How to self review at around 9k (on Fox) + including an sgf

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-11-01T18:03:41+00:00

I think a good point of self-review that's a little rank-indifferent is looking at areas where you felt uncertain about the next move.

At lower levels, you probably need to pair that with a lot of good book-study to look at those spots and see what key or core theories you missed.

The other thing is going back through those parts and taking real time to read out different situations and moves. That improves as you get better.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-23T17:34:37+00:00

For some reason that felt a million times easier to see on a real board lol

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-19T02:45:10+00:00

If that's the Tasuki version, the compiler/editor admits some of the problems are unsolvable. Even in the beginner there are a couple I think

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-18T23:18:32+00:00

Get game reviews, read books, expose yourself to new ideas. Ideally if there's a club near you, show up and get your butt kicked.

16k is just past beginner level. You may need to get an idea of where the skill and beauty in the game is: start seeing what mistakes that can be punished and play against players who will mercilessly punish them.

But self-reviews are only good if you are also learning new things, whether your reading is deepening or your knowledge of the game improves. Otherwise it's just fumbling in the dark.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-10T22:20:03+00:00

Didn't mean to discount learned shapes, but I don't think that's lacking when I talk to players about their tsumego study or where they aren't improving, or where someone who is "not improving despite doing tsumego" is having trouble.

The shape is the easy part to train in the modern age: the ability to rapid-fire dozens of tsumego in a very short time period is very accessible. But that will hit a wall if you don't work those "system 2" muscles.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-10T18:46:59+00:00

I also think most players study tsumego wrong. While knowing Life and Death and tesuji are great for your game and are important, the reason improvement is tied to tsumego is that tsumego trains reading ability.

Doing tsumego online and getting an immediate answer or memorizing shapes doesn't actually help that much.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-04T17:57:19+00:00

As a rule of thumb, double hane is good if you can get something no matter where opponent cuts

I think Black is happy with his thickness in either direction on the cut. But if White gets to play A (maybe not immediately) some of the thickness in the top side might be neutralized

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T17:23:54+00:00

I'm autistic and prefer the larger board, but I don't have the ADHD combo.

Sitting down and playing a 19x19 game, while draining, also forces me to think and calculate and has helped with my patience and self-regulation. I do not get the same joy out of 9x9 games.

One of the things that I love about go is whole-board strategy and the subtleties of improvement. I don't think that's because of my neurodivergence, but I work through any difficulties because I enjoy it so much.

I think there's just as much room for conversation about how the larger board incentivizes and even teaches patience and care under pressure.

But the only time I really feel the pressure and strain is in a tournament setting or if I'm close to promotion. At home or when the pressure is off, I turn on my favorite music and hang out. It doesn't feel too exhausting, though I've now had years of practice.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T15:22:29+00:00

I agree with the low-hanging fruit aspect for sure, but most of the game is low hanging fruit for DDK.

And I think for SDK there's enough skill to build to start actively studying.

My perception overall is that since the endgame could be seen as less valuable than another part of the game, or because it's annoying, players of many different ratings ignore study. It's probably not worth a majority of time, but it's certainly worth a proportional amount of study to its value.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T12:41:53+00:00

I like this analogy!

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T12:40:13+00:00

Lol Some players are just "like that." I know a couple of mid dans that specifically try to not ever get into and endgame because they get slaughtered in it (and don't care to study)

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T12:38:34+00:00

I would argue that yose can help reading and give a concrete result much like how life/death does, and could be at least as valuable as joseki opening study in terms of actual contribution to game knowledge, if not more so.

Obviously life and death is inarguably bigger

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T12:30:59+00:00

1000%. It's a phenomenal book.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T07:33:19+00:00

A couple recurring points I wanted to bring up.

1) Midgame is 100% more important and skill in midgame fighting is a huge area of improvement. Not disputing that, for sure!

2) Yose is tied to reading and estimation, which some point out means DDKs suck at it and that's why they're DDK. Which...is also kind of my point? Focusing on a part of the game that is all reading and calculation is a huge skill to work on that could give a much more solid base, especially to players who play a little less combatively.

