Sunday, October 31, 2010

Jianqiao Final

The 8th Jianqiao Cup reached its final with the first game was played October 30. Wang Xiangyun (2 dan) met Tang Yi (2 dan) at the final.


Tang Yi (left) vs. Wang Xiangyun (right)

Wang who played black chose an influence oriented joseki at the top right corner, aiming for the right side. At move 49, black separated white's group at the top side and suddenly white's group became an attacking target. Later black sacrificed the right side to launch a total attack at white's group. White resigned at move 139, realizing that her group has died.

The second game will be played at November 1.

Here is the game record:
Wang Xiangyun (black) vs. Tang Yi (white). Result: B+R.


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]EV[8th Jianqiao Cup, final 1]DT[2010-10-31]
PB[Wang Xiangyun]BR[2p]PW[Tang Yi]WR[2p]KM[7.5]HA[0]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[dp];B[pq];W[dc];B[de];W[ce];B[cf];W[cd];B[fq];W[cn];B[dg];W[od];B[oe];W[ne]
;B[pe];W[nd];B[pc];W[fd];B[ck];W[po];B[pl];W[eh];B[ci];W[mp];B[dd];W[ec];B[bf];W[qq]
;B[or];W[qr];B[lq];W[pp];B[dr];W[cq];B[lp];W[cr];B[ln];W[pd];B[qe];W[qm];B[ql];W[rl]
;B[rk];W[rm];B[kd];W[ng];B[hc];W[qj];B[pi];W[kf];B[ge];W[bd];B[fb];W[eb];B[cb];W[bb]
;B[mc];W[ob];B[pb];W[ni];B[pj];W[jd];B[je];W[ph];B[qh];W[gp];B[gq];W[hp];B[ir];W[qc]
;B[qb];W[qg];B[oh];W[pg];B[og];W[qi];B[nh];W[qk];B[pk];W[rh];B[mh];W[ld];B[kc];W[ke]
;B[md];W[me];B[ie];W[kh];B[kj];W[li];B[mk];W[nk];B[nl];W[lk];B[lj];W[mj];B[mi];W[ml]
;B[ij];W[ih];B[nm];W[hf];B[he];W[gh];B[gj];W[dj];B[fg];W[ff];B[gf];W[gg];B[eg];W[fh]
;B[di];W[rc];B[rb];W[iq];B[if];W[jg];B[ji];W[fj];B[fk];W[ek];B[fl];W[jk];B[kk];W[kl]
;B[jl];W[ik];B[jj];W[il];B[jm];W[im];B[hi];W[ig];B[ei];W[hk];B[hj];W[kn];B[lm])

Friday, October 29, 2010

Yuki Satoshi Won the First Game

Yuki Satoshi (9 dan) won the first game of the 36th Tengen title match. He beat Yamashita Keigo Tengen by killing a very big group in the middle. This is a very good start for Yuki since he has an unfavorable 4-10 record to Yamashita.


Yamashita Keigo (left) vs. Yuki Satoshi (right)

The second game will be played at November 9.


(;
KM[6.5]
EV[36th Tengen title match 1]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Yamashita Keigo]
WR[Tengen]
PB[Yuki Satoshi]
BR[9d]
RE[B+R]
DT[2010-10-28]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[dp];W[pp];B[oc];W[pj];B[nq];W[qn];B[kq];W[cn];B[dl]
;W[cq];B[cp];W[dq];B[ep];W[bp];B[bo];W[bq];B[co];W[fq];B[cf];W[fd]
;B[hc];W[di];B[dg];W[dk];B[ck];W[cl];B[cj];W[dj];B[ci];W[bk];B[dh]
;W[cm];B[ei];W[fj];B[el];W[fk];B[bl];W[bm];B[dn];W[al];B[bj];W[an]
;B[ao];W[bn];B[aj];W[ak];B[bd];W[gm];B[gn];W[hm];B[gp];W[gq];B[hp]
;W[hn];B[hq];W[gc];B[hd];W[cc];B[ph];W[nd];B[od];W[nf];B[oe];W[kd]
;B[hf];W[bc];B[kf];W[ie];B[gd];W[gb];B[fe];W[hb];B[fc];W[ed];B[ib]
;W[fb];B[jc];W[lf];B[lg];W[kg];B[jf];W[kh];B[mh];W[mg];B[lh];W[nh]
;B[ki];W[jh];B[ji];W[ih];B[if];W[ii];B[mj];W[nj];B[mk];W[oh];B[qh]
;W[ol];B[nl];W[jj];B[kj];W[kk];B[mi];W[lj];B[li];W[jk];B[om];W[pl]
;B[mm];W[nn];B[on];W[oo];B[no];W[np];B[mo];W[mp];B[lo];W[pn];B[oq]
;W[op];B[mr];W[pq];B[le];W[ne];B[mc];W[nc];B[nb];W[rj];B[hr];W[gh]
;B[ri];W[mb];B[lb];W[pg];B[qg];W[pf];B[qe];W[md];B[ma];W[mq];B[pr]
;W[qr];B[or];W[lr];B[lq];W[ns];B[nr];W[ps];B[kr];W[pm];B[nm];W[sj]
;B[jm];W[jn];B[km];W[im];B[fl];W[fn];B[en];W[gl];B[fh];W[gi];B[ld]
;W[be];B[bf];W[ce];B[ae];W[pi];B[ac];W[cd];B[ad];W[ab];B[af];W[qf]
;B[rf];W[rg];B[sg];W[sh];B[rh];W[si];B[re];W[bb];B[fs];W[eq];B[go]
;W[es];B[gs];W[fr];B[io];W[in];B[of];W[og];B[ok];W[ni];B[nk];W[ef]
;B[pk];W[qk];B[oj];W[oi];B[ap];W[bs];B[ff];W[df];B[fg];W[os];B[ls]
;W[fm];B[mf];W[ng];B[lk];W[jo];B[kl];W[ip];B[jp];W[fo];B[fp];W[ho]
;B[hk];W[iq];B[ir];W[il];B[hj];W[hg];B[gg])

Weon Took the Lead at Myeongin

Weon Sungjin (9 dan) took the lead at the final of the 38th Myeongin.

At the first game at October 23, Park Yeonghun took an early lead by forcing Weon to resign in 157 moves.


Weon Sungjin (left) vs. Park Yeonghun (right)

Here is the game record:
Park Yeonghun (black) vs. Weon Sungjin (white). Result: B+R.


