nachtrabe / Baduk Blog

Sub-page of Nachtrabe

Baduk (바둑) Blog

This is for my ongoing progress in the world of Baduk.

Table of contents Table of diagrams
What kind of tesuji are we talking about again?
White has just played the marked stone, black to play
above position evolved like this:
move "a" above occurs when ...

another, follow-up aji
above position evolved like this:
any aji is gone
Hashimoto Shoji vs. Chen Zude, B+R
Inconsistent play?

25 July 2005

SDK

Well, I've removed the ranking on the nachtrabe account and mostly use that one for discussion and game review. I have a ranked account that is presently at [6k?] though I think that is overrated. Still, I have beaten an 8k in an even game and another 8k in a no komi game as White. We'll see if I can hold on to something in this range, but it seems safe to say that I'm somewhere in the lower SDK range.

Jeongseok and Anti-Jeongseok of Baduk

One trend I have noticed among a lot of players when they get into the upper-to-middle SDK range, particularly if at some point they overestimated the value of jeongseok at some point, is to go through a period where they not only distance themselves from jeongseok, but become totally anti-jeongseok. The saying is always the same, that they are trying to account for the "whole board position" or that they dislike the jeongseok because it isn't "secure" enough or "fast" enough for them, and so they either tenuki or make up another move that is not jeongseok but feels either "faster" or "safer."

No specific thoughts on this yet, just an observation.

20 July 2005

Tonight at Go Club

Played one of our (AGA) 1k players at 5 stones and won and played a 5k in a Kadoban 1H game and won that as well (so our next game is going to be even).

The first game was difficult--I always feel like I am just losing ground continuously against him, and that it is just a matter of whether I can preserve enough of the initial advantage from my handicap stones and keep him from living in ridiculous ways/places that defines whether I actually beat him. I was slaughtering him at our last few at six stones, and tonight I won by 10, so we will see how things go from here.

The game against Matt was trickier. I screwed up (badly) a basic L&D sequence in one corner after I ignored a peep to inflict a fair amount of damage elsewhere (albeit in gote). I read that I could live, I did manage a living shape, and then lost it. After this I started fighting to catch up and steadily gained ground. Late in the game, however, I did my classic trick of ignoring the connectivity of a large group of stones. It looked bad, but (somehow, luck) I a capture race was trigger between a group with an eye and a group without one, leading eventually to a win in the game by about 20 points.

I also played against a KGS 19k giving him 6 stones. I managed a win on that by having a huge number of captures.

So all in all a good night in terms of my play.

The Six Stone Barrier

One thing that I've been noticing is that I will get stuck at a six stone handicap with people. Seven is too many, but I will not be able to win at 6 for anything or we will go back and forth trading at 6--not quite to 7, but I can't get to 5 either. Then, something will break, and I'll drop to 5 and then to 4 very quickly. It just seems that 6 to 5 is a largish drop.

19 June 2005

Badger Badger Badger Badger...

I've played a few "wounded badger in a corner" games recently. The first was an even game against a [9k?] where I messed up, severely, when punishing a deviation from jeongseok and clung on to the life of two of my stones too tightly. By move 56 my opponent had enormous influence, 13 of my stones were either captured or might as well have been, and he had the entire SW quadrant of the board.

So I decided it was about high time that I started reading things out and figured I could at least see if I could turn the game into a fair fight. My opponent relaxed and started playing "not to lose" rather than to win. He started following my play around the board and gave me just enough leeway to get back up. By the time he resigned I was 30 points up.

Later on I played a [16k] (NannyOgg, who is widely considered underrated) giving her a six stone handicap (we normally just play at even, but I need practice against handicap stones). I won by 11.5 points--she relaxed and was playing passively.

I do it too--you get far enough ahead and you just kind of relax, but I'm growing more and more into the school of thought that, as one person put it, "when you have your foot down on the wolf's throat you don't let up the pressure."

