Kirby's Study Journal

Bill Spight · **#601**

It's hard to say much to White in a four stone game, because so much depends upon the errors of Black.

One play by White struck me as very bad: :w49:

It's not only aji keshi, it weakens White on the top side by provoking :b50:

. You can see how it affects the later fighting around :b84:

.

White played a very fast opening at first, which could have led to complications, but it soon evolved into a fairly simple opening. Too simple for a four stone game? I dunno.

Starting with :b12:

Black strengthened his bottom right corner. Then the skirmish :w23:

-

solidified the right side for Black. Later :b48:

, followed by the fighting up to :b90:

extended and strengthened Black's lower right framework even more.

I bring this up because of your comment at :w91:

and later jump to K-06. You often seem to want to butt heads with your opponent where he is strong. Sure Black's right side is big. That's in no small part the result of your decisions. You strengthened Black in the bottom right corner, then you strengthened him on the right side, then you strengthened him in the center. What did you expect?

I liked :w41:

It extended the White framework on the top while reducing the Black framework on the left side and preparing to invade there. But of course that strategy allowed Black to enlarge his territory on the right side. Your invasion with :w91:

was consistent with your earlier decisions. I was quite surprised when you were contemplating playing where Black was strong instead of invading where he was relatively weak.

Anyway, you took away a good bit of the left side to make a fairly close game, which is what White is generally supposed to do. I can only congratulate Black on a game well played.

Kirby · **#602**

Thanks for the comments, Bill.

What sticks out the most is the idea that I fight where the opponent is strong.

I agree, and I don't know why I do it.

Maybe I don't think much about the relative strength of stones?

Charles Matthews · **#603**

Kirby wrote:

I lost against a KGS 4k today. Here is my review.

You seem pleased to capture: but actually I think you must extend.

This area turns out not to be quite big enough in the game, anyway. It isn't clear that you reacted to :b10:

in a strategic way: your play would be the answer if the reply was at D6. You could instead play D5 to build up on a bigger scale. If Black invades the lower side, you have a good play at Q2.

:w21:

If you want to do anything with the R14 stone, the timing is wrong. If you played at Q13 and Black cut, you could be happy with what is left behind here. Up to :b30:

you have thrown away points. :w33:

is too early.

:w39:

Again the scale is too small. Black's kick isn't good, but you don't take full advantage. How about K11? Black at O16 can be answered by pushing up on the N line, sacrificing the right-hand stones; and you have D15 in reserve.

:b90:

is slow, but the game is now tough for White, despite Black's weaknesses in fuseki. Black's two sides are bigger than your two, Black probably has the edge in thickness.

Black didn't cave in the fighting: but in a sense you gave static targets to shoot at.

Kirby · **#604**

For those that have been following this journal, you may know that I've been losing.

Accordingly, my rank on KGS dropped to 1k.

I played against KGS 1k today, as 1k. I lost, again.

Here's my review.

The review isn't that in depth. My physical condition isn't that great. Or maybe that's an excuse for not thinking very hard (though, it is somewhat true).

Kirby · **#605**

I've been thinking about why I've been losing lately.
Actually, I didn't deliberately think about it so much as a thought came to me as I watched a bit of one of Haylee's Youtube videos. For those of you that don't know, Haylee is a pro that does video streaming of the games she plays on Tygem. As she's a pro, she often wins, so it's fun to watch her talk about her thought process.

Anyway, I started to think about the some of the differences between the way that I play go, and the way that she plays go. Of course, she's much better at reading, and can evaluate the board position much more precisely.

But what stuck out to me was her attitude during the game. The biggest difference in thinking that I can notice in her playing style and mine is that I am constantly thinking of the result. I don't have a problem in making myself try to count points in the game, which is good for evaluation.

But perhaps I think of the result too superficially. When I get into a local skirmish, I feel like I'm rushed to get past the skirmish, and move on to the end of the game. Haylee, on the other hand, strikes me as being much more patient, taking her time to play the best way for each move in the game. Even if she knows she's ahead, she plays without rushing the game - like savoring each local battle.

