I'm no stronger than you, so do with this as you will, but I think I may have some thoughts worth sharing. (hopefully we're thinking of the same thing when we say solid style...)
otenki wrote:
When playing stronger oponents I realise that playing moyo fighting is extremely difficult so now I'm trying to change to a "solid group" (teritory + influence) style.
To me, the solid group style and the moyo style are just two sides of the same coin because, imho, they both require you to look at the board in the same way. Both styles are about preparing for later fighting.
-A moyo player tries to expand their influence in such a way that they can profit from an opponents invasions.
-A solid group player tries to build positions that can support later invasions/attacks. (This often means pre-emptively countering what your opponent will gain after you invade.)
otenki wrote:
So when playing this game I thought well white can expand on the board as fast as he wants, I'll invade and live later. For now I'll just create strong groups.
Maybe I'm reading too much in your choice of words, but I think this may explain where you're going wrong. You don't "just" create strong groups. You need to plan for future invasions/reductions etc and make sure you're strong where you need to be strong.
Take move 15 as an example:
1. Black is already strong here, so this doesn't actually further your goal of creating strong groups.
2. I agree with skydyr: this strengthens white. It's very nearly a contact move, and naturally induces white to strenghten his stone by playing an actual contact move. Since strength is relative we could say that this is actually working against your goal of playing solidly.
3. I'm not saying it's the best move, but imagine you invaded the left side later. (D8 maybe) White would have to strengthen the D10 stone, or your strength at the top could allow a severe attack later, but that strength also means that his group will have little hope of further profit. Conversely, you'll find it much easier to settle your stones because white can't attack as severely, and the resulting group will be better positioned to affect what happens in the more empty portions of the board, where both players have potential for development.
The same ideas apply to move 11:
1. Your top group is already relatively solid.
2. You still have option of creating another solid group on the bottom. Letting white play there first pretty much guarantees that you'll have to make a weak group there later. With this in mind I would take a long term view and treat playing on the bottom as the solid option.
I could be way off with all this, but I hope it's at least some food for thought. 
|
