reaction to something, and wasn't feeling great. So I went back home to get rid of the rat, then headed back to work. Round trip: about 50 minutes taken away from working on my project at work. So then I continued for awhile. It got to be around 5:00pm, and I was feeling guilty about not helping out at home. So I decided to come home for dinner and forgo the go club today. Coming home, I felt a bit guilty that I didn't put my project up for code review. I suppose I would have felt guilty either way. At home, kids were arguing about stuff, things were somewhat of a mess, and the atmosphere didn't seem that great. I recommended we eat out today, and that cheered the kids up a little bit - that was one of today's highlights - I had a good time seeing them happy. As a side note, I still feel a sense of anxiety, because I'm not completely done with some of the home projects I've been working on - some rooms are only partially completed. I was thinking of working on the house this evening... But overall, I just feel really lazy today.

Aside from kids being happy for eating out, the other highlight of today was that I received Inseong's review from my game a few days ago.

He had a single overarching theme for my play, which I can relate to: I am not satisfied with a 50-50 result, and I overplay. I played many mistakes, but most of them seem rooted from this idea.

Here are some examples he gave:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O O O . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X X . . X . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


In the board above (I'm white), white has a nice position on the left; black has a nice position on the bottom. But I feel a loss. Why? Because black has a nice position on the bottom. This is what Inseong stated, and it's true - I do feel a loss. I don't like that black can get points there.

The move that I played?

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


Overplay. Despite black's stones, I don't want to give black points there. Inseong asked in the review if that made sense. Black has a better position on the bottom. So black SHOULD get more points there. That's natural. That's the game. But I don't want to.

Inseong said that his instinct was something like this:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . O X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O O O . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X X . . X . . . . . . 4 . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


This wasn't intuitive to me at all, because the exchanges from :w1: through :b4: make black strong - and then black will get points there. I don't like that.

But Inseong says it's the wrong idea. Black *should* get points there, because black has a position there. He said it'd be equally weird to expect black to get more than 50% on the left where white has a good position. But I don't seem to have a problem with that idea.

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


I have weaknesses on the outside, and there's no way to kill black. But I want to kill black - or threaten to. But it could have been a disaster:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . O 5 . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . O X 3 O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O X 2 4 . . . . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . X X O 1 . . . . . . . . . O X O O O |
$$ | . X O X . . . . . . . . . . X O X X X |
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . X . O X . X |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . O X O . O X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . O X X , O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . O |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . O X . X X O |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X O X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . . O X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X X X O . . . . X O . O |
$$ | . . O O O . X O O O X O . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X X . . X . X X X O . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . O X O . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


But I wanted a result better than what was possible for that board position.

I am reminded of the game from the US Go Congress I posted about in this post: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=247321#p247321

Here's what I said in that post:
Kirby wrote:
But I couldn't find a way to invade properly on the top.

Despite this... I played there anyway!

I was looking for a chance for my opponent to screw up - a way to break into the top with a bad move on his part. I was putting the fate of the game into his hands, hoping that he'd make a mistake.

...

The question that remained in my mind for quite some time was, "WHY did I play in this way?"
It wasn't a mistake in reading - I didn't read out a variation that worked, and then be surprised by a move that I didn't expect. The fact is, I didn't read out a variation that worked. But I wanted to play there anyway.

Why? The question is exceedingly interesting to me. Why did I want to play a sequence that I hadn't thought to work?

In the days that followed the US Go Congress, I came to an answer: I am not confident when the game becomes close - and in these cases, I succumb to overplay in hopes that my opponent will make a mistake.
Here I had a reasonably close game that I could very well have won if I had just played in a normal way. I didn't require special moves. But my lack of confidence when the game is close led me to want to overplay - I wanted to break into the top, whether it worked or not! I had an expectation that my opponent could likely make a mistake, and then I could set the score such that the game wasn't close anymore.

More than the moves themselves in this sequence, the psychological state that I was in to decide on making these moves was, and remains, very fascinating to me.

To overcome this, I need to be more confident when the game is close. I need to be willing to play normal moves when I'm just a couple of points ahead - and not something weird to give my opponent a chance.


