Kirby's Study Journal

Kirby · **#641**

Bill Spight wrote:

:b19: What were you thinking? I know, you gave some variations. But really, what were you thinking!

I was thinking that the left was bigger than the bottom.

I lived on the bottom, and white's influence didn't seem that useful. White got ponnuki by capturing my stone, but in the game, I got to tenuki twice.

Bill Spight · **#642**

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

:b19: What were you thinking? I know, you gave some variations. But really, what were you thinking!

I was thinking that the left was bigger than the bottom.

I lived on the bottom, and white's influence didn't seem that useful. White got ponnuki by capturing my stone, but in the game, I got to tenuki twice.

If the left was bigger than the bottom, why approach the bottom left corner from the bottom side? Why not play a wedge on the left side, for instance?

Also, if you are concerned about the left side, why not play :b11:

at D-03 instead of C-03?

And why not play :b17:

at G-03 instead of G-02?

Kirby · **#643**

Bill Spight wrote:

If the left was bigger than the bottom, why approach the bottom left corner from the bottom side? Why not play a wedge on the left side, for instance?

Well, I got the bottom, and also a position on the left - so I got both.

I took a bit of a hit on the bottom by not extending and letting white atari the stone, but it seemed less big to me after living. After that, white can't make a big position on either the left or the bottom.

Kirby · **#644**

I thought I'd use my study journal as an outlet to let out some thoughts.

This isn't about a game I played or a review, so I'll just ramble from within the hide tags, mostly for myself - I dunno, I guess I seem to get some pleasure from airing my feelings publicly.

---

wineandgolover · **#645**

Hi Brian,

As you know, improvement once you are dan is much harder, with thick walls, and it can be frustrating. If I were you, I wouldn't give up on improving, because I still think that is a reasonable and achievable goal, for you especially. But it might be worth finding another way to appreciate the game at the same time.

I like the idea of trying something different, which is one of the reasons I started making videos. Before making a video, I have to really understand my blunder, and be able to play through all the variations from memory. This is a far more comprehensive approach to understanding my mistakes than I've taken before.

Will it help? Not the way I'm doing it now, because I'm hardly playing go at all. (I will try to fix that when I get back from Thailand.)

Is it fun for me? Yes, it's kind of a new way for me to appreciate go. Plus, I feel like I'm giving something back to the community. And I get some nice feedback which always feels good.

I imagine that there are many ways to enjoy go, without improvement being the only goal. I see the appeal of studying pro games as one approach. Another is perhaps using your web-skills to build a utility that would be useful to go players around the world. I am sure there are many suitable second purposes (in addition to improvement) that will help your appreciation of this great game.

Finally, I am confident you have a few more stones improvement in you. They'll come naturally if you don't stress too much.

Good luck!

Solomon · **#646**

Everyone blunders; I don't need to embed the video of the 9p who self-atari'd on live television right?
You should not judge your progress on just that game. Some suggestions for self-analysis to see your progress:
1. Review several meaningful games you played a year ago; can you see any moves you made then you wouldn't make now?
2. Solve a set of tsumego, and time yourself how long it takes to come up with the answer for each problem. Come back a year later and see if you're able to solve them more quickly. You should also store away some tsumego you barely seem unable to solve, and see if you can solve it the next year.
3. Have someone as a checkpoint (i.e., rival) that you can use as a reference point to see if you're doing better or worse against that person.
You may be studying hard, but are you studying effectively?
1. Do you apply the concepts you learn from Hwang Inseong's lectures immediately into your games and do your best to integrate them long-term?
2. Are you solving tsumego that's neither too easy nor too difficult?
3. Are you reviewing ALL of your games, rather than just the AYD games?
Regarding your two options, I already mentioned your first one (Improve study efficiency). Regarding your second one (Decrease expectation), don't decrease expectation, but change it. It seems like your expectation is tied too much to results. Instead of winning more games, your expectation could be:
1. To just play more beautiful games.
2. To help you understand pro games better.
You still need to improve to do this, but you won't be focused so much on results.
Lastly, you should believe 100% that you can and will improve. Gotta have the right mindset.

Kirby · **#647**

wineandgolover wrote:

Hi Brian,

As you know, improvement once you are dan is much harder, with thick walls, and it can be frustrating. If I were you, I wouldn't give up on improving, because I still think that is a reasonable and achievable goal, for you especially. But it might be worth finding another way to appreciate the game at the same time.

Thank you. I think I needed to hear a response like this. It's also nice coming from someone I've met in person.

wineandgolover wrote:

Not the way I'm doing it now, because I'm hardly playing go at all. (I will try to fix that when I get back from Thailand.)

Man, I am getting envious of your travel!