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]EV[38th Myeongin final 1]DT[2010-10-23]
PB[Park Yeonghun]BR[9p]PW[Weon Sungjin]WR[9p]KM[6.5]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[pd];W[dd];B[qp];W[dq];B[oq];W[co];B[nc];W[jq];B[cf];W[fc];B[bd];W[cg];B[dg];W[ch]
;B[dh];W[bf];B[ce];W[ci];B[cc];W[ic];B[qj];W[di];B[eo];W[fp];B[cn];W[bn];B[bo];W[bp]
;B[do];W[ao];B[cm];W[dp];B[gn];W[rp];B[qo];W[rd];B[qd];W[re];B[rc];W[qh];B[oi];W[pf]
;B[qi];W[ph];B[qe];W[qf];B[rg];W[rb];B[qc];W[rf];B[rh];W[mg];B[kc];W[sc];B[qb];W[md]
;B[mc];W[ro];B[qq];W[em];B[fm];W[el];B[en];W[ql];B[qm];W[pm];B[qn];W[pi];B[pj];W[oj]
;B[ok];W[nj];B[ol];W[fl];B[gl];W[hm];B[gm];W[io];B[gj];W[eh];B[ho];W[ip];B[in];W[fo]
;B[fn];W[im];B[hn];W[jn];B[jm];W[il];B[hp];W[km];B[hq];W[jl];B[fq];W[ir];B[dk];W[fj]
;B[ej];W[fk];B[fi];W[gk];B[hk];W[hj];B[gi];W[hl];B[ei];W[df];B[eg];W[bk];B[ck];W[bl]
;B[cl];W[be];B[cd];W[fg];B[ef];W[de];B[fh];W[ff];B[ae];W[ee];B[eh];W[ag];B[eb];W[hg]
;B[er];W[dr];B[jo];W[om];B[pl];W[jp];B[hr];W[ep];B[ko];W[lo];B[kn];W[ln];B[jm];W[lb]
;B[lc];W[jn];B[bj];W[cj];B[jm];W[kl];B[kp];W[lq];B[lp];W[mp];B[mq];W[jn];B[bm];W[bi]
;B[jm];W[kb];B[np])


Weon returned the favor at the second game with a resignation just in 127 moves.


Park Yeonghun (left) vs. Weon Sungjin (right)


(;
EV[38th Myeongin final round 2]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Park Yeonghun]
WR[9d]
DT[2010-10-25]
BR[9d]
RE[B+R]
PB[Won Sungjin]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[pq];W[dp];B[oc];W[po];B[qo];W[rd];B[re];W[pp];B[qp]
;W[oq];B[qn];W[pr];B[qq];W[np];B[fq];W[iq];B[cn];W[fp];B[cq];W[cp]
;B[dq];W[eq];B[er];W[ep];B[gr];W[gq];B[fr];W[dj];B[bp];W[bo];B[bq]
;W[co];B[fc];W[df];B[db];W[gd];B[gc];W[hd];B[fd];W[fe];B[fk];W[dl]
;B[ik];W[hk];B[ij];W[hj];B[hi];W[hl];B[hh];W[fi];B[il];W[hm];B[ge]
;W[ff];B[he];W[id];B[ie];W[jd];B[je];W[kd];B[cc];W[nc];B[nd];W[mc]
;B[ob];W[lf];B[fh];W[ei];B[lh];W[qe];B[rf];W[bd];B[md];W[ld];B[ib]
;W[jb];B[ic];W[kh];B[kg];W[lg];B[li];W[od];B[oe];W[pd];B[qc];W[jf]
;B[jh];W[ke];B[nf];W[hf];B[om];W[mh];B[nh];W[mi];B[mg];W[ni];B[lj]
;W[oh];B[ng];W[pj];B[qk];W[ol];B[nm];W[mk];B[lm];W[pg];B[qf];W[qj]
;B[rk];W[rh];B[nl];W[nk];B[ok];W[oj];B[ig];W[me];B[ne];W[if];B[mj]
;W[nj];B[pl];W[mm];B[ml];W[lk];B[kl])



Weon then took the third game from Park by another resignation. With this victory, Weon just need one more victory to claim the title.


Weon Sungjin (left) vs. Park Yeonghun (black)

Here is the game record:
Weon Sungjin (white) vs. Park Yeonghun (black)

(;
EV[38th Myeongin final round 3]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Won Sungjin]
WR[9d]
DT[2010-10-27]
BR[9d]
RE[W+R]
PB[Park Yeonghun]
;B[pd];W[dc];B[dp];W[pq];B[ce];W[qo];B[pn];W[qn];B[fd];W[de];B[df]
;W[ee];B[cd];W[cc];B[dd];W[ed];B[ec];W[fc];B[eb];W[fb];B[ff];W[fe]
;B[ge];W[gd];B[ef];W[fd];B[bc];W[db];B[he];W[ck];B[cm];W[ch];B[cg]
;W[dh];B[bb];W[jc];B[oq];W[op];B[np];W[pp];B[jp];W[dq];B[eq];W[er]
;B[cq];W[dr];B[ep];W[cr];B[bq];W[gq];B[hr];W[gr];B[hq];W[gp];B[hp]
;W[gn];B[dk];W[cl];B[dl];W[bm];B[dm];W[bn];B[co];W[dj];B[go];W[bg]
;B[bf];W[fo];B[ho];W[fp];B[fn];W[en];B[fm];W[eo];B[do];W[br];B[fj]
;W[aq];B[no];W[nq];B[mq];W[or];B[mr];W[qf];B[pl];W[nd];B[ne];W[me]
;B[nf];W[od];B[pe];W[oe];B[pf];W[of];B[pg];W[og];B[pc];W[ph];B[qg]
;W[ok];B[mk];W[dg];B[jd];W[ic];B[oh];W[nh];B[oi];W[ni];B[nj];W[oj]
;B[pi];W[qk];B[qi];W[li];B[kj];W[ki];B[ji];W[jh];B[jj];W[ih];B[ql]
;W[cf];B[hi];W[ol];B[pm];W[oo];B[on];W[mj];B[nk];W[be];B[cg];W[lk]
;B[lj];W[mi];B[nm];W[cf];B[ap];W[ar];B[cg];W[nl];B[ml];W[cf];B[le]
;W[bd];B[hh];W[ob];B[mf];W[md];B[lg];W[kf];B[kg];W[jf];B[jg];W[ig]
;B[if];W[hg];B[kh];W[ie];B[hf];W[hd];B[gf];W[gg];B[je];W[fg];B[ng]
;W[eg];B[ke];W[mb];B[pb];W[rm];B[kc];W[kb];B[rl];W[sl];B[sk];W[sm]
;B[rk];W[pa];B[qa];W[oa];B[qb];W[ej];B[fk];W[gi];B[hj];W[nr];B[lc]
;W[lb];B[bo];W[ii];B[ij];W[ms])

Cho U Won First Game of Oza

Cho U started his Oza defense nicely. He beat Yamada Kimio the challenger by resignation and took the first game.


Cho U (left) vs. Yamada Kimio (right)

This is the third time for Yamada to challenge this title. The first was in 1997 where he beat Ryu Shikun and took the title and the second was last year where he can't obtain even a single victory from Cho. Will Yamada able to overcome Cho's dominance over him?

Here's the game record:
Cho U (black) vs. Yamada Kimio (white). Result: B+Resignation.


