| Life In 19x19 http://prod.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13295 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | EdLee [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Marcel,  Maybe C6. The left has little to develop; just settle --you just want sente ASAP.  C6. Maybe S7 -- you're looking at S14.Force W to live in the corner in gote. ( I even considered S14 for  . ) Maybe Q9 ( still waiting for S14. ) Maybe P10. Maybe P13. By now I already feel B did something wrong,got pushed around. W gets thick in the center. Maybe was a key moment...( The proverb does not always apply.If the fight is not good for B, just extend could be better. ) |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
My general comment would be you play a bit too bookishly, going through the motions of standard shapes and sequences you know rather than striving to find the best move in the actual game position. If you played with the full handicap for a 4k vs 2d of 5 stones than maybe this approach would win, but with a reduced handicap of 3 you need to try harder. A few more concrete comments: -  it's the opening and you can kinda do whatever you want here, but I would say this is the start of the problems. You have 3 unapproached corners. Which is the weakest? Lower left, as it's nearest white's strong group. Which is the strongest? lower right. Help your weaker not stronger corner first. So k4 would be a moyo style move for this, or c6 if you prefer territory and reduce white left potential. Or f4/d6 if you like that one space jump.-  with this pincer white's jump will aim to use the left group thickness and your groups are getting split. d6 makes c8 an obvious nice move for white. On move 18 did you check the ladder? White's jump and shoulder hit is an overplay if you have the ladder after push and cut. It narrowly misses top right hoshi though.-  is a nice kick, but you failed to make sense of it. The meaning of this move is it makes f3 heavier and makes c3 harder to go in, so white ought to g5 defend after m3 (maybe with n5 first). However, for move 27 he tenukied, so...-  looks nice enough (bookish), but how about g5? Actually it's probably ok, but don't forget about g5. The problem is the r3 invasion remains. After 32 you can think of attacking the r11 group and r3 as miai, but if white does r3 are you confident you can get enough profit from attacking? Where to start? p11?-  this is again very bookish, and following white around too much. Normally the kosumi has a follow up to press at d9 or pincer and attack c8, but here he already has d11. How about making sense of your e3 move with the g5 wedge? If you connect through at f4 your group is safe and if he then slides at b6 just tenuki and p11 attack or q3 close or whatever. As the game went white stole all the territory and eyes in the corner and your g5 was late and inefficient.-  time to stop and think. Stop following your opponent around the board. This white corner is barely alive, but he also has a weak group at r11. You should stop, think, and plan a way to mash these together for fun and profit. So one idea would be to simply tenuki and attack p11. If white runs out and you get a stone around r7 then you can kill the corner with your r2 and connect as in the game. But maybe white would just tenuki p11 and s6 jump? Does that make you sad? If so why not play s6 yourself, white barely lives in the corner, it relies on s5 being sente with the r6 wedge. It seems not unlikely that after white takes gote in the corner you can attack the right side group and make s5 not sente, so you could then kill the corner. And of course by attacking the right side group white's chances of making anything in the centre would evaporate.
|
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Marcel Grünauer wrote: I considered k4 and c6, but then thought of "play away from thickness", and remembered reading (ha! bookish again) that you should play as far away from a thick position as possible. Like so?  Whilst that might seem flippant and extreme, I was actually rather shocked you took "play away from thickness" as justification for not playing the lower left corner. The sort of move that proverb advises against would be something like a, but actually a is a fairly reasonable move because that white shape is not so thick towards the side: black aims at b which has miai to connect with c/d (though white might try hane below d), though I wouldn't recommend it so early in the game (note that this is because white chose e13 which is thick towards the centre, rather than the more common b14 which is thicker to the side so black a would be a lot smaller as not much follow-up). So play away from thickness might suggest playing e, which develops the corner whilst limiting white's potential on the left side. It might even suggest playing further away with f, though that feels a bit odd to me. There were cases on this forum with similar positions though in the past where I advocated a move like e and Bill Spight suggested f instead to stay away from thickness. Marcel Grünauer wrote: ... also didn't think the lower left hoshi stone needed help. It doesn't need help, but some prophylaxis is wise in handicap games. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Uberdude wrote: Marcel Grünauer wrote: I considered k4 and c6, but then thought of "play away from thickness", and remembered reading (ha! bookish again) that you should play as far away from a thick position as possible. Like so? Whilst that might seem flippant and extreme, I was actually rather shocked you took "play away from thickness" as justification for not playing the lower left corner. The sort of move that proverb advises against would be something like a, but actually a is a fairly reasonable move because that white shape is not so thick towards the side: black aims at b which has miai to connect with c/d (though white might try hane below d), though I wouldn't recommend it so early in the game (note that this is because white chose e13 which is thick towards the centre, rather than the more common b14 which is thicker to the side so black a would be a lot smaller as not much follow-up). So play away from thickness might suggest playing e, which develops the corner whilst limiting white's potential on the left side. It might even suggest playing further away with f, though that feels a bit odd to me. There were cases on this forum with similar positions though in the past where I advocated a move like e and Bill Spight suggested f instead to stay away from thickness. Emphasis added. In this case I agree that "f" looks funny, and "e" looks good, with the extension to "a" in reserve.  As you say, White is not particularly thick towards the left side, because of the aji of the two Black stones there.
