There are some early plays (moves 19 and 21) that I feel neutered lots of the value of my wall, but which I had no idea how to address and which I think were very successful. Very grateful for views on how to deal with this sort of thing.
Around move 40-55 think I got pulled into a local fight that left me in a terrible position from a slightly whole board perspective.
By e.g. move 100 I look like I’m behind fairly irrevocably
I invade at 106, I basically don’t know how to invade: this ended up working out but I think because of an oversight by my opponent more than any inherent strength in my moves
I think move 123 won me the game. Sadly not my move. Counting skills not strong enough to check if I could have won without it.
Feel I deserve more credit for move 140 onwards, which was more thoughtful exploitation of weakness in black shape
As long as you have some means of actually challenging the position.
It is extremely annoying to have an opponent “hanging in” in a game where it is clearly over purely for the purpose of seeing if the opponent makes a stupid mistake.
This is a judgement call, of course, but I couldn’t let that comment go by completely unchallenged, because I’ve had a few situations where the balance is well over 20 stones in my favour, and the opponent clearly has no plan, but they keep dogedly placing stones…
In a kyu rated game, 20 points one way or the other is by no means a sealed deal. I think as long as there are still unsealed areas continuing play is perfectly reasonable. I would draw the line at throwing random stones deep into well-secured territory with no followup.
@GreenAsJade and BHydden: fair enough on both counts! I didn’t mean the thing I’ve seen sometimes at invading every bit of territory in an aimless way in a hope that your opponent destroys his own eyes or somesuch. But I suspect at my level that I wouldn’t be able to accurately tell that I was 20 stones away from someone.
FlamingGo’s comment was just that I’d said I felt a bit rubbish that I could track the result more to a weak move from him than a strong move from me, and him saying that basically this is OK and that you will often win on ‘they made more errors’ rather than ‘you made more amazingly awesome moves’!
Latest game here: a loss, and the closest one I’ve ever had (if a game with this many handicap stones can be called close!)
I don’t know if it’s because it’s handicap but I have much less a sense of what I ought to have done in this one, apart from take the time to really work out what’s optimal in yose, which I totally failed to do.
BTW, on my move where someone plays at the midpoint of two stones with three spaces beytween them (e,g. move 41-2 in this): I get that ‘you don’t have to defend directly’ is something I need to be more aware of. But if I do need to defend - in particular if my stones either side of that attack look like they might die if split - is there a good way to answer directly?
Instead of the straight three-space extension you used in the game, the “mixed” three space extension might be more efficient at blocking your opponent. For example you could have played H13 instead of J13.
When you have a three-space extension on the third line, the attachment below is a tactic that you can use to connect them.
In the general case of two stones three spaces apart, if the opponent places a stone in between them, he probably intends to split.
As always, read carefully and don’t believe everything that your opponent asserts at face value
If your stones really are split apart, for the love of AlphaGo, don’t attach! In fact, don’t play against the splitting stones at all (this applies to any splitting situation). To defend your groups, lean on some other stones of your opponent, or sacrifice a part of them.
In your game, none of your stones were really threatened. Rather, it seemed like you were bending over backwards trying to defend some really thin strips of territory. Show some fighting spirit and counter-attack, or take sente elsewhere.
Two more reviews: both losses, both reasonably early resignations as in each case I lose a major group with significant territory implications. In both cases I think I’m trying too much to break up his pieces and overlooking the weakness of my own groups… grateful for views!