I feel that this is the same problem that Inseong is describing to me. When there's a 50-50 result on the board, I am nervous. I don't want a 50-50 result. I want 80-20; or 90-10. But 50-50 - that is too scary. And when black has an advantage in a certain local area - I want to get a better result than black. Because I'm not confident of the result when the game is close.

I don't really know how to fix this psychological problem. Maybe it's a matter of playing some games, consciously not trying to do this. But games are 200 or 300 moves, and often, in concentration, it's hard to deviate from my nature... I have a feeling that studying endgame could be one way to help. It's boring to me... But maybe it'll give me confidence when the game is close.

I wonder if there are other ways that could help me overcome this psychological problem... :scratch:

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1483 Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:00 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8815
Liked others: 2600
Was liked: 3006
One thing that strikes me about your overplays, at least, these ones, is that your opponents let you get away with them. (Quick thought: Maybe you should play against stronger players who will punish your overplays. :))

As for the one in the top left corner, it could have ended badly for you, but it didn't. You saw the kill, you just missed the weakness in your own position, but you saw that before he did. ;) All's well that ends well. :rambo:

The one on the bottom side really surprised me. Not that I don't sympathize with wanting to rein in Black's moyo. It is not only fairly large, it is easy to develop it. OTOH, White's sphere of influence is loose, and it is not all that clear how to develop it. That's one reason why on White's previous turn I would have played the keima on the edge of Black's moyo and White sphere of influence, instead of enclosing the Black stone in the top left. :) Boy was I surprised! You attacked a live group instead of protecting your three stone wall that had neither an eye nor an extension! :shock: And Black fell for it. He attacked your lone stone instead of your weak group, and then captured it in such a way that you were able to build a successful invasion. Wow!

Yeah, making overplays is a bad habit, but you seem to be getting rewarded for doing so. Technically, one thing that may be lacking is viewing the board through your opponent's eyes. For instance, when he played the second line turn on the right side, did you think he was only preventing you from connecting? Maybe he was, but I expect that he was aware of weakening your corner.

Also, perhaps you don't do much planning. As Znosko-Borovsky says, at first you don't worry about what your opponent will do, you get clear what you want to do. But go is a game of trade-offs, and any plan needs to consider what your opponent can get in exchange for what you get. You remarked before switching to the top left corner that it wasn't clear which was bigger, the left side or the bottom. Indeed, that was the case, at least for players like us. But there is your potential trade-off right there: If I stake out the left side, my opponent can stake out the bottom, and if I invade or reduce the bottom, he can go into the left side. Then you can consider that exchange before deciding where to play. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: Kirby
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1484 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:42 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Indeed, I gave only part of the review. Inseong’s comment for my opponent was that he passively accepts my overplays. Inseong’s point to me was that I want an 80-20 result. If my opponent lets me get it, I win the game; if he punishes my overplay, I lose the game. He said I should be more conscious of this tendency I have, or else, I will be unlikely to advance my level.

Maybe poor planning is part of it. Sometimes I’ve figured that maybe Inseong sees this as my tendency to overplay, but maybe if I just read more, the overplay won’t come. In other words, one theory I have is that some players may have tendency to overplay when the situation isn't clear to them; some may have tendency to underplay. Some may play in a different weird way when they haven't read everything out. I happen to overplay when the situation is unclear. But maybe the solution, then, isn't to focus on overplay, but rather to make the situation more clear (i.e. by reading or planning).

That being said, I’m not sure if this is consistent with the Go Congress game I referenced... there, I read the invasion didn’t work, and played it anyway...

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #1485 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:46 am 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8665
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 323
Was liked: 2007
GD Posts: 312
Hi Kirby,
Quote:
Inseong’s point to me was that I want an 80-20 result.
Seems you ( and Bill and Mr. Inseong ) have already ID'd the problem exactly. So, to beat a dead horse:

One way for you to consistently get a 80-20 edge for a major portion of your game is to play someone who's 2 stones below you, in an even game ( 6.5 or 7.5 komi; nigiri ). In other words, it's an under handicapped game and it's unfair to your opponent. This way, you'll feel 80-20 most of the time.

If you play an identical twin of yourself, how do you get 80-20 ? This is exactly what happens with opponents your level, by definition.

If you play an even game with someone 2 stones above you, then you get the 20-80 feeling.