|
|
| Author: | dfan [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Marcel Grünauer wrote: Sonoda writes that because in the upper right White is absolutely alive, Black should play as far as possible from the white positions, which is also the reason he chose 1 over a. In your game the analogous move would probably be the center right star point (Q10). My default rule in 3-5 stone handicap games is: if I have sente, and I occupy two corner star points with nothing in between them, play on the side star point between them. It may not be optimal but it's hard to go too wrong with it. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
A few comments. Overall comment. You invited trouble, and White obliged. Examples: The right side is not urgent. The left side is. You could play Uberdude's suggestion of G-05, but the extension to C-09 is also good, threatening to undercut White on the upper left side. is another example. A simple low reply at C-06 is good, as is a wider pincer, such as J-04 or K-03. As I have said, C-06 threatens to extend to C-09. (I don't mean that the one space low pincer is bad, but it invites trouble.) prevents easy life for White in the corner, but also asks for trouble. You get it when White cuts your R-09 stone off. Just push through. Give White some trouble.
|
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
dfan wrote: Marcel Grünauer wrote: Sonoda writes that because in the upper right White is absolutely alive, Black should play as far as possible from the white positions, which is also the reason he chose 1 over a. In your game the analogous move would probably be the centre right star point (Q10). Eh?? Applying the lessons of Sonoda's position to the game would suggest playing k3 (rather than the k4 I suggested), though it's worth noting white is thicker in Sonoda's example. Marcel's move is more like Sonoda playing here: |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Quote: I considered k4 and c6, but then thought of "play away from thickness", and remembered reading (ha! bookish again) that you should play as far away from a thick position as possible. There may be cases where the relevant advice can be phrased that way, but it's highly abnormal. The usual wisdom is "not to approach thickness" (厚味に近寄るな) which means something radically different. And if you do know Japanese you might ponder why the usual verb is chikayoru and not chikazuku (the nuance may perhaps be conveyed in English by saying "don't get too close"). That of course ignores the question of whether there was really any thickness there in the first place, as opposed to infuence
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
There are a few things going on here. There are the question of approaching thickness and the question of approaching a living group. (There is also some ambiguity about what a living group is.) There are both tactical and strategical considerations. First, if you play too close to your opponent's thickness (in the concrete sense of the term), you can run into tactical difficulties. In a fight the thickness provides a haven for his stones and a trap for yours. Second, if you play too close to your own thickness, your play can be inefficient. You make territory which your opponent will not invade, but it is too small. In many cases what you would like to do is to play just far enough away that he will invade, and then you can attack his invasion. If he makes a misstep you can smash him against your thickness, if not, you can profit from your attack. BTW, the chances to profit from attacking tend to diminish as the board becomes settled. You can build up strength from the attack, but have no place to cash it in. The question of playing close to a living group is related to that of parts of the board being settled. (Like many concepts in go, being settled is a question of degree.) It is fine to approach a living group if you can do so with sente. But if the group is settled enough so that you must approach it in gote, your approach either has no follow-up or only a relatively small follow-up. The lack of a good follow-up diminishes the value of your approach by comparison with other, similar approaches. Furthermore, an approach with a follow-up which is an approach to settled group is worth less by comparison with other, similar approaches. And a play with a follow-up that is an approach with a follow-up that is an approach to a settled group is worth less than other, similar plays. Etc., etc. This is a strategical consideration which also applies to thickness, since concrete thickness is settled. Let me illustrate with a variant of Sonoda's diagram. I have added a stone for each player in the bottom right. White's bottom right corner may be alive, but it is not yet settled.  is playable. By comparison,  is almost suicidal, because of the tactical possibilities for White, and the lack thereof for Black. may be lukewarm, but it has a good follow-up with  . may not be suicidal, but it is still too close to thickness. It's follow-up to  is small. is better than . is certainly far enough from White's thickness to avoid tactical problems, but is better.Similarly, is better than .Now let's take away the stones I added. may be a bit strange, but it is better than .Likewise, is better than . Some people may play on the theory that it "kills" White's thickness. But it is not the best play on this board.What we are seeing is that plays in the bottom left quadrant are better than corresponding plays in the top left quadrant, because of White's thickness. At first glance, is so far away from that thickness that it seems to carry the idea of playing away from thickness to the point of absurdity. But the strategic point is that its development is less hampered by White's thickness than that of many closer plays. Strategically, playing away from thickness or settled groups may well make sense even when the play is so far from thickness that the effect of the thickness on it is very small. So to play in part because it is far from thickness is not so dumb. But is that "enclosure" as good as this one, which is closer to the White thickness? I think not, because this one works better with the  stone in the top left corner. Being closer to it is more important than being closer to the thickness.And here is even better, because of the influence of the stone. What of Sonoda's idea that is better than "a"? I doubt it.Mainly because invites  , which is potentially aided in its development by the White thickness. By comparison, the refutation of would seem to me to be an invasion, such as . It is true that may benefit from the White thickness, but not enough, I believe, to justify it over an approach from the top side.