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]EV[58th Oza, title match #1]DT[2010-10-21]
PB[Cho U]BR[9p]PW[Yamada Kimio]WR[9p]KM[6.5]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[op];W[dp];B[lc];W[qq];B[qo];W[oq];B[np];W[ro];B[qn];W[nq];B[mp];W[pp]
;B[po];W[rp];B[fc];W[df];B[db];W[pg];B[ch];W[pj];B[mq];W[od];B[oe];W[md];B[qf];W[qg]
;B[ld];W[ne];B[of];W[le];B[jd];W[nh];B[ke];W[lf];B[nb];W[dk];B[eh];W[di];B[dh];W[bf]
;B[ff];W[fd];B[gd];W[ec];B[fb];W[eb];B[ea];W[cc];B[fe];W[ed];B[hc];W[kf];B[fq];W[cn]
;B[dr];W[je];B[kd];W[ip];B[pk];W[ok];B[ol];W[rf];B[re];W[pf];B[pe];W[qe];B[bb];W[cb]
;B[ca];W[bc];B[qf];W[fp];B[gp];W[eq];B[fo];W[ep];B[er];W[gq];B[fr];W[hq];B[cq];W[go]
;B[qk];W[oj];B[nl];W[pc];B[qc];W[nc];B[pb];W[ob];B[oa];W[mb];B[oc];W[bp];B[bq];W[ob]
;B[gn];W[hp];B[oc];W[gh];B[bg];W[ce];B[ei];W[ob];B[ee];W[bd];B[oc];W[fj];B[pd];W[ej]
;B[cj];W[ck];B[bj];W[mc];B[ie];W[jm];B[ih];W[kh];B[og];W[oh];B[ji];W[hj];B[mj];W[lj]
;B[mg];W[ng];B[nf];W[mf];B[li];W[ki];B[mh];W[ni];B[mi];W[kj];B[mk];W[qj];B[rg];W[rh]
;B[sf];W[rk];B[rl];W[ql];B[pl];W[sl];B[rm];W[ri];B[jg];W[jf];B[if];W[jh];B[jo];W[ll]
;B[kg];W[lg];B[ig];W[lh];B[lk];W[kk];B[in];W[ml];B[nk];W[mn];B[lo];W[bk];B[hi];W[ij]
;B[im];W[gi];B[dj];W[gm];B[hn];W[gf];B[fg];W[gg];B[ge];W[fm];B[fn];W[en];B[mr];W[nr]
;B[cp];W[bo];B[ii];W[kp];B[ko];W[jl];B[eo];W[do];B[em];W[dn];B[sm];W[sk];B[rr];W[rq]
;B[pr];W[pq];B[qr];W[sr];B[sq];W[sp];B[fl];W[gl];B[gk])

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Qisheng Top 8

The 3rd Qisheng Cup is already at its first stage eventhough one player is still not decided for the top 16.

Four players managed to go to the second stage by winning their games at October 24.

The pairings:
Wang Yuanjun (B) vs. Jian Lichen (W). Result:B+0.5


Jian Lichen (left) vs. Wang Yuanjun (black)

Lin Junyan (W) vs. Xia Daming (B). Result: B+

Zhao Peizhe (W) vs. Lin Yuxiang (B). Result: W+R


Lin Yuxiang (left) vs. Zhao Peizhe (right)

Hei Jiajia (W) vs. Lin Xiuping (B). Result: W+R


Near camera: Lin Junyan (left) vs. Xia Daming (right). Far: Hei Jiajia (left) vs. Lin Xiuping (right)
I'm glad that Hei Jiajia still won. I believe became the runner up at Qionglong Cup gave her a lot of moral booster.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Female Team Won GG Auction Cup

Female team can raise their toasts now because Park Jieun (9 dan) won the last game from Cho Hunhyun (9 dan) and gave victory to her team.



This is the second time Female team won this event. They won tuction Cup.

Congratulations!!

Here is the game record:
Park Jieun (white) vs. Cho Hunhyun (black). Result: W+4.5


(;
EV[4th GG Auction Cup 22nd round]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Park Jieun]
WR[9d]
DT[2010-10-22]
BR[9d]
RE[W+4.5]
PB[Cho Hunhyun]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[pq];W[dq];B[co];W[oc];B[kc];W[po];B[qo];W[qn];B[qp]
;W[pn];B[pc];W[od];B[pf];W[ph];B[nf];W[ld];B[lc];W[md];B[mc];W[ob]
;B[qg];W[lf];B[hc];W[qh];B[lg];W[kg];B[mf];W[kd];B[kf];W[jf];B[le]
;W[ke];B[lf];W[ie];B[jg];W[kh];B[ig];W[ge];B[fc];W[jc];B[jb];W[ee]
;B[li];W[ki];B[kj];W[ji];B[lj];W[ij];B[pk];W[rk];B[di];W[dl];B[ep]
;W[eq];B[fp];W[fq];B[gp];W[fk];B[fi];W[il];B[hi];W[hj];B[df];W[fg]
;B[dk];W[ek];B[ck];W[cl];B[em];W[el];B[gg];W[gh];B[ii];W[gi];B[hg]
;W[fh];B[jj];W[cg];B[cf];W[dh];B[be];W[bg];B[cc];W[dc];B[cd];W[oe]
;B[fd];W[fe];B[gq];W[bq];B[bp];W[of];B[rj];W[rh];B[qb];W[rf];B[re]
;W[qk];B[nq];W[gr];B[hr];W[dp];B[do];W[fr];B[br];W[aq];B[cq];W[cr]
;B[eh];W[eg];B[bl];W[bm];B[bj];W[cn];B[dg];W[ei];B[ch];W[ci];B[eh]
;W[rc];B[rg];W[dh];B[cp];W[bs];B[eh];W[rb];B[qc];W[dh];B[dr];W[ar]
;B[eh];W[sg];B[qf];W[dh];B[gs];W[ds];B[eh];W[sf];B[se];W[sh];B[sb]
;W[dh];B[fs];W[er];B[eh];W[ic];B[ib];W[dh];B[qj];W[pl];B[eh];W[hh]
;B[ih];W[dh];B[oj];W[ok];B[eh];W[gb];B[fb];W[dh];B[pj];W[bh];B[sk]
;W[og];B[rm];W[iq];B[ip];W[jp];B[io];W[kq];B[hq];W[jo];B[jn];W[kn]
;B[jm];W[km];B[jl];W[kl];B[ir];W[mp];B[np];W[no];B[db];W[rn];B[ol]
;W[ql];B[nk];W[mq];B[hd];W[he];B[rq];W[sl];B[dn];W[bn];B[sc];W[cb]
;B[eb];W[bf];B[bc];W[gm];B[jq];W[kr];B[hm];W[hl];B[hn];W[mr];B[nr]
;W[nm];B[sj];W[sp];B[fm];W[gn];B[gl];W[fl];B[fn];W[go];B[ho];W[gk]
;B[om];W[on];B[id];W[jd];B[ma];W[bb];B[ab];W[nh];B[mm];W[ml];B[nl]
;W[mn];B[nn];W[sq];B[sr];W[sn];B[rp];W[so];B[qr];W[nm];B[fo];W[gl]
;B[nn];W[ad];B[ae];W[nm];B[ac];W[lm];B[jr];W[ni];B[mk];W[op];B[oq]
;W[ap];B[bo];W[ao];B[lk];W[gd];B[gc];W[nj];B[ll];W[mm];B[ik];W[ns]
;B[os];W[ms];B[ks];W[ls];B[js];W[af];B[pm];W[qm];B[jk];W[hk];B[pp]
;W[na];B[mb];W[pa];B[qa];W[ef];B[ce];W[gf];B[nb];W[pg];B[oi];W[dm]
;B[hs];W[es];B[im];W[oa];B[oo];W[kb];B[ka];W[op];B[ng];W[mh];B[lh]
;W[oh];B[oo];W[or];B[ps];W[op];B[kp];W[ko];B[oo];W[en];B[eo];W[op]
;B[lp];W[lo];B[oo];W[ja];B[lb];W[op];B[lq];W[lr];B[oo];W[rr];B[rs]
;W[op];B[ne];W[nd];B[oo];W[ra];B[qe];W[op];B[jh];W[oo];B[rd];W[je]
;B[sa];W[de];B[ro];W[pi];B[ok])

Murakawa Daisuke Won Game 1

Murakawa Daisuke (5 dan) made it to the headline when he won the preliminary of 2010 Samsung Cup. This time he is trying to make it to the headline again by challenging Yuki Satoshi (9 dan) for Yuki's Kansai Kiin First Place position.


