Author – David Mitchell on behalf of The Sydney Go Club Sydney Go Journal Issue Date - September 2006 This journal was created with the assistance of the following software (in alphabetic order): Go Game Assistant http://www.go- assistant.com/english/ Used for game and reference diagrams, cataloguing and cross reference. Cost US$29.00 GoDrago http://www.godrago.net/en.htm Used for printing full game scores with a clear font and not missing Ko or captured stones. Freeware MoyoGo http://www.moyogo.com/ Used for game analysis, joseki, fuseki and example games. Cost US$62.00 Why three applications… simple really, none of them deliver everything, so I use the strengths of each (or perhaps it’s because I am old, grumpy and don’t like fighting with software). Bottom line – if you think you want Go software, first determine what you want, and look for the package that fits your need. © Copyright 2006 – David Mitchell – reuse of material for non-profit or personal use permitted. Author – David Mitchell on behalf of The Sydney Go Club Contents Tesuji Page 3 Tesuji Problems Page 6 Pro Games Page 9 Commented Game Page 13 Ben Bildstein vs Carl Jiang Tesuji Answers Page 29 Japanese Go Terms Page 31 Copyright Page 33 The Sydney Go Club Meets Friday nights at :- At Philas House 17 Brisbane St Surry Hills From 5.00pm Entrance fee - $3 per head includes tea and coffee. For further information from Robert [email protected] © Copyright 2006 – David Mitchell – reuse of material for non-profit or personal use permitted. Tesuji Tesuji are clever tactical sequences – they can help you live, kill, make points and gain sente. Sounds great, I bet you would like a nice big bag full for each game that you play – but how much do they cost? Diagram 1 Surprisingly little, just a bit of study and your imagination. All tesuji are tactical moves and therefore are close in hand to hand moves. I remember what to look for by using the image of diagram 1 – the eight intersections adjacent to ‘a’ (either direct liberties or diagonal moves from it). So, how is ‘a’ determined? Diagram 2 It works like this… suppose you have the situation in Diagram 2, Black would really like to cut white into two. Black would really like to play ‘a’ and ‘b’ in Diagram 3 Diagram 3 – the trouble is that (unless there is a ko) No matter what Black does White will play the other move – if black plays ‘a’, white ‘b’ and visa versa. The first move that comes to mind is ‘a’ and that is where I start. I then check all the moves Diagram 4 adjacent to ‘a’ (Diagram 3). This may seem quite a laborious process, but with practice you can eliminate many of the moves at a glance. For example ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ in diagram 4 can be ignored, so there are only 4 moves left. The remaining moves are Diagram 5 ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’. So we need to look at each in turn (very carefully). Tesuji are not single moves, they are sequences and some of the moves that start the sequence can be odd. Trust me, they are odd, so never ever reject a move because it looks odd. Trying the obvious (in your Diagram 6 mind) gives you a good idea of the lay of the land. Black 1 will provoke 2, Black is then stuck with the sequence to 8 where white connects and lives. Black cannot play 3 at 4, because white will play 3 (Atari) and Black has achieved nothing. ‘b’ (Diagram 5) or 1 in Diagram 7 Diagram 7 looks good, but after 10 White connects and makes two eyes. Things were really promising until White 6, then the cutting point (Black 9) exposed the weakness of the situation. The sequence to 10 in Diagram 8 has the same Diagram 8 result through a different sequence, which is hardly surprising as 1 in diagram 8 and 1 in diagram 7 have a kind of symmetry. The other aspect of these two moves is they cannot connect, so there is only one threat – taking eye space. Black 1 in Diagram 9 is the Diagram 9 last move standing, and be honest; unless you were working methodically and checking every adjacent intersection you would not have considered it. It is odd, but this is not a disqualification. White’s natural reaction is Diagram 10 to block at 2 in diagram 10, but Black appears to have a winning sequence with 3 through 9. This not just cuts the stones it kills them! But beware, tesuji work for both players – you must always check, and when you are sure, check again. White 4 through 12 in Diagram 11 Diagram 11 sees black cutting