|
|
| Author: | Jhyn [ Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Bill Spight wrote: is certainly far enough from White's thickness to avoid tactical problems, but is better.I am pretty dumbfounded by this. I would feel pretty confident that 3 is better, confident enough to teach it to a weaker player, and I try not to do these kind of things lightly. Would you say the same if the bottom right exchange was not made? And do you mean that in the original position, given the choice, you would prefer R6 over C6? |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Jhyn wrote: Bill Spight wrote: is certainly far enough from White's thickness to avoid tactical problems, but is better.I am pretty dumbfounded by this. I would feel pretty confident that 3 is better, confident enough to teach it to a weaker player, and I try not to do these kind of things lightly. Would you say the same if the bottom right exchange was not made? I did, but the logic is not as clear. Quote: And do you mean that in the original position, given the choice, you would prefer R6 over C6? No. The R-06 - N-03 exchange was made to provide clear comparisons, as the borders of the third line extensions are the same for both the top and bottom sides, not because I thought that R-06 was the best move.
|
|
| Author: | Jhyn [ Sun Jun 19, 2016 12:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Bill Spight wrote: Quote: And do you mean that in the original position, given the choice, you would prefer R6 over C6? No. The R-06 - N-03 exchange was made to provide clear comparisons, as the borders of the third line extensions are the same for both the top and bottom sides, not because I thought that R-06 was the best move. Sorry, that was ambiguous - My question was about the position after move 11 of the original game. The feelings that lead me to play F17 in the position above seems to be the same that lead me to play C6 at move 12 of the original game. You said C6 looked good without more detail about what you considered the best move. Would you mind detailing your thoughts about that? |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
Jhyn wrote: Bill Spight wrote: Quote: And do you mean that in the original position, given the choice, you would prefer R6 over C6? No. The R-06 - N-03 exchange was made to provide clear comparisons, as the borders of the third line extensions are the same for both the top and bottom sides, not because I thought that R-06 was the best move. Sorry, that was ambiguous - My question was about the position after move 11 of the original game. The feelings that lead me to play F17 in the position above seems to be the same that lead me to play C6 at move 12 of the original game. You said C6 looked good without more detail about what you considered the best move. Would you mind detailing your thoughts about that? First, let me say that Uberdude's advice to shore up weakness is good, practical advice for handicap games. Handicap fuseki is not the place to strain after gnats, looking for the best objective move. Unlike Uberdude, I have no particular quibble with . Not my move, but Marcel is playing his game. But I think that is asking for trouble.IMO, the keima is fine, with securing the corner and extending on the left side as miai. Black could even try the kick first, to bolster the corner and take sente. Probably not best, but practical. That said, let us strain at gnats a bit. The question is vs. .I have added some stones to give White a group on the right side, so that and are both approaching (at a distance) White groups. Both groups are settled.The approach, , looks better than to me, since it threatens to slide at "a" or to connect at "b", and take advantage of the aji of the  stones. For that reason I prefer to However, in the situation in the actual game, approaches a settled White group while does not. Instead, approaches . It works with , utilizing its influence. For that reason I prefer .My feeling is that sanrensei is probably best, but which one? Hard to say. White's thickness radiates strength towards the center and right. is in the line of White's thickness, but is closer to the settled White group. Both want to develop towards the White group. The development of runs into the strong White wall, while the development of threatens to undercut White on the side. So I lean towards . And besides, it is more practical. 
|
|
| Author: | Jhyn [ Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Three-stone handicap game 4k-2d |
I seem to have some wrong rooted instincts around this area. Some of your suggestions will take some time for me to digest. Your generosity is very much appreciated. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|