Most pros and most go players seem to take the approach that you simplify when ahead to the point of letting up the pressure a bit just to secure the win. Lee Changho is famous for securing a half point lead. Others--namely Sakata Eio and Cho Chikun--take the opposite tactic. Just something I've been pondering lately.

Gah! Endgame!

My endgame is horrid. I don't know if it has always been this bad and the rest of my game improved so that it is noticeable by comparison, or if it has just degraded because I haven't been thinking about it, but it is really really awful.

Not enough points are involved in it for me to worry about too heavily, but I might glance over the subject matter a bit before going back into Attack and Defense.

13 June 2005

More Maek!

When I first studied any maek at all I looked at them and said "these are one-shot moves" and thought they were something special that just struck the user out of the blue.

Now I realize that they come up in every game that I play. Sometimes just seeing the maek is enough to become sensitized to its existence, and thus be able to see it in the game. Before you see it as a new player, many of these just simply don't occur to you as working moves--then you see it in play, see how to read it out and how it works when it works, and then you can start to see it in your games.

Coming to a close

I'm almost done with the Encyclopedia of Maek. Not quite through with it yet though.

I've also been going through Making Good Shape, and am surprised how often things in the Encyclopedia come up in Making Good Shape--sometimes down to the problems being exactly the same.

After this I'm debating. I had planned to go back and study Tesuji, but after losing a huge group last week at the club because of sloppy L&D, I'm thinking some L&D practice would do me good.

26 May 2005

I've gotten stronger...

How much stronger I have no idea, but I can tell from my play. Nothing specific stands out, other than the results. Invasions that I would have an incredibly difficult time with I'm now successfully confining, etc.

I know it won't last--just have to change my handicap... x_x

At the Go Club

1H from the guy I took 2H from the other week. I won by over 20 points. He got a lead in the opening--building a huge moyo (I did mention I'm territory oriented, right?) and then lost it in the middle game. The study of Tesuji is paying off.

Played the strongest player in the club at 6 stones, won by 6 points. I don't know if this marks 2 consecutive games or 3, but I might try 5 stones next time.

Had another couple of teaching games against a newbie. Those were more frustrating than usual.

Also played someone who has been coming for a few months, but took the last few weeks off for this mythical thing called a "dissertation." We couldn't agree what handicap we played at last time (I remembered beating him at 9 stones, he remembered it being six) so he puts down 9 stones... me and my big mouth. So I played aggressively to make up the handicap--picked a series of fights where I had a clear advantage. I won, but only because of getting much more than I deserved. If he'd tenuki and play more aggressively, I'd have been in deep trouble. I doubt I'll ever be able to beat him at 9 stones again.

Finally I played an even game against someone who is a rapidly improving 15k on KGS. He always plays me even, though he should take a handicap. I got an early lead because of L&D and just held on to it from there.

Whoa, Admitted Escaper

This marks the first time I've added someone to my noplay list--not for how they played against me, but because of how they played against someone else. Specifically, an escaper.

The game belonged to Black. Total dominance over most of the board, with White struggling for life in the middle with a semi-complex capture race going on. White is obviously on her last legs, and B makes a mistake--a classic Dohsuji: tenuki at exactly the wrong moment. Obviously an intended play.

The following exchange took place:

 F 13k?: played too fast
 F 13k?: may I cancel please ?
 l 13k?: no
 F 13k?: why not ?
 l 13k?: its your fault when you play to fast

Followed by several accusations and harsh words from F.

Now, I sympathize. I've made more than my share of stupid plays, but in memory I've never asked to take one back. That B would do it, when even after losing the capture race B was 30 points ahead on the board, was just baffling to me. It struck me as very rude.

Ten moves later, B said that he wasn't going to finish the game and escaped.

25 May 2005

More Maek!

Well I'm progressing steadily through the Encyclopedia of Maek--it's pretty nontrivial, but I finally figured out that it isn't strictly a problem book and is more like Tesuji in presenting multiple case examples of a particular Maek and stepping through them.

