Life In 19x19 http://prod.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
Review Request http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15643 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | BlindGroup [ Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:24 pm ] | ||
Post subject: | Review Request | ||
I haven't posted a game for a few months. I've been dealing with some health issues that seriously affect my ability to concentrate. I think I actually lose about 3-4 stones when I'm feeling poorly. But today I felt well, and I played one of those games where I'm fairly sure that my opponent resigned a won game. I think the game was fairly even until black 89, the losing move. If someone would be willing to take a look at this, I'd be grateful. In particular, I'm hoping for comments on moves 19, 39, 51, and 73, and to get a sense of whether my analysis of the ko at the end is correct. But of course, I'm happy to get any comments I can get!
|
Author: | dfan [ Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
Welcome back! ![]() If ![]() ![]() ![]() The ![]() ![]() ![]() I like playing moves like ![]() |
Author: | BlindGroup [ Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
dfan wrote: Welcome back! Thanks! dfan wrote: :b19:: In my experience, this sort of shape (backing off with a jump in a place where you and your opponent are elbowing each other in close contact, and you are pretty strong) is never right. Whenever my opponent plays like this my eyes light up. This move in particular feels super submissive. Are you sure you can't play O5? Your other thought of O6 looks funny to me from a shape perspective too. If ![]() I agree. In retrospect, I think I prefer O6 or O5 for 19. I was overly concerned about losing the two white stones in the lower right. That was also the rationale for ![]() dfan wrote: :b39: looks reasonable to me, but for ![]() The ![]() ![]() I'll have to think about ![]() dfan wrote: :b51: feels right to me. I like playing moves like ![]() Good to know. I considered the side attachment as well, but underneath seemed to provide more options. That said, I need to spend some time with positions like this because I don't feel confident in my ability to assess the various sequences. Thanks for your thoughts! |
Author: | EdLee [ Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Hi BG, ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Author: | ez4u [ Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:12 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
You cannot play a move like 79. White's profit and strength after cutting and capturing one stone are too good. For better or worse Black needs to make the hanging connection at 81, looking for a ko. However, there are not a lot of good ko threats around. You call 89 a bad move, but I think it is too late already. In your variation White can play much more strongly. White simply plays 3 below instead of 5. Black 4 is forced and now White 5 forces 6. After White 7, however, the situation is pretty much the same as the game where Black is going to be forced into White's wall. Plus later (assuming Black somehow lives) White can break into the top using the weakness at J15. Of course White should have played the ko at the end, but we all make reading mistakes. ![]() Before that White should have looked a little more closely at Black's potential eyes and other threats. White 104 was not necessary since Black could no longer either cut off the White corner or threaten to make two eyes. White at G8 would have been safer and White at H15 would have threatened to push into the top. White 106 at G8 would have left Black with no follow up and White 116 at B6 would again have left Black simply dead. In a sense you earned your victory by out-lasting your opponent. ![]() |
Author: | BlindGroup [ Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
ez4u wrote: You cannot play a move like 79. White's profit and strength after cutting and capturing one stone are too good. For better or worse Black needs to make the hanging connection at 81, looking for a ko. However, there are not a lot of good ko threats around. Thanks for your comments! What would have been the better option/strategy for 79? After 78, the board was as follows (black to play): I played A because I thought it then gave me the option of playing C in sente. But I see what you mean that white's cut at D is then too severe. I'm struggling with these kinds of situations and while I can see the problem with A, it's not at all clear to me what I should have done instead. For me, it also raises the question of whether or not this move for black was the correct strategy at 73. Or maybe my initial strategy on this part of the board was off. After move 50, this was the board, and I played A with the idea of playing something like 73 once the corner sequence was done: ez4u wrote: Of course White should have played the ko at the end, but we all make reading mistakes. ![]() I guess that this is not quite so obvious at my level. So, the confirmation is useful. When an opponent who is 4 stones stronger than you seems to disagree with my assessment, it seems possible that I'm not seeing the board correctly ![]() ez4u wrote: Before that White should have looked a little more closely at Black's potential eyes and other threats. White 104 was not necessary since Black could no longer either cut off the White corner or threaten to make two eyes. White at G8 would have been safer and White at H15 would have threatened to push into the top. White 106 at G8 would have left Black with no follow up and White 116 at B6 would again have left Black simply dead. In a sense you earned your victory by out-lasting your opponent. ![]() Such Pyrrhic victories are unfortunately fairly common at my level... |
Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
BlindGroup wrote: ... the question of whether or not this move for black was the correct strategy at 73... ... I agree with your logic. When no good move seems available at 79, it suggests that 73 was not correct. The attachment is way too deep. It commits you to making life in the shadow of his walls or running out of deep hole. A better way would be the cap: When he replies with likely 'a' or 'b', you attach on the opposite side with 'c' or 'd'. BTW, 'e' is a possibility also, making miai of reductions both west and south. |
Author: | ez4u [ Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
I think the "thematic" expectation in the position below is the hanging connection at ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Again theoretically speaking, if White answers ![]() ![]() ![]() As noted, however, a simple ko in this position is risky for Black. So what can we do instead? One idea would be to immediately play your peep at B15. How will White answer here? If White replies at ![]() ![]() (to be continued...) |
Author: | Bill Spight [ Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
A few comments. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Author: | ez4u [ Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
Well Bill stold the thunder from my "to be continued" in the mean time, but I will at least add a diagram. ![]() As Bill said, 29 in the game fills Black's own liberty. Black should just play ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() That is what happened in the game, although the different order of moves may have hidden what was going on. Moves have consequences. Way too often we fail to see the damage that we do to ourselves. Instead we fixate on how we are able to "push around" our opponents with moves like 29 in the game or respond (at Black 33) to their moves in order to "not let them get away with things". |
Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
ez4u wrote: Well Bill stold the thunder from my "to be continued" in the mean time, but I will at least add a diagram. ![]() Sorry, Dave. I always study your analyses. ![]() |
Author: | BlindGroup [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Review Request |
ez4u wrote: As Bill said, 29 in the game fills Black's own liberty. Black should just play ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Bill Spight wrote: A few comments. ![]() It took me a few days to go through these (work...), but I finally had a chance to do so this morning. Thank you both. Between the two of you, I even got answers to the questions I had about the other's comments ![]() |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |