|
So finished a game just now against a goon (not sure which one seamus_android is, sorry). I felt way behind early, but he let me get a bit too much influence in the middle and I actually made it somewhat competitive for the second half. https://online-go.com/game/4875921 I think what got me off on the wrong foot (and kept me there) was move 16. Should I have just capped at P6, trying to build a bigger bottom/central moyo? I felt like I was too desperate to reduce corners too. I lived small after upper left and upper right invasions, but probably would have been better off building influence on the outside instead of constantly pincering and invading. Not sure.
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
i thinki would have approached the upper right with move 12
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Two players timed out against me on the SA ladder and now I'm suddenly #2 and can only challenge #1, is this normal?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
that's how it works
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
a painful case of atari blindness in this game :o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCyxjuDxro i'll leave it a surprise who
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
How do people teach Go to would-be casual players? I read somewhere that 9x9 games are the standard entry point, but I feel like 13x13 would be more like "real" Go and therefore more interesting without being too complex/long. I'm trying to lure people in without either boring or overwhelming them. If it matters, I myself am fairly poo poo at Go.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:How do people teach Go to would-be casual players? I read somewhere that 9x9 games are the standard entry point, but I feel like 13x13 would be more like "real" Go and therefore more interesting without being too complex/long. I'm trying to lure people in without either boring or overwhelming them. I like teaching on 9x9 and 13x13, because so much of the early learning process are tactics, scoring, and basics of how stones interact. 9x9 and 13x13 let them do more of that. That said, some people are really turned off by not playing the "real game". For people who insist on "playing the real game", I generally just play the full board and loan them a problem book or point them to a website so they get basic tactics down a little faster.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Borachon posted:I like teaching on 9x9 and 13x13, because so much of the early learning process are tactics, scoring, and basics of how stones interact. 9x9 and 13x13 let them do more of that. Is there a good 9x9/13x13 board available on Amazon (that I could throw in with another order for free shipping)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Is there a good 9x9/13x13 board available on Amazon (that I could throw in with another order for free shipping)? My full size 19x19 board has a 13x13 on the back - it cost $40. Maybe see if you can find one of those?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
For people who don't have a particular interest in Go (but are happy to try assorted abstract games), I start them on 5x5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
You can barely make a living group on a 5x5, though. What I've done is load up any old game on online-go.com and skip to the end, "OK, so this is what it looks like at the end, this space is worth x points because..." Etc. Then skip to the start, "how you get there is moving at the corners, out towards the sides, towards the middle", while explaining capturing, and No Suicides (also how No Suicides leads into Living Groups), leaving Ko until it comes up in a game. At that point play a 13x13, and if their attention span is still with it, go to a full game. 9x9s for brand new players is almost counterintuitive I've found, as all you get to do is fight, super abstractly, with no regard to basics like Taking Corners First, seeing how good/bad pushing can be, or a bunch of other things. I'm only maybe 13k though, maybe someone else will come in and say why 9x9 is the Best Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Quad posted:What I've done is load up any old game on online-go.com and skip to the end, "OK, so this is what it looks like at the end, this space is worth x points because..." Etc. Then skip to the start, "how you get there is moving at the corners, out towards the sides, towards the middle", while explaining capturing, and No Suicides (also how No Suicides leads into Living Groups), leaving Ko until it comes up in a game. If I ever try to explain the game again to someone I'm totally going to try your approach. Starting by showing the endgame makes a lot of sense to me, I don't know, it's where the game looks specially appealing with all those stones and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
I figured I'd play the capture game a few times to showcase the basics, and then demonstrate a small living corner black group surrounded by white and explain why the black group has territory and points, while White's "territory" can be invaded and isn't yet real territory. Then just start playing handicap 13x13 (with a couple teaching interruptions) until one of our kids cries and we have to stop. Maybe I should get a 19x19/13x13 board after all. Edit: would be nice to have a small board for work, though. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
This taught me the very basic basics: http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/ After that it was a few 9x9s, then a 13x13 or two, then lots of 19x19. 19x19 right away is really intimidating because it's really hard to know the whys of anything. Why is a corner more important than the middle, etc. Showing how to score like Quad said is fine, but any talk of tactics or strategy needs some grounding in eyes and the nature of how walls interact with stones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Gah, this game is driving me nuts. It was started over two months ago and this guy plays his 7 moves a week pretty consistently. The worst part is that like most of his stones are dead, I'm ahead by over 100 points and he will not loving resign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Overwined posted:Gah, this game is driving me nuts. It was started over two months ago and this guy plays his 7 moves a week pretty consistently. The worst part is that like most of his stones are dead, I'm ahead by over 100 points and he will ogs.txt I mean this game was effectively over after move 67, and hopeless after 129. Resigned 72 moves later. I don't want to shame, but if it's not a teaching game why do that? Pander fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