Really interesting stuff--there are moves in there I wouldn't normally consider, and it shows how they work out, so that (in turn) improves my ability to see them in games and to read them out in games.

[Diagram]

What kind of tesuji are we talking about again?

I've also figured out that translating certain key sections of the book is highly valuable just to know what kind of Maek I am actually looking at. The maek in this section were giving me all sorts of problems trying to interpret them, then today I wrote out the text and translated it using Systran:

 바둑의 모든 변화는 접촉으로부터 시작 된다.
  붙임에는 단순한 붙이기로부터 끼워붙 이기,
  코붙이기 등 여러가지가 있다.
  흑1의 붙임이 맥.
  백2면 3으로 젖힌다.

Quickly became:

 All changes of the baduk are started from contact.
 It attaches to it is simple and it attaches and from to insert it is Boot,
 the nose there is a back multi branch which it attaches.
 This pulse which black 1 attaches.
 It flings with 102 cotton 3.

My translation Minue:

 All of change(complex variations) starts from attachment(contact) move in Padook.
 There are various kinds of attachment moves from simple attachment to inserting attachment, and nose attachment move.
 Black move 1 is meak, if white plays 2, then black plays hane with move 3.

Alright, so computer translations have some issues ("It flings with 102 cotton 3" means what exactly?) but from this could discern the most important thing:

We were dealing with contact maek. Not any one specific kind of contact play, mind you (this, combined with that the first move wasn't always the maek, was what was tripping me up), but an array of different maek involving contact plays. Suddenly everything made sense! Suddenly I had a word for what I was dealing with, and I could remember it. Amazing how that works.

LoP Computer translation programs have problems with the double meaning of 백 They always translate it to 'hundred' so 'white 2' becomes '102'. If you have one of those korean books that come with a CD containg all the diagrams and comments you might be interested in a small programm I wrote. It generates SGF files from the proprietary format and adds english translations using a free translation WebService?. If you are interested feel free to contact me.

Study Order

Right now I am on a Tesuji/Maek kick and getting heavily into tesuji problems. I figure this is working on my tactics. I'm also working my way through 501 Opening Problems to work on my strategy. After this I think I'm going to move on to study attacking.

Random Reinforcement

One thing that are often complained about are Stubborn Play and Speculative Invasions?. I see this all of the time--random (generally aji keshi) moves are performed throughout the opponents territory, in the (vague) hope of having the opponent make a mistake or something materialize that is not otherwise there.

Since this involves random moves and not calculated plays, it is rare that the person actually gets anything out of this in terms of improvement, and it rarely works, so why do people keep on doing it even after being repeatedly told it is rude?

I theorize that it is because it randomly works.

One of the most effective means of encouraging a behavior is to "randomly reinforce" it--reward it some of the time, but not all of the time. This tends to lead to a much higher incidence of the behavior than always rewarding it--the subject can't be sure that it will work, but it does sometime, so he will repeat it many times.

I think this is one of the reasons why people will keep at a behavior they know is wrong in Go--because every so often, it works, and so they keep trying it hopes that it will work again. This is probably one way that Bad Habits are formed.

On that note: It is also why I think it is important to at least have a basic grasp of opening theory, to study the theory in the middle game (not just play), and to go over a few pro games even if it isn't immediately useful--it gives a little more of a feel for "proper play" and if six stones down the road it leads to one fewer thing having to be unlearned that 'worked when I was a 12k,' it was probably worth the up front investment. Is this true? Or am I just rationalizing my own behavior?

18 May 2005

Maeg!

I was flipping through the Maeg Encyclopedia, doing problems as I go, and I noticed something. Most of the time when I see "tesuji"-style problems they are of the form "rescue/capture group x" or "sacrifice a stone to gain sente" so this one caught me a bit by surprise (I did solve it after looking at it for a bit, but I wouldn't have thought of it in game, at least not before doing the problem).

[Diagram]

White has just played the marked stone, black to play

Looking at this, I know from experience that a is the more typical placement of the marked white stone.