Murakawa Daisuke

The first game was played at October 21. Murakawa won the game by an early resignation.

Here is the game record:
Murakawa Daisuke (white) vs. Yuki Satoshi (black). Result: W+R


(;
EV[54th Kansai-Kiin 1st place title match 1]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Murakawa Daisuke]
WR[5d]
DT[2010-10-21]
BR[Kansai-Kiin 1st place]
RE[W+R]
PB[Yuki Satoshi]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[pp];W[dq];B[od];W[ck];B[pj];W[nq];B[pn];W[jp];B[fc]
;W[df];B[jd];W[do];B[lo];W[he];B[if];W[kn];B[np];W[jj];B[fe];W[hf]
;B[fg];W[ig];B[hc];W[dh];B[kg];W[gg];B[jl];W[lc];B[kc];W[ke];B[je]
;W[kb];B[jb];W[ne];B[mc];W[oe];B[qf];W[pd];B[pc];W[pe];B[qe];W[oc]
;B[ob];W[nd];B[nb];W[kf];B[jf];W[lg];B[ld];W[lh];B[jg];W[pg];B[qg]
;W[kl];B[cq];W[cp];B[eg];W[dg];B[oq];W[jq];B[jm];W[km];B[jk];W[kk]
;B[ij];W[ji];B[hl];W[gj];B[eq];W[cr];B[fl];W[gn];B[io];W[hp];B[hj]
;W[gk];B[gl];W[gi];B[fn];W[hn];B[dk];W[dl];B[ek];W[ei];B[cl];W[bl]
;B[in];W[jn];B[ep];W[gp];B[dp];W[bq];B[dn];W[cm];B[co];W[em];B[fm]
;W[eo])

Xie's Perfect Defense

Xie Yimin Female Honinbo, Female Meijin, Female Kisei once again shows her high skill by defending her Female Honinbo title from chalenger Mukai Chiaki with a perfect 3-0. Xie won the third game by a huge 9.5 points margin.


Xie Yimin


Mukai Chiaki

This is the fourth consecutive time Xie won Female Honinbo. So far four is the best streak a player can achieve in this tournament. Yoshida Mika is the first person to set this record.


Mukai Chiaki (left) vs. Xie Yimin (right)

Here is the game record:
Xie Yimin (black)vs. Mukai Chiaki (white). Result: B+9.5


(;
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
EV[29th Female Honinbo title match 3]
GM[1]
PW[Mukai Chiaki]
WR[4d]
DT[2010-10-20]
BR[Female Honinbo]
RE[B+9.5]
PB[Xie Yimin]
;B[qd];W[dc];B[pq];W[dp];B[de];W[ce];B[dd];W[cd];B[ec];W[cf];B[db]
;W[cc];B[fd];W[nc];B[lc];W[qc];B[pc];W[pd];B[qb];W[rc];B[od];W[pe]
;B[oc];W[rb];B[of];W[oe];B[ne];W[qe];B[nd];W[eg];B[gg];W[qo];B[pl]
;W[lp];B[po];W[ip];B[qp];W[qh];B[cn];W[kc];B[kb];W[jc];B[jb];W[ig]
;B[cq];W[cp];B[dq];W[ep];B[bp];W[bo];B[bq];W[co];B[fq];W[ic];B[ie]
;W[ge];B[gd];W[jf];B[je];W[ke];B[kf];W[lf];B[kd];W[kg];B[ld];W[hf]
;B[dk];W[fk];B[bn];W[an];B[am];W[ao];B[bl];W[cj];B[em];W[fp];B[gq]
;W[gm];B[fj];W[gj];B[dj];W[gp];B[hq];W[bj];B[di];W[ch];B[fl];W[gk]
;B[ek];W[cm];B[dm];W[cl];B[ck];W[fi];B[gl];W[hl];B[fm];W[hn];B[en]
;W[eo];B[ci];W[bi];B[dh];W[bh];B[dl];W[ml];B[nm];W[qk];B[mm];W[qm]
;B[ll];W[iq];B[mq];W[mp];B[nq];W[pn];B[on];W[oo];B[pp];W[om];B[nn]
;W[pm];B[im];W[hm];B[nl];W[mk];B[no];W[lk];B[kl];W[kk];B[jl];W[jk]
;B[hk];W[hj];B[jo];W[eq];B[er];W[hr];B[gr];W[jr];B[kq];W[gs];B[kr]
;W[hp];B[fr];W[cb];B[eb];W[nf];B[mf];W[ng];B[mg];W[me];B[nh];W[og]
;B[oh];W[pg];B[le];W[mh];B[md];W[lg];B[ol];W[ql];B[pj];W[oj];B[nj]
;W[mi];B[qj];W[rj];B[pk];W[rl];B[rp];W[ks];B[lr];W[fs];B[es];W[hs]
;B[cr];W[bs];B[cs];W[jp];B[kp];W[so];B[il];W[ik];B[ro];W[rn];B[qi]
;W[ri];B[he];W[gf];B[pb];W[hd];B[jd];W[gc];B[hb];W[sp];B[sq];W[sn]
;B[rq];W[ar];B[ca];W[ba];B[da];W[fe];B[bb];W[ab];B[aa];W[ap];B[aq]
;W[ba];B[fh];W[ee];B[ed];W[df];B[aa];W[jn];B[in];W[io];B[ko];W[ba]
;B[hc];W[eh];B[aa];W[lm];B[km];W[ba];B[ei];W[gi];B[aa];W[ln];B[kn]
;W[ba];B[bc];W[bd];B[aa];W[dn];B[bm];W[ba];B[ls];W[fn];B[aa];W[nk]
;B[ok];W[ba];B[gn];W[go];B[aa];W[ph];B[oi];W[ba];B[mj];W[lj];B[aa]
;W[qa];B[js];W[ir];B[ac];W[me];B[ra];W[sa];B[mf];W[ad];B[pa];W[ra]
;B[dg];W[cg];B[ak];W[aj];B[kf];W[if];B[bk];W[qn];B[ke];W[do];B[ej]
)

Monday, October 18, 2010

International Pair Go Championship

The 21st International Amateur Pair Go Championship took place from October 16-17 in Iidabashi, Japan. The competition was followed by 22 countries. The participants are:

Asia:China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand, Chinese Taipei

Europe:Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine

North America:Canada, U.S.A

Central,South America:Ecuador

Oceania,Africa:Australia

The tournament was won by Korea's pair, Lee Yeongju- Song Hongsuk with perfect 5-0 score. As the runner up, team Japan consists of Yuriko Hiraoka and Satoshi Hiraoka successfully scored 4-1 score.


Lee Yeongju (left) and Song Hongsuk (right)



The Ukraina team with their traditional costumes. Mariya Zakharchenko (left) and Iurii Pliushch. They ended up at 17th place.

The final game was between the Korea and Japan pair and was won by Korea's pair by 3.5 points.



Japan pair (left) vs. Korea pair (right)

Here is the game record:
Lee Yeongju-Song Hongsuk (white) vs. Yuriko Hiraoka-Satoshi Hiraoka (black). R:W+3.5

(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]GN[International Amateur Pair Go Championship]
DT[2010/10/16,13\:30\:00,2010/10/16,15\:00\:00]PC[(Hotel Metropolitan Edmont)]PB[Yuriko Hiraoka-Satoshi Hiraoka]
BR[5d-6d]PW[Lee Yeongju-Song Hongsuk]WR[5d-7d]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[W,3.5]CP[Japan Pair Go Association]
MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[pd];W[dd];B[qp];W[dp];B[fq];W[cn];B[dr];W[op];B[lp];W[pm];B[oo];W[no];B[on];W[pp]
;B[qn];W[qq];B[qo];W[nn];B[om];W[rq];B[fd];W[nq];B[df];W[dc];B[ff];W[fb];B[qj];W[nc]
;B[pf];W[pb];B[qc];W[ld];B[cl];W[cq];B[iq];W[cj];B[dk];W[ei];B[fk];W[gi];B[if];W[hj]
;B[fo];W[cr];B[jc];W[kc];B[jd];W[qb];B[jj];W[hl];B[fm];W[gg];B[de];W[he];B[gc];W[jh]
;B[bd];W[bc];B[cd];W[cc];B[ih];W[ig];B[hg];W[hh];B[jg];W[ii];B[gb];W[cg];B[bf];W[fc]
;B[fh];W[fi];B[ig];W[ji];B[gh];W[pg];B[qg];W[qh];B[ph];W[og];B[oh];W[qf];B[rg];W[ng]
;B[rf];W[nh];B[oj];W[nj];B[nk];W[mj];B[nl];W[kq];B[hi];W[gp];B[fp];W[hh];B[kb];W[lb]
;B[hi];W[ed];B[hh];W[gk];B[io];W[jm];B[lq];W[lr];B[lk];W[ij];B[kp];W[kr];B[jq];W[sn]
;B[kd];W[lc];B[sm];W[gd];B[fe];W[hc];B[hb];W[ib];B[ic];W[ga];B[hd];W[ha];B[ge];W[jb]
;B[mr];W[mq];B[jr];W[nr];B[rp];W[sp];B[so];W[ro];B[rn];W[in];B[ho];W[gn];B[fn];W[go]
;B[fr];W[jo];B[jp];W[mk];B[hn];W[ml];B[gm];W[rc];B[rd];W[pc];B[qd];W[ad];B[kn];W[po]
;B[pn];W[km];B[bm];W[bn];B[an];W[ao];B[am];W[co];B[cf];W[kg];B[kf];W[lf];B[le];W[mf]
;B[jn];W[im];B[rb];W[ra];B[sb];W[me];B[ch];W[ci];B[dh];W[ej];B[dm];W[eh];B[ae];W[ac]
;B[eg];W[bh];B[bg];W[di];B[dg];W[ln];B[ko];W[sq];B[so];W[dq];B[er];W[ek];B[el];W[od]
;B[bi];W[bj];B[ah];W[ke];B[oe];W[ne];B[je];W[ds];B[es];W[cs];B[nm];W[mm];B[ks];W[ms]
;B[dn];W[jf];B[ni];W[mi];B[oi];W[kf];B[do];W[of];B[pe];W[mp];B[lo];W[mo];B[ep];W[bp]
;B[ee];W[cm];B[bl];W[aj];B[ai])


Indonesia also took part at the championship. Harfina and Daniel Thalib who became the representative came out at 24th place with 2 victories over Lithuania and Finland (rank 17-26 all have 2 victories. It seems that Harfina and Thalib lost at the tie-breaker).

If you want to see more games from the championsip, visit this page:
http://www.pairgo.or.jp/amateur/21st/live/index_e.htm

Takao-Iyama Showdown (Again)

After playing 4 games at this year's Meijin, Takao Shinji and Iyama Yuta Meijin will meet in another important game. They will play the challenger decision's match to decide who will challenge Cho U for the 35th Kisei title.

Takao Shinji won the last game at League A from O Meien and came out ahead with perfect 5-0 score. AS usual, O Meien opened the game with an unusual opening.


Takao Shinji

Here is the game record:
Takao Shinji (white) vs. O Meien (black). Result: W+3.5

(;
EV[35th Kisei league]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Takao Shinji]
WR[9d]
DT[2010-09-30]
BR[9d]
RE[W+3.5]
PB[O Meien]
;B[pd];W[dd];B[oq];W[dp];B[fq];W[cn];B[pn];W[iq];B[kp];W[io];B[dq]
;W[cq];B[cr];W[eq];B[dr];W[ep];B[cp];W[bq];B[bp];W[br];B[bs];W[er]
;B[aq];W[qf];B[ph];W[qc];B[qd];W[pc];B[od];W[rd];B[re];W[rc];B[qe]
;W[nc];B[cf];W[ch];B[jn];W[qj];B[qi];W[oj];B[ni];W[ri];B[rh];W[rn]
;B[qn];W[ro];B[ql];W[rm];B[pk];W[qm];B[pm];W[rl];B[pj];W[qk];B[pl]
;W[in];B[jm];W[hl];B[dh];W[di];B[dg];W[be];B[ei];W[ej];B[ci];W[dj]
;B[fc];W[ee];B[db];W[gd];B[gc];W[hd];B[fi];W[bi];B[fg];W[ik];B[cc]
;W[cd];B[bc];W[bg];B[ih];W[kk];B[jq];W[ir];B[gf];W[nd];B[lc];W[me]
;B[le];W[ge];B[lf];W[pp];B[pq];W[qq];B[qr];W[rq];B[rr];W[rj];B[fj]
;W[fl];B[co];W[dn];B[bn];W[bm];B[jr];W[jo];B[ko];W[jp];B[kq];W[ao]
;B[fk];W[el];B[sq];W[ll];B[lm];W[oe];B[pf];W[of];B[qg];W[kd];B[nb]
;W[ob];B[mb];W[ld];B[oc];W[pb];B[ib];W[kg];B[lg];W[kh];B[if];W[kf]
;B[lh];W[mm];B[jc];W[jd];B[ie];W[kc];B[kb];W[mc];B[lb];W[ic];B[jb]
;W[ln];B[km];W[li];B[mi];W[mo];B[jj];W[ji];B[lj];W[ii];B[kn];W[hc]
;B[hb];W[hh];B[hg];W[mk];B[jk];W[kj];B[ki];W[np];B[nq];W[li];B[bf]
;W[af];B[ki];W[mq];B[mr];W[li];B[sd];W[ra];B[ki];W[nr];B[lq];W[li]
;B[qa];W[rb];B[ki];W[mp];B[or];W[li];B[cg];W[cj];B[ki];W[lr];B[ns]
;W[li];B[im];W[hm];B[ki];W[ij];B[gh];W[li];B[ah];W[ag];B[ki];W[oi]
;B[oh];W[li];B[nn];W[ki];B[mn];W[pi];B[nj];W[qh];B[oa];W[pa];B[qi]
;W[ng];B[ok];W[qo];B[mh];W[op];B[is];W[hs];B[js];W[hr];B[id];W[ke]
;B[bo];W[do];B[mf];W[an];B[ar];W[ec];B[eb];W[og];B[bd];W[ce];B[nm]
;W[sp];B[hi];W[ml];B[lo];W[jl];B[mj];W[gk];B[sr];W[na];B[ek];W[dk]
;B[ad];W[ae];B[ef];W[fe];B[es];W[fs];B[ds];W[sc];B[se];W[sh];B[sg]
;W[si];B[kl];W[lk];B[il];W[gj];B[gi];W[rf];B[sf];W[pe];B[rg];W[pg]
;B[qf];W[jk];B[hj];W[hk];B[po];W[nl];B[fr];W[gs];B[he];W[jg];B[ig]
;W[ma];B[la];W[oa];B[dc];W[ed];B[oo];W[ol];B[om])


At League B, Iyama managed to win the important game against league's leader, Yamashiro Hiroshi (9 dan). Both Iyama and Yamashiro had the same final score, 4-1, but since Iyama's rank is higher Iyama automatically play against League A's winner.


