Looking for someone help me breakthrough the barrier!


and

i will appreciate if any dan player or high kyu player could point out my mistakes.

Sorry for my bad English
Thank you ^^

1 Like

Thanks gopaddy and Animiral for pointing out my mistakes. It’s very helpful!!

1 Like

Hello, I reviewed the first game hope this helps.
https://online-go.com/review/52190
Let me know if you have any questions.
review-Tania.sgf (4.5 KB)

I reviewed the second game aswell. https://online-go.com/review/52193 Sadly ran out of time to finish, but think there is enough so you will learn a few things.review-Tania2.sgf (4.4 KB)

Thanks luckymedie, your reviews are very very detail. ^^
I’ve learnt the concept of thickness during the alpha stage of the game, as well as decision making. You makes me realized that how greedy I am =P

But I have one question that I want to ask:
Move 6: you said that approaching to opponent thickness is not ideal since the board it’s still so empty. So let’s say instead of k17, I enclose my corner with f16. How if the next move black answer at k17 which is too big for black?

For what it’s worth, I completely disagree with the comment at move 6. I think K17 is a great and perfectly natural move. Pros seem to agree with me; a quick search in the pro database at http://ps.waltheri.net/ tells that K17 is the most played move in this position. The second most played move at the pro level is R10, hampering black’s development on the right side.

EDIT: also according to Waltheri, the position in the variation at move 7 (“He can make you overconcentrated…”) has a 60% win rate for white at the pro level, so it’s certainly not bad for white if black plays this way.

Sorry luckymedie. I’ve said this before but many of your suggestion and variations are crude from both sides, and you criticize Tania’s moves which some are in fact, among or THE best move. Just like VincentCB above me noticed faults in your ideas. Even some of your annotations have complete errors.
It’s like you BELIEVE your moves are the best, and Tania who is a weaker player will adapt false knowledge to her games since of course, who wouldn’t believe a 1 Dan.
I think you should consider some time researching your own moves as you review. When I review, I always reconsider the advice I am about to give. If I am not sure, I research by trying to find similar professional patterns. Or in helpless cases ask from higher dan players whom are as careful as me with the accuracy of their ideas. If I am not sure about a position, a sequence, or moves, I ALWAYS make sure that the pupil takes what I say with a grain of salt e.g: “I AM NOT SURE, BUT…”.

Right now I am criticising without elaborating. That’s because the last time I elaborated, you subtly neglected the criticism by saying something along the lines that ‘the fundamental issues were still brought forth all the same, but in different variations’. I disagreed, but didn’t feel like taking the discussion further. But of course, if you want me to elaborate I can do so.

And of course, I know you review in goodwill. But saying something is wrong when it isn’t or vice versa will only hurt the pupil. Not sure that’s what you want.

1 Like

You can have your idea’s I can have mine that is the beauty of Go. I am 1 dan not 9 dan nor am I paid. I would take note of how Vincent addressed his concerns with my moves he gave insight to my fault, and let me know his thoughts instead of blatantly being rude. I do not care if pro’s play differently then me I am not pro nor do I pretend to be, I leave my suggestions what the player does is up to him/her. I never said my variations were the best nor even practical, you seem to misinterpret my teaching style, I teach principles that can help not variations or give precisely what would be played. The general thing about teaching is nothing is given in stone, take from it what you will. You seem to have this predetermined idea that Go has all been figured out, however if this were the case everyone could be pro. The student asked a question this is how we learn going back and fourth on idea’s. We have an idea we discuss it not simply say something is right and they take it as right. You can notice how Tania said “makes me realized that how greedy I am”. I did not teach her this sediment, but she learned it by herself because she agreed with me. I may not be a strong player, but I am a decent teacher. You seem to think have a predetermined notion that everyone takes what a stronger player says to heart I am sorry, this is not so and is simply bad Go. If you do anything without thinking in Go for yourself you will lose by not knowing how the move works. That is why questions are great things and they should and will ask them.

Interesting idea I would like to take note that most of these games are from the 1980’s- mid 2002 is most recent. that I know of since I have studied many of these players. Go has changed a lot since then maybe a this site would be more appropriate since its more modern day, http://www.weiqiok.com/asp/English.asp

Hello, Tania
I would say why not make your own board make up some variations of how this position would play out and we can talk about it and I can look at it or Midna can if he/she is willing.

The database itself goes much further than 2002; a quick look here shows that the latest games are from June 2014.
If this opening pattern only turns up older games, it’s probably because it’s not played anymore for some reason. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s not a good way to play, especially for us amateurs. It might simply be out of fashion, or very slightly sub-optimal (not enough to notice at our level).
The move I was talking about (K17) is pretty much “Opening 101”. Any book on the opening will teach you to make this kind of move.