[Diagram]

above position evolved like this:

tderz: I hope you don't mind that I clutter your blog.
If you do not like it, please move it to the 4-4-point Joseki page.

Above position evolved like this W1 as san-san invasion.

[Diagram]

move "a" above occurs when ...

tderz: ... white makes an attachment.
This are two different positions (Josekis).

nachtrabe: The variation I have listed from a professional lecture lists W7 at a in both variations, presumably specifically because of this cut.


The solution was interesting to me:


[Diagram]

No rescue, no capture, no killing stones, just using the aji to get a better local result. I know, silly, but I found it refreshing :)


[Diagram]

another, follow-up aji

tderz: if W6 here, Black has the aji of B7. (miai a-b)

nachtrabe: Why would W6 be played there and not at a?

tderz: Layer's reply "it depends" (on the circumstances).
To be aware of the aji will be the most important thing. Black cannot play B7 immideately (might end in gote) nor hang his sole/whole strategy onto it. The decision will be taken at a much earlier stage:

[Diagram]

above position evolved like this:

tderz: White's earlier choice at this stage is more important:
white a or b etc.?
[ext] http://www.geocities.com/mehmet2112/josekis-I.htm

[Diagram]

any aji is gone

tderz: If Black does not play the kikashi? tesuji immediately,
White takes the initiative with W1 (good sente)
whereafter the same cut Ba can be answered with Wb.

Something was wrong with the lines, I hope that I have not additionally messed-up.


14 May 2005

Korean Terminology

One thing I have been attempting to do is insert Korean terms into my blog and day-to-day conversations. This is not because I have anything against the Japanese terms, but because I follow the Korean play so much and practiced a Korean martial art, so it just makes sense that I would use Korean terms (e.g., I will never, ever think of a "Dojang" as a "Dojo"). On another level, I would also like to raise awareness to that there is "more than one way to say it."

There are a few other reasons but I'm too tired to put them down right now :)

11 May 2005

New Books!

On the way!

Most of those are instructional problem collections (and all but two of them are in Korean), and so I'm going to see how it goes working through them one at a time.

Shift in Study Focus

I've decided I'm going to focus on the middle game and make that the strongest part of my game. Life and death, tesuji, attack and defense, all of that.

The middle game is the trickiest part, so it is the hardest to improve in, but I think it will serve me best in the long run.

I'm not going to forget the opening, of course: I'm not happy with my opening right now and the opening sets the stage for the middle game--but it is not going to be the focus of my study. What I need most here are problems--I've done the jeongseok study and know the very basics of types of pincers and direction of play (a gutchim radiates in this direction, etc), I just need practice and some guidance on these issues. I'm hoping that 501 Opening Problems will provide that for me.

The endgame etc I'm not so worried about right now. I'm relatively happy with my endgame for my level.

Tonight at the Baduk Club

Won every game I played, three of them to what boils down to luck. First game I took 2 stones for and got slightly behind (I completely botched reading out a fight in the NW corner), then managed a capture in another corner in the endgame when he missed a connect-and-die (Mol-A-Tteor-Gu-Gi). He resigned immediately.

Next game was a four stone game against a 6k. I just went down from 5 stones and last week was the first one I played against him at 4--I lost that one. This week I botched a capture race on one side and figured that I needed an invasion to catch up. I did a (fairly reasonable) invasion between two stones with a 3 space gap on the 3rd line. He could have just put pressure on my group and let me connect, but he decided to go for it all and encompass my stone whole. This lead to a huge, multi-part fight that covered half the board by the time we were done. First there was the battle to keep either of our stones from connecting out to the closest group (we both succeeded at this), then there was the battle to take away eye space from his group (I managed to win that while cutting the group off), then there was a capture race with my weak group in the corner (I lucked out, he performed a one space jump to connect that gave me a forcing move I could use for extra liberties, he could have connected differently and I don't know whether I would have won had that happened), then he formed an eye and put pressure on my outside group, which was now disconnected from everything. I managed to link that up in a ko (the ko was so large there were only local threats).