the group into two and white living in gote with just 2 points on the bottom. No a bad result, but the original sequence killed all White’s stones! Black knows he cannot Diagram 12 play at White 4; this reverts to Diagram 8, but what about ‘3’? The sequence to 5 is simple enough and White cannot make 2 eyes. Black seperates and kills – there is not better outcome. White can wriggle, playing Diagram 13 4 is an other option, but once the sequence reaches 9 we have reverted to Black’s winning sequence in Diagram 10. Tesuji are odd, they look strange because they are moves played out of sequence, but when the obvious fails, tesuji work. The trick (if such a word is appropriate) with tesuji is that they change the sequence, they are often second or third moves in a sequence, but when played ahead of time circumvent natural barriers or refutations – they make ideas work that would normally fail. Nothing is every as easy as it looks, to learn tesuji and remember them in games your must practice. To help you on your way I have included 5 problems that you should be able to solve – good luck. Problems Problem 1 – Black to play Problem 2 – White to play Problem 3 – White to play Problem 4 – Black to play Problem 5 – White to play Pro-Games This month I have selected 3 games, each game has the same first 19 moves… These are all games played within the past 3 years but the results vary from a half point game to resignation. There are some interesting similarities as well as major differences – enjoy your study, Game 1 183 142 182 134 135 192 144 141 145 101 96 99 193 89 100 90 48 209 210 112 111 71 195 143 20 91 85 97 92 47 197 146 72 68 69 194 95 93 2 86 87 94 83 58 22 191 56 139 198 1 70 73 88 59 57 81 82 200 147 140 148 74 75 7 98 60 84 199 196 137 76 77 36 49 158 201 138 78 133 44 27 8 32 24 61 203 114 157 123 136 28 31 204 80 156 155 113 125 124 43 23 39 38 102 188 187 185 126 108 6 130 207 213 33 30 37 40 184 181 103 127 109 107 117 128 206 26 10 29 34 46 186 129 66 79 25 35 41 50 176 174 120 131 67 212 9 54 51 52 178 180 175 149 118 62 18 16 55 53 179 177 189 119 63 12 13 17 21 169 161 164 166 168 106 104 115 3 14 11 4 171 162 160 121 165 167 190 110 105 5 64 19 15 65 163 159 154 122 170 116 132 151 150 153 173 216 215 152 172 Figure 1 (1-217) 42 at 30, 45 at 37, 202 at 56, 205 at 139, 208 at 56, 211 at 139, 214 at 56, 217 at 139 Game 2 238 231 230 228 232 222 221 236 237 145 240 229 161 200 199 198 144 141 126 127 33 27 29 35 160 166 191 196 124 129 41 140 143 43 125 235 239 31 28 2 30 192 165 152 193 149 150 130 128 142 1 42 233 32 34 36 159 197 131 154 163 224 234 54 7 46 190 162 189 133 132 146 153 164 156 176 40 53 48 38 45 158 157 136 138 123 139 151 155 170 175 47 8 25 68 135 134 194 195 171 169 44 92 37 26 50 66 67 117 137 113 112 114 188 167 70 91 208 55 49 206 60 65 118 76 115 111 110 106 178 6 69 225 58 51 57 207 59 119 63 116 74 173 93 168 89 209 56 10 52 61 211 77 78 121 73 107 71 172 39 223 64 210 79 82 174 122 120 90 179 177 185 147 201 226 9 24 22 102 101 83 109 108 100 75 72 181 62 148 220 218 18 16 21 20 104 180 203 202 87 182 88 184 217 12 13 17 103 105 183 187 186 86 84 80 81 3 94 205 219 14 11 4 23 204 98 85 5 96 97 95 19 15 213 212 214 216 215 99 227 Figure 1 (1-240) Game 3 217 212 207 214 173 156 177 209 259 272 167 275 205 204 206 213 157 123 122 264 202 154 176 76 155 215 33 27 29 35 124 201 78 73 77 37 53 198 31 28 2 30 139 142 151 74 225 58 127 52 1 57 43 252 32 34 178 216 38 199 200 231 54 128 129 56 133 161 70 7 66 69 210 75 149 62 60 50 51 132 44 134 42 159 160 40 65 229 145 211 143 90 150 61 59 55 208 237 162 130 163 8 25 228 171 86 63 92 232 238 166 203 223 222 41 131 153 39 26 67 175 80 172 144 189 136 47 49 45 68 71 191 82 81 87 89 126 255 193 48 46 6 152 158 72 188 85 83 84 88 91 169 256 64 194 254 253 137 197 10 186 246 93 97 251 168 170 138 140 141 244 250 183 107 190 36 135 187 9 24 22 146 184 105 104 102 108 106 182 125 18 16 21 20 109 185 103 101 96 196 180 118 164 165 148 12 13 17 147 234 111 110 95 94 100 195 179 116 3 270 14 11 4 23 235 113 99 79 98 5 181 117 174 19 15 240 241 249 226 121 112 120 258 257 115 114 119 271 260 269 261 243 219 218 221 220 266 262 263 Figure 1 (1-276) 192 at 63, 224 at 218, 227 at 221, 230 at 218, 233 at 221, 236 at 218, 239 at 221, 242 at 218, 245 at 221, 247 at 84, 248 at 218, 265 at 207, 267 at 52, 268 at 221, 273 at 156, 274 at 260, 276 at 271 2006 Canberra Go Conference (Second Round) Black - Ben Bildstein 2 dan vs.