:mrgreen:

( BTW, before 2015, many pros felt 50-50, except when facing a top title holder, in which case maybe they felt under 50% odds. Today, I'd say any pro who keeps up-to-date understands their odd is ~0% in an even game vs. a superhuman bot. :blackeye: )


This post by EdLee was liked by: Kirby
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1486 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:18 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
I suppose it *is* a bit like playing a handicap game with this standard. It reminds me of HNG, where Sai sets a self-induced negative komi, and has to play very aggressively to make up the differential. It was a much more level game when he played normally, without this self-induced handicap.

Maybe I should experiment a little bit and try to make games that I play close.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1487 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:32 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 238
Liked others: 51
Was liked: 72
KGS: lepore
Kirby wrote:
...I happen to overplay when the situation is unclear. But maybe the solution, then, isn't to focus on overplay, but rather to make the situation more clear (i.e. by reading or planning).




One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30." And with that in mind, I feel planning too much can be counterproductive. It is hard (for me anyway) to have any real idea of what the board is going to look like 40 moves from now, so better to look for moves that maintain the flow until a moment presents itself later on.

Another way of thinking about it is, at our level, it is more likely that a mistake will decide the game than a brilliantly read out sequence. So focus on eliminating mistakes. If your opponent still beats you, that's fine - she just played better. At least you didn't beat yourself.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1488 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:21 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8815
Liked others: 2600
Was liked: 3006
mhlepore wrote:
One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30."


Coined by someone who values the middle game more than the opening, I suspect. ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1489 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:35 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1339
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Liked others: 188
Was liked: 590
Rank: Bel 2d KGS 3d TG 4d
KGS: Artevelde
Tygem: Knotwilg
Bill Spight wrote:
mhlepore wrote:
One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30."


Coined by someone who values the middle game more than the opening, I suspect. ;)


I think if you focus on not losing the game, winning becomes more likely. There is no checkmate in Go.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1490 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:45 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8815
Liked others: 2600
Was liked: 3006
Knotwilg wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
mhlepore wrote:
One proverb that has stuck with me is "Try to win the game at move 130, not move 30."


Coined by someone who values the middle game more than the opening, I suspect. ;)


I think if you focus on not losing the game, winning becomes more likely. There is no checkmate in Go.


That would explain the not trying to win at move 30, but it doesn't explain trying to win at move 130. (I contemplated adding, "Try to win the game by move 300." ;))

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1491 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:11 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 238
Liked others: 51
Was liked: 72
KGS: lepore
Bill Spight wrote:
That would explain the not trying to win at move 30, but it doesn't explain trying to win at move 130. (I contemplated adding, "Try to win the game by move 300." ;))


There's nothing magical about 130 compared to some other similar number depicting a game that is well beyond the fuseki. Today we have AI win rate graphs, which (in pro games) often depict a game that is roughly even until around move 100, and then something happens to swing the probability to one extreme or the other. From my perspective, that validates the spirit of the proverb.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1492 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:29 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8815
Liked others: 2600
Was liked: 3006
mhlepore wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
That would explain the not trying to win at move 30, but it doesn't explain trying to win at move 130. (I contemplated adding, "Try to win the game by move 300." ;))


There's nothing magical about 130 compared to some other similar number depicting a game that is well beyond the fuseki. Today we have AI win rate graphs, which (in pro games) often depict a game that is roughly even until around move 100, and then something happens to swing the probability to one extreme or the other. From my perspective, that validates the spirit of the proverb.


Not to hijack Kirby's thread, but how would such a graph look if you played a pro, or if a pro played a top bot? :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1493 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:22 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Hijack away ;-)

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1494 Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:07 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Last week sucked for my routine. After stepping on that nail, I didn't run at all last week, and I played go minimally. I slept in, and did just a few go problems. Not a great week for go or for my running. I did get some sleep, though.

So I'm trying to get back on the horse, and get back into my routine. I drew out a schedule for today last night, and got up early this morning. I ran about 7.5 miles, and rode the bus so that I could do go problems on the way to work. I focused this morning pretty well. I'm pretty tired from waking up early (still used to last week's sleep schedule), but it was OK overall.

Anyway, I'm back to routine now, so at lunch, I played another game on fox... I lost, again. Kind of frustrating. I'll aim to win tomorrow. I know I can be stronger than fox 3d - I just have to get back into my routine.