My opponent felt like he has lost track of the game--the fight was too big.

Then I spent some time teaching two new people how to play. Always fun :)

Finally I played two games against someone I took five stones from when I started at the club--now we're playing even and if I can win one more time we go to H1.

First game I played as black and played a mini-chinese after opening on the two 3-4 points. Haven't ever done that before, but may start to play a bit with it. He opened a parallel fuseki and let me take a fourth of the board with my mini-chinese framework--whoops.

The second game I played white and he played a diagonal fuseki. This was a fighting game. I got a bit behind but he kept playing aggressively, so I took advantage of some of the mat (aji) and broke in to his moyang, then managed to split an eyeless dragon off from the rest of his group. I won that game by about 20 points. Lucked out again.

Theory of Tactical Bubbles

Last week at the club I got into a conversation with a stronger player and a weaker player about a theory of mine involving a player's focus.

In the very beginning the new player sees "the board"--it is huge and intimidating. So she narrows her focus to try and understand very small, individual regions of the board and thus locks herself into a kind of "tunnelvision" regarding these tactical bubbles wherever the opponent plays. Often, when that player first starts doing this, those bubbles are so narrow that even adjacent groups that have a huge affect the fight (as in--can connect to the stones she is focusing on) go totally ignored because they exist outside of the very narrow tactical bubble.

As the player gets stronger, that tactical bubble expands, slowly creeping outwards--adjacent stones, adjacent groups, surrounding groups, groups that affect ladders... each in turn.

Somewhere in all of this, the player also realizes that her focus is too limited--she is locked into a tactical bubble and it is costing her the game against stronger players even when given a huge handicap. So she adjusts her focus. She still has that little "tactical bubble", but now she is beginning to think in strategy.

The "Strategic Bubble" works exactly like a tactical bubble, except in reverse. Where most players start the tactical bubble unable to see stones that aren't directly connecting the last play, for the beginner--once the strategic bubble develops--see the entire board. She focuses on picking the "correct side" or picking a pincer that doubles as an extension. They look for what they perceive to be "big plays."

So from here as she gets stronger her tactical bubble will widen--she will start to consider things like "will the ladder work" more moves in advance. Meanwhile, her strategic bubble will get smaller: Big moves on the board, a feel for some urgent moves, etc, until she's thinking about whether the move will adversely affect the growth potential of an adjacent group by engaging in a "family feud."

Obviously a theory in development, but what are your thoughts on this?

I like the terms you're trying to introduce. I think one of the most common things weaker players say in a review is: "I need to step back away from these little fights."
The question here is, what is the relation between the tactical and strategic bubbles, and whether they are really two seperate things that need seperate terms. By the time you're considering long distance ladders, it's like we've wandered into the realm of big-board strategy.
Either way, I think it's safe to assume the tacitical bubble springs into existence once the capture rule is learned, and perhaps we can say the strategic bubble begins weakly the first time we're told to "go for big points first." We could then call hitting shodan roughly when it all is supposed to come together. But long before shodan, and even after, there might be the 'vision' of proper play, but no practical ability to manifest it. -Agilis

nachtrabe I believe that they are different things for kup-level players. Just like someone can come out evenly or even ahead in a local context but have generated an enormously favorable result for the other opponent--they were thinking tactically, not strategically. Strategic thinking involves "I want a wall here to attack that group" tactics is "I will use a leaning attack against this strong group to build up a wall" followed by "This is where I will place my stone and the sequence that will follow it to take advantage of my wall." Tactics is local while strategy covers the board.

I believe that whether the ladder works is in the realm of tactics simply because you play in a local context based on if the ladder works--pure tactics, despite that the considerations for it span across the board.

There is, of course, a lot of overlap in these terms--particularly for stronger players or when we start talking about things such as "where is the best ladder breaker." Things like that would be on the edge, integrating these two concepts, while with stronger players I imagine that the line simply gets blurry.