Iyama Yuta

Here is the game record:
Iyama Yuta (black) vs. Yamashiro Hiroshi (white). Result: B+R

(;
EV[35th Kisei league]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Yamashiro Hiroshi]
WR[9d]
DT[2010-09-30]
BR[Meijin]
RE[B+R]
PB[Iyama Yuta]
;B[pd];W[dp];B[pq];W[dd];B[fq];W[dn];B[ip];W[po];B[np];W[qq];B[qr]
;W[qk];B[qm];W[pp];B[qp];W[rq];B[qo];W[qn];B[pn];W[pr];B[oq];W[rn]
;B[oo];W[pm];B[op];W[on];B[pl];W[po];B[ql];W[rr];B[or];W[pn];B[pp]
;W[rl];B[rm];W[sm];B[rk];W[sl];B[ol];W[rj];B[ro];W[nn];B[so];W[sn]
;B[ps];W[pg];B[qi];W[pi];B[cf];W[fc];B[bd];W[nc];B[qj];W[pk];B[ph]
;W[pj];B[oh];W[qh];B[ri];W[qg];B[sj];W[sk];B[nd];W[md];B[mc];W[ld]
;B[nb];W[oc];B[od];W[ok];B[lc];W[ob];B[kd];W[ke];B[jd];W[qc];B[og]
;W[lf];B[pf];W[rh];B[qf];W[sh];B[mb];W[rd];B[rf];W[jb];B[kb];W[pc]
;B[rb];W[qb];B[je];W[rj];B[kg];W[mh];B[rk];W[si];B[me];W[cc];B[cl]
;W[eq];B[fp];W[bo];B[el];W[ko];B[ef];W[bc];B[jn];W[di];B[ci];W[dg]
;B[de];W[cg];B[ed];W[ec];B[cd];W[dc];B[eg];W[cj];B[bi];W[bj];B[dj]
;W[bh];B[ei];W[dh];B[eh];W[dk];B[ej];W[ck];B[dl];W[lk];B[ll];W[mk]
;B[ek];W[bl];B[ak];W[ai];B[bm];W[bf];B[fr];W[er];B[es];W[jo];B[dr]
;W[cr];B[dq];W[cq];B[ep];W[do];B[bk];W[ch];B[cs];W[br];B[ln];W[lo]
;B[mn];W[mo];B[no];W[kn];B[km];W[jm];B[jl];W[in];B[il];W[kq];B[lr]
;W[lq];B[mr];W[go];B[fn];W[im];B[io];W[hl];B[ij];W[gn];B[gm];W[fm]
;B[fl];W[iq];B[hp];W[fo];B[em];W[eo];B[hm];W[hn];B[nm];W[rj];B[ml]
;W[kk];B[kl];W[hr];B[gr];W[gp];B[gs];W[lg];B[ki];W[li];B[le];W[fd]
;B[be];W[df];B[ee];W[ce];B[re];W[rc];B[cf];W[ic];B[af];W[ce];B[sd]
;W[sb];B[cf];W[aj];B[al];W[ce];B[sa];W[sc];B[cf];W[bg];B[hq];W[ir]
;B[jp];W[kr];B[ag];W[ce];B[kp];W[gq];B[cf];W[gl];B[fm];W[ce];B[lp]
;W[mp];B[cf];W[mm];B[ce])

Who Do You Think Will Win the 12th Nongshim Cup?

Who do you think will win the 12th Nongshim Cup?
South Korea
Japan
China
My country
  
pollcode.com free polls

Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Final Game

The 4th GG Auction Cup is down to the final game. This time it will be between Cho Hunhyun (9 dan) and Park Jieun (9 dan).

Cho Hunhyun won the last 2 game from Rui Naiwei and Cho Hyeyeon thus making the game even again for both team.

Here is he game record:
Cho Hunhyun (white) vs. Rui Naiwei (black). Result: W+R

(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]GN[Rating game]EV[4th GG uction Cup, game 21]
DT[2010-10-15]PB[Rui Naiwei]BR[9p]PW[Cho Hunhyun]WR[9p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[W+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[pd];W[dp];B[qp];W[oq];B[cd];W[ql];B[po];W[qi];B[qg];W[ec];B[ic];W[ef];B[cg];W[kc]
;B[ie];W[nc];B[ob];W[ke];B[ig];W[kg];B[dc];W[de];B[eb];W[ce];B[di];W[hf];B[je];W[hc]
;B[ed];W[fc];B[dd];W[ib];B[hd];W[gc];B[fe];W[ff];B[ge];W[fi];B[jc];W[jb];B[dk];W[dg]
;B[dh];W[bg];B[bh];W[cf];B[ch];W[hg];B[kf];W[le];B[lf];W[cm];B[lc];W[kb];B[lq];W[qr]
;B[np];W[nq];B[mp];W[rq];B[fq];W[dq];B[fo];W[el];B[fj];W[hi];B[fh];W[gi];B[gl];W[kp]
;B[kq];W[ip];B[kn];W[gp];B[fp];W[in];B[il];W[jm];B[eh];W[gf];B[ll];W[km];B[lm];W[ln]
;B[ko];W[jk];B[ho];W[hk];B[lo];W[io];B[im];W[gn];B[ik];W[gk];B[jl];W[bk];B[cl];W[bl]
;B[dm];W[dl];B[ck];W[cn];B[fl];W[fk];B[ek];W[em];B[fm];W[en];B[fn];W[bf];B[eo];W[dn]
;B[er];W[ji];B[nb];W[kk];B[kl];W[mc];B[lb];W[mb];B[ld];W[kd];B[md];W[jf];B[nd];W[mf]
;B[bd];W[rh];B[rg];W[mr];B[cr];W[dr];B[ds];W[js];B[jr];W[cq];B[br];W[of];B[bq];W[bp]
;B[pk];W[qk];B[pi];W[pj];B[oj];W[qj];B[oi];W[if];B[qh];W[qn];B[ng];W[me];B[qq];W[sr]
;B[ap];W[ao];B[aq];W[co];B[he];W[fb];B[db];W[mh];B[ri];W[rj];B[sh];W[ro];B[oc];W[ks]
;B[is];W[lr];B[kr];W[ls];B[gr];W[oe];B[ij];W[qf];B[qe];W[ki];B[om];W[ol];B[pq];W[pr]
;B[pl];W[pm];B[ok];W[on];B[nl];W[pn];B[nn];W[pf];B[rf];W[op];B[oo];W[qo];B[pp];W[jd])



