Thrashing About

British Go Journal No. 92. Autumn 1993. Page 6b.

TMark Hall

We were lucky to have a 7-dan professional visiting Britain and giving lessons and simultaneous games. This game was played in the IVC in London and the comments are taken from what Mrs Feng said in reviewing the game afterwards with a couple of remarks concerning what I was trying to do to show the contrast.


Black: TMark Hall, 3d
White: Feng Yun, 7p
Handicap: 3 stones

Played on 26 June 1993
The game-file in SGF format.

You might wish to open a second window beside the first one to view Fig 1 whilst reading the text in the first window.

Figure 1 (1-100)


















  • White 9: I have noticed that Mrs Feng often seems to play this reply rather than answer the pincer directly.
  • Black 14: Mrs Feng said I should defend the corner probably at 30 which would restrict the eyeshape of the White group.
  • Black 22: Mrs Feng said that there was nothing wrong with pushing down at 49.
  • Black 24: With a stone at 49 this would be a forcing move; without this stone white is alive and can move elsewhere.
  • Black 26: Overplay! I should escape to the centre.
  • White 31: Now it's my group that's been cut off, not Mrs Feng's.
  • Black 38: Actually I could see no way that I could escape and I was just thrashing about a bit.
  • White 49: Mrs Feng didn't want me to get this point which would be sente and make a lot of territory.
  • White 61: Mrs Feng criticized her own move after the game since this lets me save the group.
  • Black 68*: Dia 1 shows the situation on the board after move 67 assuming that white 61 had not been exchanged for black 62. Without the black move 62, C in the diagram, white can break out since I can't do anything without putting the triangled stones into atari.
    * [ This paragraph has been modified, as has Dia 1, since the BGJ original was confusing.]
    Diagram 1










  • Black 70: A in the figure would be better since it threatens to take the two stones immediately.
  • Black 74: White now has a problem: one slip has allowed Black to save his group and White's group in the centre is not settled.
  • Black 80: Mrs Feng liked this move and used the Japanese word tesuji about it.
  • Black 88: Mrs Feng said that this was a good move.
  • Black 94: She said this was a strong move and that I had a good attack.
Figure 2 (101-189)



















106 ko at triangle, 109 ko at 103, 112 ko, 115 ko, 118 ko, 121 ko.
  • Black 110: A very bad ko threat; it loses points and improves white's shape. I was actually thinking that it would affect the liberties on the two white stones and give me more threats but I was wrong.
  • Black 122: I decided that I could not win the ko and hoped to capture the central white group but I have given a large profit to white on the upper edge.
  • Black 126: Mrs Feng didn't like this move; she said that it only helps white to escape.
  • White 131: With 129 in place white can now connect.
  • White 143: A clever move which protects against the threat I have of cutting at 154 or cutting the central stones off.
  • Black 146: I lose my last chance! I make about 10 points in the centre but Mrs Feng makes about 20 along the upper edge. I felt afterwards that I should have played at B to break into the upper side. Mrs Feng suggested the 3-3 point in the corner but she would play at B to seal off the side. Black 146 goes against the proverb of playing away from strength; I should be trying to break up the upper side. However since I haven't captured the central group I am losing and I should at least try to make a better game of it.
  • Black 158: I can't cut at 1 in Dia 2 because of the triangled stone: I lose.
    Diagram 2











  • Black 182: Wrong order; I should play at 183 first because it is sente.

White wins by many points.

[Start]


This article is from the British Go Journal Issue 92
which is one of a series of back issues now available on the web.



Last updated Fri Jan 04 2013. If you have any comments, please email the webmaster on web-master AT britgo DOT org.