With thoughts like rank, winning and losing, and finishing the game on my mind, I feel I rush the game, overlooking the basic and proper way to play.

I will play another game soon. And I plan to play it properly, without rushing to the end of the game. I think Haylee would do it that way, and I'd like to try, too.

Kirby · **#606**

I played against KGS 1d today. I tried to be patient with this game, but I still lost.

I misread some pretty simple areas... So yeah.

Anyway, here is my review.

ez4u · **#607**

Kirby wrote:

I've been thinking about why I've been losing lately.
Actually, I didn't deliberately think about it so much as a thought came to me as I watched a bit of one of Haylee's Youtube videos. For those of you that don't know, Haylee is a pro that does video streaming of the games she plays on Tygem. As she's a pro, she often wins, so it's fun to watch her talk about her thought process.

Anyway, I started to think about the some of the differences between the way that I play go, and the way that she plays go. Of course, she's much better at reading, and can evaluate the board position much more precisely.

But what stuck out to me was her attitude during the game. The biggest difference in thinking that I can notice in her playing style and mine is that I am constantly thinking of the result. I don't have a problem in making myself try to count points in the game, which is good for evaluation.

But perhaps I think of the result too superficially. When I get into a local skirmish, I feel like I'm rushed to get past the skirmish, and move on to the end of the game. Haylee, on the other hand, strikes me as being much more patient, taking her time to play the best way for each move in the game. Even if she knows she's ahead, she plays without rushing the game - like savoring each local battle.

With thoughts like rank, winning and losing, and finishing the game on my mind, I feel I rush the game, overlooking the basic and proper way to play.

I will play another game soon. And I plan to play it properly, without rushing to the end of the game. I think Haylee would do it that way, and I'd like to try, too.

Do you watch Littlelamb's videos as well? I think they might be good for you, particularly his willingness to just make normal moves when the action is slow and to 'just take some points' when he isn't satisfied with the available attacking moves. All of us 'sharpies' have to learn sooner or later that keeping sente with plays that help our opponent more than they help us is self-defeating. At our level, sente can be more of a disease than a strategic concept.

Kirby · **#608**

Some Highlights

Position 1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 39 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X B . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I totally misread this, thinking it would be a net if he extended.

Instead, I think I should play elsewhere for now.

Maybe one of these:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 39 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X . . . . . . . B . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

OR

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 39 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

One of those seem better.

Position 2

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 53 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Given the stones in the center, I think that this is the wrong direction. Instead, I think I should try to play a more global move like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 53 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . B . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . . . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

At least it seems more consistent with the weird stones I have in the center.

Position 3

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . O . , B . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This move was naive of me, and white punished it well.

I'm thinking I should either connect to the center:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . B . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . O . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Or extend first:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . B . . . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O . O . , . . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Maybe extend high, since it could help the stones in the center.

Position 4

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 113 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O X . B . O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X , X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O . O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think this move is bad, and just gives me a weak group. I should probably cut my losses and try to get a bit of profit:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 113 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . O . . . 4 . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O . . O X . 2 1 O 3 5 . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X , X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . O . O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I lose some, but at least I don't have a weak group there to save.

Position 5

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 145 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O O . O X . X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O X X X X X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X . O O X O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X O O O . X O O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O X O . . O . O . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . B O . O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This move is naive, and shows poor reading.

Instead, I think this is better:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 145 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X O O O . O X . X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O X X X X X O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . X . . X X . O O X O X . . . . . . | $$ | . . B . X O O O . X O O X O . X . . . | $$ | . . O X O . . O . O . . X X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . | $$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . X O O O X . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . X O . . O X X X . X . . . O O X . X | $$ | . . X O O O O O . . . . . . O X X X . | $$ | . X X X O O X X X X . . X X O X . . . | $$ | . X O O X X O . O O . O X . X O X . . | $$ | . O . X . X O . . . O . O X . O X . . | $$ | . X . O . X O . . . . O . O . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

---

Overall Feeling

I've been told in the past that reading isn't the solution to all of my problems in Go. However, I think it was the biggest problem in this game.