7 May 2005

Haengma, The Book

[ext] Moved

The Trouble With Book Reviews...

One of the difficulties I continually run into when looking at book reviews by other people is that the people reviewing the books tend to be so clearly above me in level. A 2d reviewer may dismiss a book as trivial and not even review it when it is just the right level for someone like to be to use. This is further complicated by that books never seem to have clear guides as to when they should be read or who they will help the most. So, with this in mind, I'm going to start reviewing books as I go and marking them with my rank and saying how I like them, for me, at this point.

Hopefully someone, some day, will find that useful.

Velobici: Robert Jasiek's [ext] list has a entry for "when to read this book". Those entries are based upon playing strength. For example: read The Direction of Play (error see below) when you have attained EGF rating of 4k-4d.

With due respect to Jasiek, I have two basic problems with that list. First, Rank Improvement is on a relative scale--so while I know a ++ book is better than a -- book in his estimation, I have no idea if a -- book is actually a good book (e.g., Life and Death). Second, his "Topical Coverage" is based on a 9d professional. Since my Life and Death skills are far, far away from Sakata Eio's, I'm not sure this is an overly useful stat for me (the only book with a + in this category is the "Dictionary of Go Names"). So, while he gives me a range of ranks, he doesn't give me much to go on beyond that to decide if this is "the right book." A good resource and I do consult it before buying books, but not quite what I am looking for.

On a side note, I suspect that the book in his list Direction of Play doesn't refer to the Kajiwara book but rather to the [ext] Korean book on Haengma 방향감각.

Velobici: You are right! It's not The Direction of Play. Regarding Life and Death, at my currently level (11k KGS), I now understand why Life and Death is written the way it is and see that I have redo the book entire. Last time I looked at it seriously was when I was about 17k.

Yes, yes, I'm back!

I've been improving, but slowly. I've had a really busy couple of months and so haven't been able to focus as much time as I would like on the game, but now can get back at it full force. I've also kind of been stuck on a plateau, but I think I just started to crawl off of it after dropping to four stones against a 6k at the club.

I still go to the club every week, but haven't been playing as much online.

The Moving Bar of the Middle Game

One thing I've noticed is that, the stronger a person is, the higher they set the bar where "all that matters is" life and death and/or tesuji and/or the middle game. So a 10k will say that up to 20k all that matters is L&D and middle game. A 5k might say that up to 15k all that matters is L&D and middle game, while a 7d might say that all that matters for any kup-level player is the middle game. So how long is this the dominant factor?

We frequently seem to make 20+ point mistakes every other move in the middle game, so I can certainly see the argument...

IlyaM: Aren't these two related? Mistakes in middle game often lead to L&D. At least this is what I (4k IGS) see in my games.

15 March 2005

San-Ren-Sei and Pray

This is something I've noticed a great deal of among players at my level--when playing black, they set up a san-ren-sei and just pray that it works. They simply play the san-ren-sei and hope for the best (generally hoping that their opponent is very bad at reducing the framework). Against a lot of weak players, this will give an early territory lead that they hope to be able to sit on for the rest of the game.

You Didn't Really Want an Eye There, Right?

Played a game earlier where I was severely behind by completely botching reading a sequence out in the beginning and then spending a good deal of time investing in a loss right after that.

So I began to fight back. My opponent relaxed, I closed the game and took it from "W should resign, any time now" to "W has a slight lead." This was mainly based on my opponent making a couple of overplays that I might have let him get away with if I were ahead, but since I was behind I had to take advantage of every opportunity presented. Not insane play, just consistent and aggressive (albeit at one point I did have to pull life out of a hat).

The group I had been investing in a loss with required one more move to make it alive. I knew this when I made the group, but it was temporarily secure (the opponent couldn't play there without some approach moves). Well, the opponent made those approaches and I... forgot to play it, misread a false eye as an eye at a glance, and played as if that group were alive.

Whoops.