Here is the game:


Trouble came after black played here:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O X X O X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . O O X X . . . X . . X . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . O O X . . . X X X X O |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O X . . . O X O O O . |
$$ | . . . O . . X X O X . . . O O X X O . |
$$ | . . . O X X O O X X X X X X X X O O . |
$$ | . . . . X O . O O . . O . . O O O X . |
$$ | . . O O X . O . X X X O . . O X X X . |
$$ | . O O X X X X X O , O . O O O X . . . |
$$ | . . X X O O O O O . . O X X X . . . . |
$$ | . X X O X . . . . . O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X . X . . X O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X . O O O X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . B . . X X O . O X X . X X . . . X . |
$$ | . . . O X O O O O X O O O X X X X O . |
$$ | . . . O X O O X O O X . . O X O O O . |
$$ | . O O X . X X X X X O . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . O . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Maybe there's a way to work things out, but the game is in a lot of risk now - I certainly hadn't read out variations during the game, so this was a bad attitude problem.

I should have either:
* read out completely; OR
* protected
here when black threatens the bottom left:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O X X O X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O . O O X X . . . X . . X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . O O X . . . X X X X O |
$$ | . . . O . X . . O X . . . O X O O O . |
$$ | . . . O . . X X O X . . . O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O X X O O X X X X X X X X O O . |
$$ | . . . . X O . O O . . O . . O O O X . |
$$ | . . O O X . O . X X . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . O X X X X X O , O . O O O X . . . |
$$ | . . X X O O O O O . . O X X X . . . . |
$$ | . X B O X . . . . . O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O X . X . . . O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X . O . O X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X O . O X X . X X . . . X . |
$$ | . . . O X O O O . , . O O X X X X O . |
$$ | . . . O X O O X O O . . . O X O O O . |
$$ | . O O X . X X X X X O . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . O . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


But I was cocky, and remember thinking: "go ahead and try to kill my corner - I can live". It was just a feeling/attitude I had, not backed by reading.

There are other highlights in the game - you can check them out in the SGF.

But the biggest takeaway for me here is:
* Don't be so arrogant - at least not until you've read things out to see what's happening on the board.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1495 Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:20 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
A couple of highlights by a quick scan with LZ:

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


LZ seems to think that I have an advantage on the board, even after the invasion above, but seems to prefer this invasion:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . O O X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I suppose it's more open in that area. So I should remember that, when invading like this - approaching the 4-4 is not always the best starting point.

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


LZ still thinks I'm ahead after the extension above, but prefers going further - I do, too, after I see it:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . O O X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So I should remember that I don't have to always follow the traditional ideas about not "touching" a stone when I'm extending.

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


LZ still thinks the board is OK for me, but doesn't like playing away from the top left. It recommended this move:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . O O X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So I guess the takeaway is that, even though it's only a single weak group, it's bigger to protect the weak group than to take corner points.

---

LZ also agrees that I should have protected the bottom left - even earlier than I was thinking. Basically, as soon as I killed the bottom, I should just protect the bottom left to ensure that it stays dead...

So overall takeaways from this game:
1. Same idea as before - don't be arrogant, and protect when I need to; AND
2. Some technical aspects of invading are different when comparing my intuition to that of LZ
3. Protecting a weak group can be bigger than taking a big point, even if protecting the weak group seems small...

That's all I've got.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness


This post by Kirby was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1496 Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:38 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
I was scheduled to play in the AYD on Tuesday, but we have been busy lately. My in-laws are coming on Sunday, so we've been preparing for that a little bit. My opponent was gracious enough to allow for us to reschedule the game to today.

Here is the game we played:


One spot in particular sticks out to me as a big mistake on that part, so I'll highlight mainly that. I don't think that my choice here was good at all:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . X X . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . X O , O . . . . O . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . X X X O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . O X O X . O X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X X X O . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , O . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . a W O O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X O X X X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . X . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I think playing at 'a' is the only reasonable choice. I invested in the middle, so I can just take it - why let him break in there?

I'll skim through with LZ, now...

By the way, I finally went ahead and bought a couple of monitors for my laptop. It's very nice to have a big screen to play go on. Much better than going through the laptop. Analysis is better, too, because I can have the game open along with any other tools I want. External monitors - highly recommended :tmbup:

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1497 Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:46 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Some thoughts from LZ (omg, this is so easy with two monitors!!)..