Cho Hyeyeon (left) vs. Cho Hunhyun

Cho Hunhyun (black) vs. Cho Hyeyeon (white). Result: B+R

(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]EV[4th GG Auction Cup, game 22]DT[2010-10-16]
PB[Cho Hunhyun]BR[9p]PW[Cho Hyeyeon]WR[9p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[pp];B[dc];W[cp];B[ep];W[eq];B[dp];W[dq];B[co];W[fq];B[bp];W[cq];B[cj];W[de]
;B[dn];W[fd];B[oc];W[qn];B[ce];W[dd];B[cd];W[ec];B[db];W[df];B[eb];W[gc];B[qi];W[qk]
;B[or];W[oq];B[pr];W[nr];B[nq];W[mq];B[np];W[mr];B[qp];W[qq];B[pq];W[rp];B[op];W[qo]
;B[nn];W[lo];B[pm];W[rk];B[qr];W[rr];B[po];W[pn];B[qp];W[rq];B[on];W[pp];B[lm];W[oo]
;B[mo];W[lp];B[io];W[jn];B[jl];W[in];B[go];W[hm];B[fm];W[ld];B[fb];W[dk];B[dj];W[fk]
;B[hk];W[ej];B[dh];W[eh];B[eg];W[fh];B[dg];W[fg];B[cf];W[lk];B[nk];W[km];B[ln];W[kl]
;B[jo];W[kn];B[iq];W[ko];B[gl];W[ml];B[nl];W[mm];B[pk];W[qf];B[ql];W[rl];B[oh];W[oe]
;B[of];W[pe];B[nc];W[me];B[nf];W[ne];B[lb];W[mi];B[nh];W[mh];B[mj];W[ni];B[oi];W[lj]
;B[kc];W[qj];B[mf];W[pj];B[oj];W[qh];B[kf];W[kd];B[kh];W[ki];B[lh];W[li];B[mg];W[bq]
;B[ic];W[ck];B[el];W[ek];B[kq];W[ho];B[hp];W[gn];B[gp];W[fn];B[en];W[ik];B[re];W[hj]
;B[bn];W[ap];B[ff];W[gf];B[ao];W[bo];B[ef];W[an];B[ge];W[hr];B[gr];W[gq];B[hq];W[ir]
;B[jr];W[fr];B[jp];W[hd];B[gg];W[id];B[hf];W[jc];B[jb];W[jd];B[ib];W[fo];B[fp];W[gm]
;B[lr];W[fl];B[rg];W[qg];B[qe];W[pf];B[ri];W[pi];B[rh];W[rf];B[sf];W[ph];B[gd];W[hc]
;B[fc];W[lc];B[kb];W[bj];B[bi];W[bk];B[ai];W[mc];B[mb];W[pd];B[pc];W[qc];B[rc];W[qb]
;B[rb];W[lf];B[lg];W[hh];B[jh];W[ih];B[qm];W[rm];B[nm];W[ji];B[bm];W[em];B[dm];W[mn]
;B[mk];W[ll];B[dl];W[ha];B[rj];W[sj];B[ia];W[ga];B[rs];W[eo];B[do];W[cl];B[cm];W[gh]
;B[le];W[hg];B[gf];W[sd];B[se];W[ke];B[jf])

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Second Victory

Xie Yimin Female Honinbo is close to defend her title with her second victory today at the 29th Female Honinbo title match game 2.


Mukai Chiaki (left) vs. Xie Yimin (right)

Mukai who played black opened the game with Low Chinese fuseki. Xie's approach is rather unusual, since it's usually one line further, was answered with a kosumi tsuke by Mukai. Quickly black claimed the right side and white went for the bottom board.

Xie played a winning tesuji at move 224. The combination until move 235 costs Mukai a lot! After this sequence, the game was easy for Xie and she eventually won by 2.5 points.

Here is the game record:
Xie Yimin (white) vs. Mukai Chiaki (black). Result: W+2.5


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]GN[Rating game]EV[29th Female Honinbo, gme 2]
DT[2010-10-13]PB[Mukai Chiaki]BR[4p]PW[Xie Yimin ]WR[5p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[W+2.5]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[pd];W[dd];B[pq];W[dp];B[qk];W[np];B[op];W[nq];B[no];W[mo];B[nn];W[lp];B[fc];W[cf]
;B[ic];W[qf];B[qe];W[pf];B[nd];W[qi];B[oj];W[oh];B[qj];W[ri];B[cn];W[fq];B[bp];W[cq]
;B[ck];W[mn];B[nm];W[dn];B[cm];W[sl];B[rl];W[pr];B[qr];W[or];B[db];W[ci];B[cc];W[qc]
;B[re];W[oc];B[od];W[nc];B[pc];W[pb];B[mc];W[mb];B[rg];W[oi];B[nj];W[mh];B[lb];W[nb]
;B[md];W[kh];B[kj];W[ih];B[rb];W[qb];B[rc];W[oa];B[rq];W[jk];B[jn];W[ip];B[kl];W[km]
;B[jl];W[jm];B[il];W[im];B[hl];W[je];B[lm];W[mm];B[hn];W[ll];B[hm];W[nl];B[ol];W[qd]
;B[pe];W[rd];B[sd];W[lc];B[kd];W[kb];B[kc];W[la];B[jb];W[cd];B[bq];W[dc];B[bb];W[bc]
;B[cb];W[ec];B[eb];W[fd];B[gc];W[he];B[gd];W[ge];B[fe];W[ff];B[ed];W[ee];B[fd];W[ef]
;B[br];W[hp];B[dr];W[er];B[jp];W[ln];B[in];W[jq];B[bi];W[bj];B[cj];W[bh];B[di];W[ai]
;B[ch];W[bi];B[gi];W[sj];B[sm];W[sk];B[nk];W[rm];B[sn];W[ml];B[rn];W[dh];B[eh];W[dg]
;B[ei];W[jd];B[jc];W[hi];B[gh];W[hj];B[gj];W[fm];B[li];W[lh];B[en];W[eo];B[fn];W[dm]
;B[em];W[dl];B[el];W[co];B[bo];W[cl];B[bl];W[bm];B[bn];W[bk];B[dk];W[al];B[cp];W[ek]
;B[dj];W[dq];B[do];W[oo];B[po];W[co];B[cr];W[do];B[ra];W[rf];B[sf];W[qg];B[bd];W[be]
;B[ac];W[oq];B[on];W[kk];B[jj];W[lk];B[mi];W[ni];B[mj];W[ki];B[lj];W[kn];B[ld];W[lb]
;B[ng];W[rh];B[sg];W[og];B[qa];W[pa];B[nf];W[lf];B[hg];W[ig];B[hf];W[if];B[de];W[ce]
;B[jo];W[go];B[gn];W[hh];B[gg];W[fg];B[hk];W[fh];B[fo];W[fp];B[ji];W[gf];B[id];W[gk]
;B[fk];W[fj];B[fi];W[fl];B[gl];W[eg];B[fk];W[sh];B[ej];W[se];B[sf];W[ke];B[pi];W[ph]
;B[pj];W[sg];B[se];W[ja];B[ia];W[hd];B[mg];W[lg];B[ie];W[nh];B[jh];W[jg];B[ho];W[gp]
;B[ps];W[os];B[qs];W[hc];B[hb];W[ae];B[of];W[ad];B[bc];W[ds];B[cs];W[es];B[le];W[mf]
;B[me];W[rk];B[ql];W[rj];B[an];W[am];B[kp];W[kq];B[ko];W[ka])

Go Softwares Who Beat Human

MoGo is at the top of the list. One thing to mention, all victories using big handicaps. I wonder how far the different is if pro player give only 2 or 3 stones, or even only a 0.5 point komi as a handicap.