If I want to be a dan player again, I need to beef up my reading.

Besides, if I suck at reading, do I really want to be a dan player anyway?

Kirby · **#609**

ez4u wrote:

Do you watch Littlelamb's videos as well? I think they might be good for you, particularly his willingness to just make normal moves when the action is slow and to 'just take some points' when he isn't satisfied with the available attacking moves. All of us 'sharpies' have to learn sooner or later that keeping sente with plays that help our opponent more than they help us is self-defeating. At our level, sente can be more of a disease than a strategic concept.

Interesting comment, ez4u. I have not watched Littlelamb's videos. Maybe I'll watch one today when I exercise.

I guess a 'sharpie(y?)' is someone that takes sente to help the opponent. I haven't been thinking much of that these days. I remember wanting to have gote a long time ago in this thread, I think.

I'll have to think about it some more.

Kirby · **#610**

Not really because I don't want to think now, but because I don't want to miss my ride.

ez4u · **#611**

From your previous game...
Normal is 5 below. In the game you allowed White to capture the cutting stone too easily. The result was that all you got was the corner, a disappointing result for the taisha. Your opponent didn't really understand what was going on since the main point of the descent at 2 is to be able to jump as far as 'a'.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O 2 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X X 1 3 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the game you played at 'a' below and speculated about 'b' instead. How about 5? The 3-3 is always strong and Black's low position on the right makes the bottom uninteresting.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X . . . | $$ | . . b . . . . . . . . . . . X O O O . | $$ | . . . a . . . . . . . . O O O X O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . 1 X . X X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Again you played 'a' below and speculated about 'b'. Settle your stones while undercutting White! If White protects the upper left, you protect the upper right.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . b . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 5 . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . X O O . 2 . . . . . . . . O X . . . | $$ | . X X O . 4 . . . . . . . . X O O O . | $$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . O O O X O . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . X X . X X X X . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

ez4u · **#612**

Kirby wrote:

ez4u wrote:

Do you watch Littlelamb's videos as well? I think they might be good for you, particularly his willingness to just make normal moves when the action is slow and to 'just take some points' when he isn't satisfied with the available attacking moves. All of us 'sharpies' have to learn sooner or later that keeping sente with plays that help our opponent more than they help us is self-defeating. At our level, sente can be more of a disease than a strategic concept.

Interesting comment, ez4u. I have not watched Littlelamb's videos. Maybe I'll watch one today when I exercise.

I guess a 'sharpie(y?)' is someone that takes sente to help the opponent. I haven't been thinking much of that these days. I remember wanting to have gote a long time ago in this thread, I think.

I'll have to think about it some more.

I don't think that any of us take sente to help the opponent. Unfortunately too many of us end up helping the opponent just to take sente. :grumpy:

SoDesuNe · **#613**

I feel you could go a bit back, before your first highlight.

:b11:

White should just give way with E4, letting you push from behind, harming F3. As far as I know this is why you don't try to cut here.

:b27:

Complicated but I think this move is a bit crude. It gives you the wedge but personally I'd try F5 maybe (even more complicated? ^^). Giving White forcing moves up to the second line hurts.

Kirby · **#614**

SoDesuNe wrote:

I feel you could go a bit back, before your first highlight.

:b11:

White should just give way with E4, letting you push from behind, harming F3. As far as I know this is why you don't try to cut here.

:b27:

Complicated but I think this move is a bit crude. It gives you the wedge but personally I'd try F5 maybe (even more complicated? ^^). Giving White forcing moves up to the second line hurts.

Regarding

, I thought he would give away with E4 as well, and I'd be fine with capturing his two stones in a ladder. As far as I know, him blocking to begin with is a mistake since I have the double approach. It's not terrible for white since it hurts F3 like you said, but I prefer my position after capturing two stones.