Position 1
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . W , O . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


It seems that my thought about attacking the two stones on the left immediately might have been off. LZ wants me to play on the top:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . W . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


From what I can gather, it seems that the reason is that with my move, black might ignore (indeed, LZ recommends it):
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , O . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So even though I have this plan of attack, I can't get it if black plays in this way. However, after black responded, LZ agreed with my game move:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , O . . . . , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So I take from this that I overplayed, but it turned out OK since my opponent just answered me.

This is the most interesting aspect that I gathered from my skim through the LZ analysis.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness


This post by Kirby was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1498 Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:39 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Another move that I thought about a little bit later. I checked it with LZ, and LZ seems to agree that this might have been at least a more complicated variation for black to opt for:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O X X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O X O O X O X X . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . X O X O O X O O O . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . X X X O O X . . X O . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . O . . X O X X B . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . O X O X X . X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X X X O . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , O . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X O O O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X O X X X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X X O X X . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I didn't think of this move until a few minutes ago. Not sure if it'll work, but as white, I'm a bit more nervous.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Kirby's Study Journal
Post #1499 Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:54 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8623
Liked others: 1485
Was liked: 1461
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
I had a bit of a hiatus in my routine - my in-laws came to visit on Sunday, and we had to do some preparation for their arrival. I think I should be free to do hobbies for a little while, now - they'll be with us for 3 weeks.

Inseong reviewed the game I posted against AaronP, and had the same advice for me as usual: I don't seem to have the objective of winning the game, but I have the objective of invading my opponent's area, or trying to kill a group. In that game, when Aaron's group became weak, I didn't need to put everything on the line to kill - I could have stepped back and just thought about how to win the game.

Reflecting on that, I wanted to acknowledge to Inseong that I'd try to play a calm game for my next AYD match. I said that I'd try not to invade deeply, or to do anything super fancy. I'd try to just play calmly.

Here is that game:


My attempt to do this early in the game might be characterized in this move (and the couple leading up to it):
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , X X . . . X . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I just tried to surround some territory on the right. I have the desire to invade the top, without regard to my groups, but I felt this would be something Inseong would just tell me was too aggressive, again. So I went for calmly trying to take territory on the right.

But in the review, Inseong said that he appreciated my idea, but that I should aim for being even more passive. He recommended this:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , X X . . . X . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . , O . . . . , . . . . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


It's lower, less ambitious, and is more clear than the loose move that I played.

...

I should stop now and take note of something. Inseong's recommendation of move here is not necessarily his idea of the best move on the board, but rather, it is his idea of a good way for *me*, a typically aggressive player, to play. He said that with more study and game experience, I will probably get there on my own, but I have been stuck at around the same level for a very long time. I've hit a wall. And he thinks that trying to calm down a bit and be passive will be a shortcut for me to overcome that wall. As it stands, when I am aggressive and play overplays, it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Out of 10 games against equally ranked opponents, maybe it'll work 5 times. So I stay at the same level. Maybe eventually this style can break through the wall that I have, but he thinks that it'll be easier to overcome the wall if I try to achieve a more balanced way of playing. I think that if I do more problems and get better at reading, that's another way... But that's been my thought for years, so maybe I should try something new.

Anyway, I digress...