W+5.5 to B+67.5, just like that.

Suffice it to say I resigned.

Getting Back in the Swing

I took a bit of resting time with respect to the game, slacking off in my play and my study. I'm back at it now. Of course, now I'm losing as a result of the down time, but hopefully will get stronger faster now. I plan on playing more games each day, regardless of how I feel, and going back to doing L&D problems every day.

Game Review

I review all of my games. Good, bad, or ugly. I try to review every game at least three times:

  • Once shortly after the game takes place. Here I am going over things while they are still fresh in my mind. I know where it feels like I did poorly, here I can look at those exact spots.
  • Once a few hours after. Now I can be a little more objective, but still have it at least a little fresh in my mind.
  • Once at least one day later. After having slept on it, thought about other things, etc I come back to the game and look over it as objectively as possible.

Some things I've noticed in doing my own reviews and watching others do reviews

  • It is really tempting to go off into fantasy land and play "what if" scenarios where my opponent doesn't play in any way closely resembling good play--they do what I want, not what my opponent would have plausibly done.
  • It is equally tempting to only look at what I did right and my opponent did wrong.
  • I spend entirely too much time berating myself.

The first I rarely get into. Particularly the long and protracted sequences that some people seem to enjoy (one person I saw reviewing a game we had just played was using tesujis etc trying to see who would have won the game). I still don't think I give my opponent a fair shake, but I really do try to remain objective and think in terms of "black" and "white" so that if I do go into an "indulgent sequence" I still take the time to work out the "correct moves." Or at least that's what I tell myself.

The second is more of a problem, particularly when reviewing for myself. It is difficult to avoid, but staying as objective as I can helps.

The third I do too frequently. It doesn't help my play and it just makes me feel bad. I suffer enough from depression and self-criticism without having to suffer it in this part of my life as well.

7 March 2005

3-3 Point in 2H Game, Take 2

I managed to find two professional games with the exact same setup I described the other day (W plays a 3-4 point, B plays the 3-3 point), both from 1962. The first was between Hashimoto Shoji and Chen Zude (result B+R) the second was between Kitani Minoru and Ko Eikichi? (result W+5).

Interestingly, the games both followed the exact same pattern to start out:

[Diagram]

Hashimoto Shoji vs. Chen Zude, B+R

  • W plays on the east side (from my diagram below) and, when that sequence is finished (in one case it is immediate because Kitani Minoru plays the enclosure (at a), in the other Hashimoto Shoji plays a mini-chinese framework (shown in the diagram).
  • B plays one below the northern hoshi point.
  • W plays an extension of some sort from her framework.
  • B plays a one space jump to the center.
  • W plays a knight's move approach on the NW stone from the open side.
  • B Plays an attachment.
  • W jumps into the corner, and the exact same joseki ensues up to B9.
  • For W10 Kitani Minoru played b instead of the move marked in the diagram.

On the Pro Scene

I really do not understand what the organizers of the Erectron-Land Cup? are thinking. First they set up a series of preliminaries that are single elimination, but they take the top cut from each (single-elimination isn't good for that kind of thing: if you are a strong player, but your first round draw is against the top performer in your preliminary you are out), then they have really weird pairings in the single-elimination tournament now that it has been seeded: The top performer from Preliminary 3 (Choi Cheolhan, 9p) is playing the top performer from Preliminary 4 (Cho Hyeyeon, 5p). Meanwhile, the top performer from Preliminary 1 (Cho Hunhyun, 9p) is playing someone who was eliminated early in Preliminary 2 (Yi SeongChae, 7p) and Rui Naiwei, 9p (who was 2nd in Preliminary 4 after Cho Hyeyeon, 5p) plays Lee Haijin?, 1p who already lost to Rui Naiwei, 9p in the 2nd round of Preliminary 4).

Alright, so in single-elimination these should all factor out (assuming strength is absolute, which it isn't, and that the stronger player always wins, which also isn't true), but this is still just downright weird as far as tournament organization is concerned.

