Interesting. Part III 13. seems to have the meat of it:
13.—(1) A property right (“database right”) subsists, in accordance with this Part, in a database if there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) it is immaterial whether or not the database or any of its contents is a copyright work, within the meaning of Part I of the 1988 Act.
Thanks for the education.
I thought I had heard something of the sort before, but I wasn’t entirely sure what to look up, and whether to look for US law Eu etc 
Thanks @teapoweredrobot
In a game played on November 24, 1705 between Honinbo Dochi (Black) and Yasui Senkaku), Dochi seemed to be losing by a few points in the endgame, when he suddenly played a brilliant endgame tesuji.
① began the brilliant sequence of moves that saved the game for Dochi.
The invasion made ① and ③ sente, because if White does not capture the marked stone with ④, Black would play at a and make a seki.
The invasion does not work if it is played after the hane-connect sequence.
I mentioned it not to complain about you or anything. There were many moments that I wanted to say something on GK but finally didn’t and that one is the most impressive for me.
I do feel the position is worth talking about, because to avoid the mistake the player made in the game, one needs to understand the situations of two unsettled groups, which AI’s winrate doesn’t teach us. Here is the local position (maybe there were some other exchanges in the game or black and white were switched) and the rest of the board was pretty open, with a black gomoku not approached or enclosed yet.
I was just looking at a 7k’s SL homepage of 2007 and came across this diagram
with the caption
Everyone loves this joseki right? The 5-3 low approach one space low pincer is just great.
However, his comment was dated even at that time, since Waltheri suggests that it hasn’t been played through professionally since 2004.
I remember Michael Redmond commenting that White’s position, which would otherwise be a bit unappealing, was originally justified as OK by the reasoning of (3)–(8) being a distasteful tewari exchange. However, he said that White’s result had been criticised by AI.
I think the modern style is to play away onto the top side. If Black pressures by pushing against (6), White can easily jump away, clamping down on the aji of the (3) stone in the process.
There’s a proverb which periodically appears in various forms:
“It takes a long of time and thought to find the worst move.”
This position is from DanielMl’s airbagging stream, in which he posed as an IGS 4d and played against a 3d opponent.
The natural and obvious move, that any common or garden 9k would play, is A. Black thought for two and a half minutes and decided to interpolate the vulgar kick exchange X–Y, before playing A anyway.
Well, perhaps I’m wrong and the exchange isn’t bad, but it seems jarring to me.
I wonder, what if after Black kicks, White plays A anyway? Then if Black Y, White can sagari. The three Black stones would be left unsettled.
Another instance from the same stream. I think Black A, White B, Black C is natural and moderately obvous.
However, Black thought for nearly a minute and played B, after which White A appears to be devastating.
If A is such a vital point on the upper side, I think white should have played A immediately instead of taking a detour with the approach. The approach => X + Y => sagari look like a local gain for black.
If white A is so severe on black’s upper left group, why does white respond to Y? Maybe white should attack black’s 3 stones instead and follow-up on their ignored threat?
I wonder how that shape came to fruition. It looks like black already made a mistake there.
Watch for yourself~
Black E14 seems unreasonable to me. Is black really thinking he can kill white’s upper left group?
But does black need to take the risk? I think black is doing fine if he would just push down to E12.
I imagine the fact that “airbag” was in Daniel’s username inspired a bit of optimism on the part of his opponent. (Which as we saw, did pay off.)
Reading what dfan said he was working through to improve in 2016.
Finally finished 1001 Life and Death Problems!
I think next up will be the first Maeda Tsumego volume.
(Sadly not copyright-free for another 24 years)
Made flashcards for Get Strong at Tesuji
Making flashcards for All About Life and Death.
Watching some livestreamed games.
Actually playing games.
And then slightly later, at the end of the year:
My two main current methods of study are:
Record every serious game and go over it in detail with Crazy Stone
Lots of spaced repetition
These days, for Crazy Stone you probably want to read AI Sensei. Or just a local Kata or Leela Zero. It’s not hard to get one’s hands on a good bot any more.
“spaced repetition” very likely implies Anki, and if it doesn’t then read Anki anyway.
He also mentions grinding on 101Weiqi. By the way, it didn’t have a Sensei’s Library article until I made one a week ago. Even now, its entire description is “A Chinese tsumego site.”. I’ve never used it, after all.
lightvector on game focus, 2016:
I do find that for me maintaining strong effortful concentration through the whole game makes a big difference:
Making full use of my time and … everything reading as carefully as I can. Even on seemingly obvious moves taking a few seconds to be sure …
On my opponent’s time, taking the effort to count the score every so often, and otherwise scanning the whole board making sure I’m always thinking globally and being aware of the future possibilities - the various followups I have in each area that I can mix and match based on how the game develops, shape defects that point to future tesujis that don’t quite work yet but could in the future, etc.
Being focused on finding the best move rather than a good enough move. This frequently takes the form of asking “Is there an even better shape?” and “What happens if I tenuki?”. …
Playing this way is very tiring, of course - I can’t do more than one game like this during a day, and I don’t always achieve being able to play like this. … Anecdotally, for me the difference between playing this way and playing in a more casual or distracted way is easily as much as 2 full stones, at least in the extreme cases.
Oh, and dfan later mentions Guo Juan’s Internet Go School. It’s commercial, but two weeks access is apparently offered free on signing up, which is nice.
An interesting exchange in dfan’s journal.
dfan: … the more I play and watch and talk to dan-level players, the more I think that 1d play consists largely of good fundamentals, good reading, the lack of blunders, and the willpower to play at one’s best all game … rather than, say, superhuman talent.
WriterJon: How does this compare to your previous idea that a western chess USCF 2000-rating is a similar sort of thing to a KGS 1 dan rating?
dfan: I think the statements are very compatible! I think of my USCF 2000 rating as indicating fundamental competency in the field of chess, rather than brilliance or genius.
The phrase fundamental competency is interesting. It reminds me of the sixth Chinese pin rank, called “小巧” (Ability). Or, perhaps better, 3 pin “具體” (Concreteness).
https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=17717
Someone trying to grind a thousand games against Spectral-1k.
He started about a year ago and he’s now very close (61 games) to his goal, presuming he’s only been playing against Spectral on that account, as he implied.
“Study everything: opening, josekis, life-and-death, tesuji, endgame, reductions, invasions, how to attack, to defend, to make good shape, to play with or against a moyo, to use influence…”
The main part in my opinion is
1 play seriously (see tournaments)
2 see why you didn’t succeed
3 play again.
If you lack ideas watch others playing or read a book.
Read better: tsumego.
To progress you have to change and that’s the most difficult. Criticize yourself or you are just going to step one level higher. Accept to lose if it’s needed.