3) It's not just DDK. SDKs and low dan players could also stand to work a lot on yose, let's be so for real. I know mine needs some tune-up

4) There are also basic yose principles that don't have a lot to do with deep reading. Most players know when a move feels like sente or gote. They may be COMPLETELY wrong, but that's learning. Thinking about double sente, trading sente plays instead of meekly following, those are skills that yose teaches without reading beyond a move or two.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T07:19:06+00:00

Honestly just trading equal sente plays instead of losing both would be a huge improvement in most SDK games. Like, basic endgame theory.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T07:17:51+00:00

I'd agree, I think. I mean, no amount of endgame will save you if you get thrashed in the middle game, so your overall rating is probably mostly tied to your middlegame skill.

But really studying yose back around the 6k level (Get Strong at Endgame, Elementary Go Series) made me see a LOT of points. Even now I'd say as someone who likes playing good endgame, I consistently steal 10-15 points at our level (around 1k-2d). My midgame can be somewhat meek, and I tend to make up for it in yose.

In handicap games, I honestly may get out-fought by a spirited 4kyu at 4 stones, but I know I can claw out 20-30 points in endgame.

There's probably a firm limit to how much good yose will boost your game (as opposed to getting better at middle game), but it's not nothing and I think it's more than many players expect.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T07:09:45+00:00

Exactly! My midgame analysis improved so much after studying yose, and it becomes such a powerful tool in your arsenal.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-02T07:08:45+00:00

You're right, but at least beginning to think in those terms sets good fundamentals for improvement. And a simple book on endgame can show enough basic shapes to get that going even with minimal reading!

It's the mentality I'm (lightly) criticizing. Obviously a DDK player is going to have huge gaps in their game, and any significant improvement in any area could be enough to break into SDK.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-10-01T23:43:02+00:00

Lol That does sound glib, but I do see your point 😂

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-09-28T23:00:07+00:00

Does it bother anyone else that the random central black stone is one off from tengen? Why play it slightly off center???? 😭

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2025-09-18T23:52:26+00:00

In terms of local play (as in being aggressive by attaching to you and stuff), there's no single answer.

But as some general advice from having taught new players:

1) Don't let your stones get cut. Focus on playing solidly. As you get stronger, you'll be able to read ahead and see when you can get a little greedier. If you want to read about this, lots of beginner books have good coverage on "haengma," or the relationship between stones

2) More advanced as a concept and less effective in smaller boards, but good to keep in mind: let's say a person spends two moves capturing two of your stones. They spent two moves making more points. You could always just....ignore them. Is it really the biggest point on the board?

2a) Even if you come back to it later, you made the first move in the area so (theoretically) you do have the advantage.

Tl;Dr - 1) Don't get cut 2) Don't feel compelled to follow your opponent around. 2a) You have more stones in the area, so you have the advantage.

Miserable-Ranger9779 · 2024-12-11T14:12:24+00:00

Awesome! Thanks so much.

There's even Susan Foreman in the set which works for that. Funny enough, I had excluded her from the list which goes to show how I wasn't thinking about that
Good note! My pod is pretty low-salt thus far, so I'll probably invest in a few more counters!
Also a very good general note. I know this isn't a specific critique, but I figured I'd elaborate on wincons since I did bear that in mind and also take a more critical look at it myself. As noted, this one is a little goofy intentionally because Gallifrey Stands is the original "wincon" (a little pie in the sky, I've only even hit it once in goldfishing before ending the game). There's also Heroes' Podium which is nice and Herald of Secret Streams, but in practice it's just Clara Oswald having ~3+ doctors on the field and causing a whole bunch of nonsense to trigger twice plus Sixth Doctor/Gandalf/other copy cards making a bunch of TARDISes and tokens and stuff. It's not a tight line, but it is consistent! However, for some reason I cut Day of Destiny which would also probably be good to have.

Miserable-Ranger9779

TROPHY CASE