Midna, don’t use the word criticize. I believe he was trying to help weaker players. I’m really appreciate his review.

Thanks Midna and VincentCB letting me know that k17 is the most played by pros in that situation, and I also know that both of you are also trying to help weaker players.

Well, according what I know, go is a super complex game that hardly to tell which move is the best, especially at the beginning of the game, since it has too many possible moves. As you guys said, go’s strategy changing over time. Who knows. maybe k17 will be a bad move after 20 years =P

I believe that exchanging ideas is a good way to improve, at least for me. I’m always open my mind to accept different thoughts, and come out with my own way of playing go.

Peace peace, I didn’t expect that this post will leads to an argument. Okay my problem is settled, topic close ^^

Thank you guys~~~

1 Like

Not sure where I am being “blatantly rude”. Maybe you’d prefer the world nodding humbly as they let everything slide by. By all means I could. You made a review, it was goodwill and very generous. Problem is that people can’t seem to take criticism nowadays. Instead I become the villain.
Now, I am not saying that your review as a whole is wrong. There were several good mentions. I apologize if it appeared like that. But I can’t help but disturbed when the pupil plays excellent moves, and those are criticised.
insight to my fault”; Not sure if you actually read what I wrote. I have elaborated before, without success, but I can do it again if you so wish.
I have watched several pro commentary, read many Go theory / strategy books. Much of the high level ideas does not even matter to amateurs. What we struggle with is the fundamentals. But you (and I as well) bring up such high level ideas. But in some of your annotations, I could point straight into one of my books with a very similar diagram and say: “But Kageyama 7p says the opposite”.
You seem to have this predetermined idea that Go has all been figured out”. Not at all. But the top has to be closer to the solution of the game. Isn’t that why we all are curious in their ideas, and correct ourself accordingly? That’s why e.g, in one of your annotations you mention “don’t play close to thickness” which is a really good proverb, but you twist the idea of it by saying White shouldn’t approach the shimari. That shimari radiates influence, but it is not “thickness”. By no means is that Black shimari alive or non-attackable. White’s move reduces the influence, and removes the potential Black had on the bottom by extending from a powerful corner. And taking it even further, you say the standard high response to Black’s other side approach would make White overconcentrated. In what way do you elaborate that? White is already granted a 3rd line enclosure to 4th line and the stones are really strong. And the enclosure if three spaces. That’s fast, while also making sure that White is ready to handle an attack in the area. Also, White is sente to play on the other side of the shimari, which is good since the shimari is missing a 3rd line enclosure.

This is a really short example and short elaboration. I could make a documentation. But these are the things that troubles me, that you don’t seem to research the details you give.

3 Likes

Midna your insight is fine, I said thank you for reviewing it the last time which you fail to mention. There is a thing called tact which is the manner of which words are spoken. I do not mind you going over my reviews as I mentioned before “We have an idea we discuss it not simply say something is right and they take it as right.” This is how teachers and students learn from each other which I enjoy. You have to take note everyone has different things they know and learn and we can all learn from each other. To simply state “I’ve said this before but many of your suggestion and variations are crude from both sides.” This is not helpful or productive and earns nothing,but disrespect. If I said something you disagree with you are more then welcome to make a review and kindly state why you think it is wrong. (I can also kindly disagree.) If you are simply here to say something is wrong with no merit then of course no one in their right mind would listen to you. I would also mention that you reviewed the last game to move 32 and left very brief comments which I looked over and noticed a error or two and said thank you for going over it. I did not however notice that many. Which you try to make it seem like I know nothing worth teaching (Even if its not intentional) You are more then welcome to use the phrase “I AM NOT SURE, BUT…” That is your style of teaching which I have never done and probably will never do I give my thoughts and let them do with it as they will. To make it even more clear what I said "
I actually saw only a few corrections which most the
mistakes were made by not double checking the review not actually not
knowing what I was trying to teach. I will simply state thank you for
looking it over, and I am not perfect however I do not think I taught
anything out of my knowledge level. You agreed with most of my points
and the only real correction you made was a mix up on a poor
communication error, I am reminded to double check my reviews,thanks for
correcting that.
I said thank you twice and you seem to negate the fact that I even took the time to look over the review. You ignored my words why would I listen to yours? Respect goes both ways.

Hello. Sorry for the late reply. I have been very busy.

I must begin with apologizing. I didn’t mean to make it so dramatic, but it was as I look back on my messages. It’s easy to forget respect when talking anonymously behind the screen. Still, it’s not something I usually do. I’ve been exhausted lately. I can only blame my immaturity. I am sorry.

My opinion about the review itself still stays but it feels like another subject. In the future I’ll just private message it. Thanks for your patience.

1 Like

Everything is fine :slight_smile: