Go/PlayingNotes3

MoonShadow (Black) vs Angoel (White)

[Round 2] : The Fightback

: Game commenced: 19 May 2003
: Game concluded: Juneish
: Result: Black Resigned in the following position

Captures:
Black has captured 4 White stones
White has captured 3 Black stone

Ooh. I've just spotted something that could have worked nicely for black.

(5 at 1)

Ah, well. This seems to have died. Which is a shame, because the following sequence looked interesting...

(5 at 1)
(6 a random ko threat somewhere)

TheInquisitor is exploring the result of black choosing to play somewhere other than at 1. He considers that a is interesting, providing lots of threats, and possibly preventing white from connecting.

The question is whether white needs to connect - I'd be inclined to think not, since if black plays at a, the response of white 1 more or less guarantees two eyes for the group on the right, and the group on the left seems pretty safe (touch wood). As is, black one exposes two cutting points, the one at b being potentially irritating (although I don't think that there's that serious a threat (touch wood)) --Angoel

I'd been assuming that the group on the right was safe. Anyway, black certainly wouldn't mind connecting (although it isn't essential, I think) - and threatening to do so provides a nice distraction. Hmmm... I just saw 1 as not being much progress, really - giving up the initiative, for an insufficiently small gain in position.

: True, but there are few (if any) big points left, and a is no greater position gain.

Possible sequence of play:

This seems to me to be a slightly stronger position for black - while black at 4 has, at best, reduced territory inside that square by two.

Actually, I think it just feels more elegant. Not quite sure why, really.

As I read this, neither white a nor white b will result in me losing the corner, so unless forced to play through one of those I will be free to expand along the bottom and/or invade a corner next turn.. - MoonShadow

: I think I would play at b. I haven't worked it all the way through in my head but I think it successfully cuts and threatens the black stones since you can't force it against the wall fast enough. --Kazuhiko

: I would respond at c, which would force a response from you. I would then expect the play to continue something like the following:

5 demands a response at 6; if 5 is not played, black extends along the bottom, which is what black is after in all this. 7 is necessary to prevent a, which would cut and give black the bottom. Although black does not have much area, it is now stable and quite threatening. I'm probably wrong, though :) - MoonShadow

Hmm. I think MoonShadow has been playing a little too conservatively here. In particular in playing his first two stones so close together. In (extremely) vague terms, a white stone at a would leave black with two corners while white would control a vast stretch of the central area.

With his first two stones, he knew that he would be able to get the fourth corner that white didn't take, so this is forgivable, particularly as this gives the corner a strong base. In addition, the centre is nowhere near as valuable in 13x13 as it is on a 19x19 board. I do think his play at (5) could have been more assertive, especially as playing white (6) was a gift, but time will tell. --Angoel

Where would you have played to be 'more assertive'? I think I need more practise on attacking corners. --Kazuhiko

: Hmm. Thinking about it, I take that comment back. There's only really the 4,4 point, which isn't demonstratably better - It's just that I have a preference for playing it due to having played black in handcap games a bit and having a feeling for how it works. --Angoel

With the play at 7, I would also think that a play at b might have been fractionally more advantageous as a white stone at 7 could easily be blocked at c and a white at c could be completely cut off from the rest of the board by a black at 7.

: However black b doesn't threaten the white stone to any great degree, leaving white to play elsewhere. And there are some pretty big points availiable at the moment. And when white finally does play at 7, then black's got a smaller group for his investment, which is vulnerable to a cut if white has happened to play at d some point earlier. --Angoel

Of course, having said that, MoonShadow will now thrash me at every game we play this weekend :)

Anyone else have any thoughts?

 --Kazuhiko

In the board above, I chose to play 7 because I wasn't confident of my ability to keep the corner following white c if I had played at b. Perhaps we can try a few variations - someone play black's next move (probably a), and I'll try to either keep the corner or grab large chunks of the left side as white. However, I am coming to suspect that Angoel is quite some distance above me in skill so I trust what he says above over my own surmisings! - MoonShadow

I get to the board below almost as forced moves, with the exception of black 4. At this point I would be tempted (as white) to give up, since I can't see any way of forming eye-space or connecting.

TheInquisitor is curious as to what people think about the status of the corner... It seems to me that the following move by white would kill it, and that black should be defending. But maybe I'm missing something.

AlexChurchill thinks that there's a clear 2 eyes' space. After black (2), a white in either (a) can be responded to by black in the other. White b can force black to use up one space leaving him with just 2 territory either way.

: Angoel agrees - with correct play, that group's invulnerable. (Black stealing my lovely corner away from me, mutter...)

TheInquisitor agrees, on reflection. He had been making some silly assumptions about connection and survival being interdependant.

This is considered connected.

In isolation, yes. However...