In other news. China won the Ing Cup for the first time with Chang Hao, 9p triumphing over Choi Cheolhan, 9p 3-1.

6 March 2005

Consistent Strategy

Once someone gets to about 20k or so, they often feel compelled to "experiment with different ideas" because they aren't getting any stronger, and so they need to try different things until they stumble across one that works.

The problem is that the things that they try often have absolutely no relevance to strategy or overall board position--they are "just experimenting with new things."

There's a fine line here. If you keep trying new things with no rhyme or reason--particularly within the confines of a single game--you never get good enough at any one strategy to know if it works or know any of the strategy or tactics that go with that approach--you never get any stronger. You play inconsistently (e.g., in a game I was reviewing the person played cross-hoshi and then try to build a moyo).

On the other hand, I find that the best way to know if something works is to play it consistently until I figure out what the rest of the board has to look like for it to work. This can be a hard slog, but I find it helps if I see what the board looks like after playing that way.

So the trick that I learned from the shodan--and have been recommending--is to play one style of poseok and getting good at the variations, tactics, and play that tend to arise from that style. Always play a certain way so that you understand the style--how it works, where it works, where it breaks down. Then, when you stall out and feel you have nowhere to go with that style, try something else. Expect to lose strength in the transition, but consistently play a certain way until you understand it.

Anyways, sorry if this is a bit incoherent ^.^;; Visions of DNS routers and Óðinn's [ext] Ravens are flying through my head (unrelated, of course, but still)...

Inconsistent or balanced?

[Diagram]

Inconsistent play?

One issue that I've been pondering is one of consistency in play. There's a fine line between play that is "inconsistent" in strategy and play that is "balanced" in its approach, and what one person considers inconsistent another person considers balanced.

This came up because I played at 2H against the aforementioned 7k, and played a 3-3 point as my first move. I've done this opening before, and like it because it gives me a hard little lump of territory that I don't have to worry about and that can work as a base for fighting on the side (secure groups being a blessing). I won the game by resignation.

He remarked in the review that the 3-3 point seemed inconsistent with the two 4-4 points, which are more influence oriented. I'm not so sure. Inconsistent, or balanced?

Shaydwyrm: I'm not sure about inconsistent vs. balanced, but the reason I wouldn't like to play at B2 is that it makes the right side by far the most attractive place to play on the board, and white will now get the first move there. If B2 were at the 4-4 point, for example, black then has lots of attractive moves to choose from all over the board which make his stones work together.

Velobici: Nachtrabe, your suspicion that the 3x3 play is inconsistent wiht the two 4x4 handicap stones is correct. The two 4x4 stones are influence/power oriented whereas the 3x3 seeks territory -- a territory with limited possibilities for development. That said, Gobase.org does contain two games in which Black played this way. One win. One loss. So its not impossible to play inconsistently and win. :)

Recreating Games

I've gotten substantially better at recreating my own games in person with another player, as well as on my own. Last week at the go club I had a question about something that happened about 30-40 moves in to the opening from a game I played online and managed to recreate the opening to that point (any farther and I was just sunk though). After playing the aforementioned game in the last section, I recreated the first part of the game entirely on my own!

Playing for keeps

Last night I was talking with a friend about a "fear to play Go" that sometimes overcomes us. It isn't a "fear of losing" or a "fear of winning" or even a "fear of conflict"--it is a fear related directly to the game itself.

When I went to [ext] war every year, I would get it in the mornings before the fighting started. A kind of adrenal fight-or-flight rush that, once we got into the scenarios, would turn into a full fight feeling but beforehand was more of a flight rush. In SCUBA the equivalent feeling is called "pre-dive gitters" and they can actually keep you from diving if you aren't aware that they will go away.

I don't know what it is, but it is interesting and I was surprised (perhaps foolishly) to find that I'm not the only one who gets that way.


See also /OldBadukBlog.


This is a copy of the living page "nachtrabe / Baduk Blog" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2005 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About