Regarding :b27:

, I didn't consider F5, but I think I like it better. If he cuts, the F5 stone leaves more problems in his shape, and if he allows me to connect, I get more profit than in the game... So I like F5 better.

Kirby · **#615**

ez4u wrote:

I don't think that any of us take sente to help the opponent. Unfortunately too many of us end up helping the opponent just to take sente. :grumpy:

The more I think of this, the more I find relation to the thought that I should be more patient during games, taking things a little bit at a time.

If I am patient, and just make sure that, little by little, I get the better deal in local exchanges, it's probably a more stable way to win the game.

When I become hurried, and eager to play elsewhere - maybe to take sente like you're saying, it's a lot easier to make a bad exchange, and lose out.

So I think I need to take the game little by little, trying to make good exchanges along the way.

But this only works if I can read out what gives me a good exchange - which is another problem evidenced in recent games I've had.

Kirby · **#616**

ez4u wrote:

From your previous game...
Normal is 5 below. In the game you allowed White to capture the cutting stone too easily. The result was that all you got was the corner, a disappointing result for the taisha. Your opponent didn't really understand what was going on since the main point of the descent at 2 is to be able to jump as far as 'a'.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O 2 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X X 1 3 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the game you played at 'a' below and speculated about 'b' instead. How about 5? The 3-3 is always strong and Black's low position on the right makes the bottom uninteresting.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X . . . | $$ | . . b . . . . . . . . . . . X O O O . | $$ | . . . a . . . . . . . . O O O X O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . 1 X . X X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Again you played 'a' below and speculated about 'b'. Settle your stones while undercutting White! If White protects the upper left, you protect the upper right.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . b . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . 5 . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . X O O . 2 . . . . . . . . O X . . . | $$ | . X X O . 4 . . . . . . . . X O O O . | $$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . O O O X O . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . X X . X X X X . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I like your last two ideas.

Regarding the taisha suggestion, I'm still thinking about it. It seems complicated to me.

Kirby · **#617**

A couple of posts ago, ez4u brought up the idea that it might not always be a good idea to give the opponent so much, just to take sente. I suppose the question to ask myself is, then, why do I give my opponent significant profit in order to take sente?

The question has been on my mind for a few days, but I hadn't thought of a good answer. Until I realized that I didn't play enough Mario 2.

What am I talking about? That's probably a question on your mind. Perhaps it'd be useful if I provided some additional context.

Yesterday, Inseong gave one of his Monday lectures. Occasionally, he hides the lecture topic for "theme ideas". In these types of lectures, he doesn't discuss any particular joseki or opening. He introduces a new way of thinking. The concepts are somewhat abstract, with several applications. Pretty good stuff.

Anyway, as the lecture progressed, I soon realized that the topic was perfect for me. One of the biggest indicators? Inseong used positions from at least 3 of my games as examples. There are over a hundred members of the Yunguseng Dojang, and members play several games. But for this particular lecture, multiple examples from my games were chosen. Surely, this is a topic that I need to reflect upon.

The topic was not about taking sente or not taking sente. Rather, it is about strengthening your own position and not your opponent's. By in large, this is a big problem area for me. Out of Inseong's examples, there was one instance where I utilized this philosophy. I'm black:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Moves 56 to 65 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . O . . O . X . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . O O O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . , . . . . O , O . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . X X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . O . O O . . . X . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . X 6 X X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . 4 . 8 5 . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . O . 0 9 . 7 X . . . X . , . X . | $$ | . . . . . X . . 3 . a . O O X . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . 2 . 1 . . O X . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

and

are these types of moves. Instead of trying to push down the opponent and forcefully attack around the 'a' area, simply strengthening oneself effectively weakens the opponent.

In contrast, here is an example in which I did *not* follow this principle (again, I'm black):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 51 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 5 . X . O . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . 4 3 O X . . . X . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . 2 1 O X . O . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , O X . X O , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . X . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I directly use brute force to cut his stones, and my opponent utilizes the weakness of my cutting stones to strengthen himself.