might be just too clueless to realize they are losing really bad might be one of their first games and EVERY GAME IS SPECIAL so they want to play to the end might be just a dick
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
totino boy posted:might be just too clueless to realize they are losing really bad A 13k with over 500 games played kinda rules out the first two, you'd hope. I think some people have so many games going at once they lose any sense of what any game actually means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Pander posted:A 13k with over 500 games played kinda rules out the first two, you'd hope. How do you play 500 games and only make it to 13k?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
dirby posted:How do you play 500 games and only make it to 13k? I've seen someone with over EIGHT THOUSAND be 18k on kgs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
dirby posted:How do you play 500 games and only make it to 13k? Maybe they played them all in the same week?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
dirby posted:How do you play 500 games and only make it to 13k? Someone in the mcmahon tourney has over 3000 ranked games on OGS and fluctuates between a 13k and 16k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
there's more to improving than just playing games
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
I have some questions about a pattern that I see often in my games, what do you guys think? https://online-go.com/demo/156881 1) Is black 7 the correct response to white 6? 2) Why does black have to play O16? I feel like if black played on the right side instead, if white decided to play somewhere around O16, it would leave white with either one or two weak groups 3) Where should white extend after black O16?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
sunaurus posted:I have some questions about a pattern that I see often in my games, what do you guys think? I didn't know how to edit the OGS game, but here are some answers: http://eidogo.com/#3j6AveFxj
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
totino boy posted:there's more to improving than just playing games Words to live by. In that vein, I have started to review more of my own games and have even taken to creating OGS reviews,rather than just replaying the game and telling myself where the lovely moves are. I have an odd request, would anyone care to review my review of a recent loss: https://online-go.com/review/156964 ? You can review the game as well, but I'm more interested in whether or not I identify my mistakes and key points accurately. I'm definitely coming into a level of play where moves rarely lose me large groups or cause catastrophe, but instead they bring a cascade where dozens of moves down the line the error becomes apparent. For this reason it's harder to see my own mistakes. And for that reason, one must stay more diligent to catch mistakes and misplay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Overwined posted:Gah, this game is driving me nuts. It was started over two months ago and this guy plays his 7 moves a week pretty consistently. The worst part is that like most of his stones are dead, I'm ahead by over 100 points and he will I'll admit I'm guilty of this, thinking "well, if I resign I'll never get to work on my endgame" as well as "well if the game ends with a score rather than a resign then the system will fiddle with my rank more accurately". Both of these things are BS, I know, but also I have way too many games going so I just sorta reflexively grind through 120 moves and then I'm done for the day, not thinking about "should I just end this one". I have major problems with my Go Philosophy basically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Actually hell, that's a good question. DOES the system see a difference in resigning vs going all the way, rank wise? If not, I'll probably resign 60 games today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Quad posted:Actually hell, that's a good question. DOES the system see a difference in resigning vs going all the way, rank wise? If not, I'll probably resign 60 games today. Apparently there is no difference in ratings between the methods of losses or wins. The only factors are the strengths of your opponents and some predictive chance to win based on recent wins/losses. OGS uses the ELO system, described here. So you should resign those 60 games, especially the one where you're down by about 40 points to an especially handsome hammy 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Overwined posted:Words to live by. 11: This has to be at D17, making the "hane at the head of two stones" shape. 17: Neither attachment is correct here. The attachment on top is okay when you can connect your two sides and make thickness. The side attachment is okay when it makes your opponent heavy and you don't have to back up. Generally, though, you don't want to attach to weak stones if you're strong and you want to attack because attachments usually make both sides stronger. Here you want white weak and running. E3 and D3 are both much more natural. 29: Read before you play, not after.  41: This move is vague. What's the worst that can happen here? If w comes into this area, b can attack him strongly, reducing right's right side in the process. 47: Does this threaten two cuts, or just ask white to reinforce his large area? 51: See how big N14 is? It threatens to swallow the white stone at the top on a large scale, and reduces w's right side. What you played asks w to connect to his weak stone while attacking you, instead. Which he did. 59: W did indeed do B a favor there. 90: This isn't a aji, it's just a weakness - w takes pure profit in sente. 