Kirby · **#648**

Solomon wrote:

[*]You should not judge your progress on just that game. Some suggestions for self-analysis to see your progress:

Review several meaningful games you played a year ago; can you see any moves you made then you wouldn't make now?
Solve a set of tsumego, and time yourself how long it takes to come up with the answer for each problem. Come back a year later and see if you're able to solve them more quickly. You should also store away some tsumego you barely seem unable to solve, and see if you can solve it the next year.
Have someone as a checkpoint (i.e., rival) that you can use as a reference point to see if you're doing better or worse against that person.

I like your ideas of comparing games or problems attempted from a long time ago. Seems like a more reasonable data point to use than a game I played last week, for example.

I also like the idea of having a rival, but I'll have to think about who it should be. When I first learned Go, I had a rival that brought me up to about 5k. It would be nice to have that type of motivation, again.

Solomon wrote:

Do you apply the concepts you learn from Hwang Inseong's lectures immediately into your games and do your best to integrate them long-term?

Not always. Before getting burnt out, I actually wanted to consciously make sure I was learning from the reviews he did of my games. So I would go over the video, record each board position where he commented, then I saved each as eidogo links, and hacked in some quick javascript to pick random eidogo links and allow me to solve the problem. Effectively, it meant a randomized set of board positions, with each position asking a question relevant to his comment in the review.

This seemed to work alright, but I fell behind in doing this. Also, since it took some time to go through the review and input each board position, I'd spend more time inputting a new game than I did reviewing old board positions.

It was somewhat of a novelty, but I think I need to work harder to keep up with it.

For non-review lectures, there's a ton of content he has. I remember some things during games for sure, but I have by no means mastered any particular lecture.

Solomon wrote:

Are you solving tsumego that's neither too easy nor too difficult?

Sometimes, but maybe not consistently.

Solomon wrote:

Are you reviewing ALL of your games, rather than just the AYD games?

Usually, but these days, I (mostly) only play AYD games. I suppose I'm playing a Malkovich game, though.

Solomon wrote:

Instead of winning more games, your expectation could be:

To just play more beautiful games.
To help you understand pro games better.

You still need to improve to do this, but you won't be focused so much on results.

I agree it might be a good idea to adjust my expectation to something on a different dimension than winning. I have a hard time seeing beauty in games. I suppose I think games can be pretty cool, though, when things connect together to bring about a good result.

Maybe I could aim to play games that are "cool".

Pro games are a good idea, too.

Solomon wrote:

Lastly, you should believe 100% that you can and will improve. Gotta have the right mindset.

Thank you for the encouragement.

Bill Spight · **#649**

Kirby wrote:

I like your ideas of comparing games or problems attempted from a long time ago. Seems like a more reasonable data point to use than a game I played last week, for example.

When I was around 3 kyu I had a small booklet in which I religiously recorded my games, mostly from memory, so I often got lost after 100 moves or so. Years later, when I was 3 or 4 dan, I ran across that booklet and played over a few of my old games. I did not recognize my former self. What the hell was I thinking! :shock:

jeromie · **#650**

In general, I think that the decision to have hope is worth it, even if it opens us up to disappointment. And I don't think there is anything to indicate that your desire for improvement is unrealistic. Hopefully the struggle you are experiencing makes the eventual gain sweeter.

As an amateur, I think you're right to look for joy in the act of studying. But I don't think it follows that you shouldn't expect a return on your investment of time. I doubt the study will be a pleasant experience if there is no thought of potential gain at the end. You might need a different approach or a different way to measure your progress, though. IT sounds like you're already thinking of some ideas in that regard.

Charles Matthews · **#651**

Kirby wrote:

I suppose I should start trying to find some sort of intrinsic happiness in studying Go - just to study, without expectations of any sort of result...

Dunno where to start with that, though.

I think at certain times it makes sense to study the technique of the game, for its own sake (separately from the sporting aspect). If reviewing games was going to do it for you, it probably would have done by now.

Which bits of sequences would you find "running through your head", like a tune?

Kirby · **#652**

Bill Spight wrote:

When I was around 3 kyu I had a small booklet in which I religiously recorded my games, mostly from memory, so I often got lost after 100 moves or so. Years later, when I was 3 or 4 dan, I ran across that booklet and played over a few of my old games. I did not recognize my former self. What the hell was I thinking! :shock:

I suppose the effect would be significant, given that your rank difference was significant. If I looked at a 5 or 6 stone weaker version of myself, I think it'd probably be pretty clear that I didn't know what I was doing. But it's been quite awhile since I was 5 or 6 stones weaker, so I'd have to look back at games played several years ago!

jeromie wrote:

In general, I think that the decision to have hope is worth it, even if it opens us up to disappointment. And I don't think there is anything to indicate that your desire for improvement is unrealistic. Hopefully the struggle you are experiencing makes the eventual gain sweeter.

Thank you. I hope so, too.

Kirby · **#653**

Charles Matthews wrote:

Which bits of sequences would you find "running through your head", like a tune?

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Charles Matthews · **#654**

Kirby wrote:

Charles Matthews wrote:

Which bits of sequences would you find "running through your head", like a tune?