There are several other examples that Inseong brought, but as they are not my games, and it is his lecture, I won't share them all here.

But there is clearly a pattern here:
* Strengthen yourself --> Opponent can get (relatively) weaker.
* Directly attack your opponent --> You can get (relatively) weaker.

Now there are certainly circumstances when a direct attack is called for. But in order for such an attack to work, sufficient strength is a prerequisite.

Thinking about this led me to the conclusion that this was a lot like a particular aspect of Mario 2. Notably, the "crouch jump". Characters on Mario 2 can jump in different ways. Luigi can jump very high, but in a less controlled fashion. The princess can kind of hover for awhile in the air, but the jump isn't as high as Luigi. Toad can't jump high, but he's very controlled. Mario's kind of average.

Anyway, each player has their own unique ability, and their own jumping height.

But in order to jump really high, you can use the down button to crouch first. After you do this for a few seconds to power up, you can jump much higher than you could before.

The moral of the story is, if you calm down, take a bit of time to "power yourself up", then you can jump higher than you could dream of jumping otherwise. In some ways, this reminds me of ez4u's comment about sente. If I keep trying to push the opponent - sente, sente, sente, sente, sente... Or if I keep trying to attack the opponent - hit, hit, hit, hit, hit...

Then I can never realize the effect of truly jumping high. If I want to do a super jump like you can do in Mario 2, I have to calm down, gather myself, power up, then attack.

So next game, instead of "sente, sente, sente, sente, sente", let's look for opportunities to calm down, gote for a bit, then do a super-charged attack from the power I've obtained.

Mario 2 style.

Kirby · **#618**

It's been about 15 days since I played a game for this journal to review (i.e. a ranked game on KGS). The reason is kind of shallow. I felt bad about moving down to 1k, and then losing to 1k.

Anyway, I guess I felt a little less shallow today, so I played a ranked game on KGS against KGS 1k.

I happened to win, but I missed what I feel to be a big ko threat for black. I thought about it while he was looking for a ko threat. He didn't play it, so I guess it's lucky.

Here's my review.

Kirby · **#619**

Highlights

Position 1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 32 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . X . O . . . X . X . . . | $$ | . . W . X . X . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I played the marked move. I feel it is slack. But I don't know what is better.

As mentioned in the SGF, it's not clear to me if the peep is working OK:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Position at move 32 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . X . O . . . X . X . . . | $$ | . . . . X a X . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I feel black might not respond at 'a', and it's not clear to me if I can come out ahead...

So, while I think my move in the game is slack, I'm not sure what's better.

Position 2

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 40 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . X . O . . . X . X a . . | $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . X X O O W . O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I played the marked move, and I saw the ko. I thought I could ignore any threat he'd give me (thinking mostly that he'd take 'a'). But I didn't anticipate the threat here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 46 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . B . . . X . O . . . X . X . . . | $$ | . . O O X X X O X O . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . X X O O O . O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . X . X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I don't know if he saw it or not, but while I was waiting for him to move, I felt it was a good threat for him... So maybe going for this ko is unreasonable.

Instead, perhaps I can just play simply:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 40 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . X . O . . . X . X . . . | $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . X X O O . . O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . X W . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I'm still splitting his groups, and it doesn't seem like a terrible situation. And it seems much less risky.

Position 3

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 52 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . X O O . . . X . X X X . | $$ | . . O O X X X O . O . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . X X O O O O O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I played the marked move aiming at a weakness in his shape. But it's much too naive to think he'll respond to the threat of cutting.

I think it's much better to put in less pressure to let him live easily, but to instead take influence in the bottom left:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 52 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O . X O . . . . O X X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . X O O . . . X . X X X . | $$ | . . O O X X X O . O . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . X X O O O O O . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . W . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . X , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The marked move seems like a better strategy globally - and it seems much less naive.

Shaddy · **#620**

for 26, I think you have only two options: shoulder hit or cap. In the game, your group became very thin.

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online