105: Is this really a serious weakness as it stands? W has a the edge and lots of supporting stones nearby. Simply pushing like you did is just a reduction. If you want more from it, you're probably going to have to start something above it near R14/R16 and see what comes before forcing w to strengthen in the area. 169: Take and make the ko. You can't live in that much space directly. More generally, you and your opponent both try to make modest-spze space in the middle too directly with gote moves, and these moves end up being a little vague. In particular, I'm thinking of moves like N5, H11, and H7. Center territories tend to have lots of openings into them, so it's hard to use gote moves to secure center territories. For building in the middle, you generally want to either: 1. Attack or lean on something to close off part of a center in sente, or 2. Sketch out something so large (a moyo) that the opponent has to make a hard choice between either (a) diving in and giving you something to attack to solidify a smaller but still significant portion of it, (b) reducing it, giving you something still sizable because they're scared of jumping in. Borachon fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Great notes! Thank you, Borachon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Quad posted:I'll admit I'm guilty of this, thinking "well, if I resign I'll never get to work on my endgame" as well as "well if the game ends with a score rather than a resign then the system will fiddle with my rank more accurately". Both of these things are BS, I know, but also I have way too many games going so I just sorta reflexively grind through 120 moves and then I'm done for the day, not thinking about "should I just end this one". i guess its all a matter of personal preference. i mean, if you're still having fun, then it is a game and that is the point. but odds are its probably not terribly fun for the other guy. if i don't see any realistic chance to win, its not very fun for me, so i quit and start a new, fresh, exciting game where anything is possible. or ten of them :s
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
totino boy posted:i guess its all a matter of personal preference. i mean, if you're still having fun, then it is a game and that is the point. but odds are its probably not terribly fun for the other guy. if i don't see any realistic chance to win, its not very fun for me, so i quit and start a new, fresh, exciting game where anything is possible. or ten of them :s my thing is I just want to be on the same page as the opponent. If it's a teaching game (or any game with a huge disparity in skill/experience) then I expect there to be some communication and analysis, and the emphasis to be less on winning compared to learning. I mean if my opponent wanted some targeted experience (practicing late game, like quad mentioned) even if it wasn't a teaching game then that's cool too, no problems with it even if the game's result isn't in question. I like end-game practice too, I'm still pretty new to go. But in one game I was ahead by about 100 points, but my opponent only resigned after I put a ~15 stone group of his in a net, as if that were the straw that broke the camel's back and now suddenly the game was over on move 220. WHyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
ThePineapple posted:I didn't know how to edit the OGS game, but here are some answers: Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Elo weights more recent games more, therefore timely resignations will enhance your Elo by a point or two iff you stop starting new games, heh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
FIDE IM Jeremy Silman posted:Sadly, players from beginner to master tend to see a threat, panic, and react to it. However, titled players tend to think every threat is garbage. In fact, when seeing a threat, their first thought is, “Rubbish!” (use stronger language if the mood strikes you). The titled player only reacts to a threat after convincing himself that it’s for real. FIDE IM Jeremy Silman posted:Every threat should initially be looked at with a derisive attitude. […] Of course, you have to prove the threat's ultimate worth before ignoring or preventing it. If it's really dangerous, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Hard to believe, but it seems to be true!" FIDE IM Jeremy Silman posted:If the opponent plays a move that you never imagined, instead of allowing yourself to get confused, seek instant clarity by asking, "How can I punish this?" The logic is clear: if you didn't anticipate his response, then it must be bad and thus deserves to be punished!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
I thought this was about Go until I read "FIDE IM"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Hey I've been learning Go lately, and I kind of want to know where can I find Cho Chikun's encyclopedia of life and death, it's not in the go books app or amazon. Club near me went over problem 49 and it had some interesting variations but at home I tried to show someone and couldn't remember them all. Are any of these problems on some sensei.xmp page?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
One interesting side-effect of using OGS is the dread you feel when you're opponent has set up a conditional string for three or more moves you make. You get this growing sense of dread that you're plunging deeper and deeper into some kind of trap. They again, I played someone who set up a couple of those chains, but they were far and away the worst variations for him/her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Overwined posted:One interesting side-effect of using OGS is the dread you feel when you're opponent has set up a conditional string for three or more moves you make. You get this growing sense of dread that you're plunging deeper and deeper into some kind of trap. I haaaaaaate playing against people who disable analysis, because that disables conditional moves, which I love. Sometimes chains are just obvious/joseki and why waste time if you and your opponent aren't on at the same time much? I understand what you mean, but usually a chain is more a time-saver than master plan :P
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 21:50
|
|