After killing the right side, Inseong thinks the game is good for me, but I have to avoid dying. After this move:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , X X . . . X . X . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O O X X X X O O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . O X . X O O X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . X O O . O X . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . O O O O O X O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X X X . X X O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X X O O O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X O O X . O X . X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . O . O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . X O O . O O . . |
$$ | . . . , O O O . . , . X O . X X O O . |
$$ | . B . O . X X . . . . . O X . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I thought for some time about the double hane, and didn't think that it worked. I was afraid of this:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , X X . . . X . X . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O O X X X X O O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . O X . X O O X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . X O O . O X . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . O O O O O X O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X X X . X X O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X X O O O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X O O X . O X . X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . O . O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . X O O . O O . . |
$$ | . . . , O O O 5 8 . . X O . X X O O . |
$$ | . X . O . X X 1 4 7 0 . O X . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . 6 2 3 9 X . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wm11 now what?
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , X X . . . X . X . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O O X X X X O O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . O X . X O O X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . X O O . O X . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . O O O O O X O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X X X . X X O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X X O O O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X O O X . O X . X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . O . O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . 2 . . X O O . O O . . |
$$ | . . . , O O O O X 1 . X O . X X O O . |
$$ | . X . O . X X O X O X . O X . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X O O X . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After getting here, I didn't seem to be alive, but I overlooked that black was also low on liberties. Inseong pointed out a continuation:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wm11 i should be ok
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . O , X X . . . X . X . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O O X X X X O O . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . O X . X O O X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . X O O . O X . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . O O O O O X O O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X X X . X X O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X X O O O X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X O O X . O X . X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 4 . . X X O . O . O . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . 2 3 . X O O . O O . . |
$$ | . . . , O O O O X 1 . X O . X X O O . |
$$ | . X . O 5 X X O X O X . O X . . X X . |
$$ | . . . 7 6 . X X O O X . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 9 . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So anyway, I failed that. even after that, i had a chance to kill the top, but I failed that, too. So I lost out tactically.

---

My feeling during the game started out as trying to be calm, but when provoked by the opponent - when I wanted to try to kill the right, and got into that mindset... It was hard to shake for the rest of the game. So I can't say that I played in a "calm" way after that. I still had ambition of killing his middle group, at the expense of my own....

---

So from here, I can think of two ways to improve:
1. Get better tactically. Double down. My traditional study, outside of games, is to do go problems. That being said, it's true that I slack sometimes. I don't do enough problems every day, and I skip some days. If I keep going every day, that's gotta help.

2. Try to find a way to study that will induce me to play calmer. Inseong thinks this is a faster way to overcome my wall... So to do this, I have to think.. Why do I play aggressively? Upon reflection, I think it's because:
- I treat local areas on the board like go problems. My natural course of study is to do go problems - black to kill, find the tesuji, etc. So while this is good for my skill, maybe it has some effect on making me lose site of the big picture.

Considering these two, trying to be objective, I still have the feeling that #1 is the way to go. Problems are hard for a reason - they are training and make you stronger. I think I've just slacked off too much with them.... BUT, I have held this philosophy for years, and no change has happened. I don't think it's a very scientific approach to just go on my theory that go problems are superior way to study, and keep with it forever.

And I don't have a major tournament I'm preparing for right now (I won't go to the Cotsen this year, because I'm coaching soccer). It's a long time until the US Go Congress. So why not do a small experiment? I will review pro games - a study that I feel is kind of useless, sometimes - for 30 days. And not modern pro games, where things seem to have a more tactical/aggressive feeling. I'll pick older games. I was scrolling through games that I have, and I kind of like games by Ishida Yoshio. Not sure if I'll keep with him or not.

Anyway, my resolution is this: Review one game a day, memorizing the opening, and thinking about it a little bit. This will have a priority over doing go problems - I'll still try go problems if I have time. But I think it's worth a shot to do a small experiment with what I have long believed to be a study having little value. No tournaments coming up, so why not.

That being said, here is the first game I went over today at lunch:
Day 1: Cho Chikun vs. Ishida Yoshio


Interesting game. A couple of things stuck out to me:
Position 1
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | B O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . O . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The marked move above seems obvious, but it's kind of cool to me - not sure if I would have thought about it in the game - maybe I would have. Anyway, it prevents this:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . 2 O 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . O . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So why not?

Position 2
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O O X . . . . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . O X . B X X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O X . O O X X O . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X X X . . X O O . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O X . . . X X O . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . , . . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . X O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . O . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . O . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


This move surprised me - I thought, what's the matter with playing here?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O O X . . . . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . O X B . X X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O X . O O X X O . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X X X . . X O O . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O X . . . X X O . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . , . . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . X O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . O . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . O . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Seems OK for black to me. But my interpretation is that after white connects, white can clamp:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W black tenuki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . W O X 1 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O O X . . . . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O . O X X . X X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O X . O O X X O . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X X X . . X O O . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O X . . . X X O . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . , . . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O O X . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . X O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . O . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . . . . O . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So the move in the game is a little better for that. I don't totally get it, but it's my interpretation.

That's all I have for now. Seemed to be a pretty calm game. But I guess that's what I'm aiming for. Maybe I'll get some inspiration :salute:

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1499 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group