Could you explain what you mean by this?

I don't suppose I'm unique in this. I can visualise, to some extent, sequences on part of a go board, away from a set or screen. Unfortunately things I "read" in this way tend to need checking. I just thought that this was a kind of test for what you find interesting in the technical sense (joseki, life-and-death or tesuji, endgame).

There was a net I was shown in South Korea, which had a cute diagonal play in it, and I often casually try to reconstruct it in my head. As part of a project to collect examples of the 40 or so types of standard nets (allegedly) - which I maybe will never get round to.

Go is supposed to be a hobby, a way to socialise, a thing to study in its own right, a kind of portal to East Asian cultures ... The bluish spectacles with which you are viewing at present suggest a mismatch, of what it means to you, with what you feel you are investing in it.

My comment was meant as a mildly provocative inkblot test.

Kirby · **#655**

Nearly 5 months since I posted here last.
Nearly 2 months since I played a game on KGS - and that was an unusual one - a final game against crowis (about 4 months ignoring the required AYD games).
Over 2 months since I quit the American Yunguseng Dojang.
About 3 months since I was shocked by AlphaGo and went into depression/hibernation.

I decided to come out of hibernation, and start the engine going on this journal, again. Looking back, I was pretty ambitious last year. For awhile, I'd play a game every one or two days and post it here.

I am not at that stage yet.

But I am at the stage to committing to posting a game here about once a week. I've officially added it to my schedule. It will probably come either on Friday or Saturday most weeks. If I don't do it, please post here and remind me! (But I'll try to do it, anyway.)

Without further ado, here is the game.

I lost pretty quickly. It was my first game on KGS in a long time, so somehow KGS put me at [3d?]. When I was playing consistently, I was around 1d on KGS, and bordering on 2d on good days.

My opponent had no game record and was a [?] player. He said he was between [2d] and [3d] on KGS.

Anyway, I left analysis in the SGF file. Please feel free to review it and leave your own opinions and/or feedback.

I will post diagrams shortly. Because. Well. People like pictures.

Kirby · **#656**

Review Highlights

Position 1:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 17 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . O . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b a O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Somehow, things already feel somewhat dissatisfying. I played 'b', which gives no pressure:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 17 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . O . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

He can tenuki. On the other hand, if I exchange a pressure-giving move, I don't feel like I get much. Here:

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

there's a big chance he might attack me, as above.

So maybe I play on the other side:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . O . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , C . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ --------------------------------------- [/go But the value of the right area doesn't seem as nice as what black got with . Neither seem satisfying. --- Position 2: I like the idea of "probing" here: [go] $$ Position at move 19 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . O . X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But maybe it is too far. If it were one space closer, it'd be more useful in the variation in the game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 O . . . O . X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X 6 2 3 . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . 5 7 . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

OTOH, he might not select this variation:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . O . X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But it doesn't seem that bad to me, compared to the game.

----

Position 3:

Probably this is a mistake:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 21 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . O . X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , X W . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It's not clear to me that white is better, but this seems better for white with variations that I see (see the SGF):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 21 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . W O . . . O . X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X , X . . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I don't know for sure that it's better. But it seems nicer to me, given that my white stone on the left is poorly positioned for what resulted.

---

Position 4:
The following sequence is just ridiculous :-)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X O . . . O . X . 3 . . X . . . | $$ | . . X X X O . . . , . . . . X , X . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . 1 2 C X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Nothing really to say about it, except that it's a very bad reading mistake, and ended the game quickly.

---

In following my previous format, I guess I would think of the following things to learn from this game:
1. Carefully consider the position of the pincering type stone on the left.
2. Consider deviating from first-instinct (e.g. hane in position 3, above).
3. Don't make silly DDK (no offense to DDKs) sequences that end the game so soon :-)

---

I'm not really that upset about this game. Maybe I didn't have much expectation. But I am happy to play again. If I describe my feelings toward Go using Korean, I guess I'd use the word, "밉다" (meepda). In a Korean dictionary, it translates to English as "detestable", "hate", or "detest". But I'd describe the word more precisely in saying that it is more like having a love/hate relationship.

I love go. I hate go. I play go.

here i am.

wineandgolover · **#657**

Welcome back!

Why did you quit AYD? Is that decision permanent?

Kirby · **#658**

wineandgolover wrote:

Welcome back!

Why did you quit AYD? Is that decision permanent?

There are a couple of reasons, but they all had to do with my view on me studying go - nothing to do with the AYD itself.

And the decision was not permanent - I am on the waiting list to get back in :-)

oren · **#659**

You did violate Inseong's advice and started stuff early again. I'm sure you know that though.

Kirby · **#660**

oren wrote:

You did violate Inseong's advice and started stuff early again. I'm sure you know that though.

Mostly agree, except, in order to "start stuff", there has to "be stuff", and reality didn't match what was in my head in this case :-)

Kirby's Study Journal

Who is online