In 2008, thanks to an efficient message-passing parallelization, MoGo won one game (out of three) against Catalin Taranu, 5th Dan Pro, in 9x9 with standard time settings (30 minutes per side). MoGo was running on a cluster provided by "Bull" (32 nodes with 8 cores per node, 3 GHz); the machine was down during one of the lost games. The results of this event were approved by the French Federation of Go. MoGo also played a 19x19 Game against Catalin Taranu and lost in spite of 9 stones handicap. However, MoGo was in good position during most of the game, and lost due to a bad choice in a ko situation at the end. The machine used for this event (the IAGO challenge, organized by the company "Recitsproque") is a good one, but far from the top level in industry.

On August 7, 2008, the computer program MoGo running on 25 nodes (800 cores, 4 cores per node with each core running at 4.7 GHz to produce 15 Teraflops)[citation needed] of the Huygens cluster in Amsterdam beat professional Go player Myungwan Kim (8p) in a nine stone handicap game on the 19x19 board on the KGS Go Server. MoGo won by 1.5 points. Mr. Kim used around 13 minutes of time while MoGo took around 55; however, he felt that using more time would not have helped him win. In after-game commentary, Kim estimated the playing strength of this machine as being in the range of 2–3 amateur dan.[4] MyungWan and MoGo played a total of 4 games of varying handicaps and time limits, each side winning two games. The game records are accessible on KGS where MoGo played as MogoTitan. In a rematch on September 20, Kim won two games giving MoGo nine stones.[5] On August 26, 2008, Mogo beat an Amateur 6d with five stones of handicap, this time running on 200 cores of the Huygens cluster.

On September 4, 2008, the program Crazy Stone running on an 8-core personal computer won against 30 year-old professional, Aoba Kaori (4p), receiving a handicap of eight stones. The time control was 30 seconds per move. White resigned after 185 moves. The game was played during the FIT2008 conference in Japan.

In February 2009, MoGo won two 19x19 games against professional Go players in the Taiwan Open 2009. With a 7-stones handicap the program defeated Zhou Junxun (9p), and with a 6-stones handicap it defeated Li-Chen Chien (1p).

On February 14, 2009, Many Faces of Go running on a 32-core Xeon cluster provided by Microsoft won against James Kerwin (1p) with a handicap of seven stones. The game was played during the 2009 AAAS general meeting in Chicago.

On August 7, 2009, Many Faces of Go (version 12) resigned against Myungwan Kim (8p) in a 7-stone handicap game.[10] Many Faces was playing on a 32 node system provided by Microsoft. The "Man vs. Machine" event was part of the 2009 US Go Congress, which was held in Washington DC from August 1 to August 9.

On August 21 and 22, 2009, Zhou Junxun (9p) beat Many Faces of Go, MoGo, and Zen in full-board 7-stone games, beat MoGo in an even 9×9 game, and won one and lost one even 9×9 game against Fuego.

On July 20, 2010, MoGoTW won an even 9×9 game as white against Zhou Junxun (9p).

On July 20, 2010, at the 2010 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence in Barcelona Spain computer program Zen played professional 4 dan Ping-Chiang Chou of Taiwan 19x19 Go. Yamato of Japan wrote Zen. Zen had 6 stone handicap. Each side had 45 minutes. Zen won the game.

On July 28, 2010, at the 2010 European Go Congress in Finland computer program MogoTW played European professional 5 dan Catalin Taranu 19x19 Go. MogoTW had a 7 stone handicap. The computer won. MogoTW is a joint project between the MoGo team and a Taiwanese team.

Why It's Hard to Create A Strong Go Software

For a long time it was a widely held opinion that computer Go posed a problem fundamentally different to computer chess insofar as it was believed that methods relying on fast global search compared to human experts combined to relatively little domain knowledge would not be effective for Go. Therefore, a large part of the computer Go development effort was during these times focused on ways of representing human-like expert knowledge and combining this with local search to answer questions of a tactical nature. The result of this were programs that handled many situations well but which had very pronounced weaknesses compared to their overall handling of the game. Also, these classical programs gained almost nothing from increases in available computing power per se and progress in the field was generally slow. Therefore, creating a strong Go-playing program was by many seen as something that could, if at all, be achieved only in the far future and possibly only with fundamental advances in general artificial intelligence technology. Even writing a program capable of automatically determining the winner of a finished game was seen as no trivial matter.


Computer vs. Human

The advent of programs based on Monte Carlo search starting in 2006 changed this situation in many ways, although the gap between strong human players and the strongest Go programs remains considerable.


Size of board

The large board (19x19, 361 intersections) is often noted as one of the primary reasons why a strong program is hard to create. The large board size is a problem to the extent that it prevents an alpha-beta searcher without significant search extensions or pruning heuristics from achieving deep look-ahead.

So far, the largest game of Go being completely solved has been played on a 5×5 board. It was achieved in 2002, with black winning by 25 points (the entire board), by a computer program called MIGOS (MIni GO Solver).

Most moves are possible

Continuing the comparison to chess, Go moves are not as limited by the rules of the game. For the first move in chess, the player has twenty choices. Go players begin with a choice of 55 distinct legal moves, accounting for symmetry. This number rises quickly as symmetry is broken and soon almost all of the 361 points of the board must be evaluated. Some are much more popular than others, some are almost never played, but all are possible.
[edit] Additive nature of the game

As a chess game progresses (as well as most other games such as checkers, draughts, and backgammon), pieces disappear from the board, simplifying the game. Each new Go move, on the contrary, adds new complexities and possibilities to the situation, at least until an area becomes developed to the point of being 'settled'.
[edit] Techniques in chess that cannot be applied to Go

The fact that computer Go programs are significantly weaker than computer chess programs has served to generate research into many new programming techniques. The techniques which proved to be the most effective in computer chess have generally shown to be mediocre at Go.

While a simple material counting evaluation is not sufficient for decent play in chess, it is often the backbone of a chess evaluation function, when combined with more subtle considerations like isolated pawns, rooks on open verticals, pawns in the center of the board and so on. These rules can be formalised easily, providing a reasonably good evaluation function that can run quickly.

These types of positional evaluation rules cannot efficiently be applied to Go. The value of a Go position depends on a complex analysis to determine whether or not the group is alive, which stones can be connected to one another, and heuristics around the extent to which a strong position has influence, or the extent to which a weak position can be attacked.


Evaluation function

Another problem comes from the difficulty of creating a good evaluation function for Go. More than one move can be regarded as the best depending on how you use that stone and what your strategy is. In order to choose a move, the computer must evaluate different possible outcomes and decide which is best. This is difficult due to the delicate trade-offs present in Go. For example, it may be possible to capture some enemy stones at the cost of strengthening the opponent's stones elsewhere. Whether this is a good trade or not can be a difficult decision, even for human players. The computational complexity also shows here as a move might not be immediately important, but after many moves could become highly important as other areas of the board take shape.

Combinatorial problems

Sometimes it is mentioned in this context that various difficult combinatorial problems (in fact, any NP-complete problem can be converted to Go-like problems on a sufficiently large board)[citation needed]; however, the same is true for other abstract board games, including chess and minesweeper, when suitably generalised to a board of arbitrary size. NP-complete problems do not tend in their general case to be easier for unaided humans than for suitably programmed computers: it is doubtful that unaided humans would be able to compete successfully against computers in solving, for example, instances of the subset sum problem. Hence, the idea that we can convert some NP-complete problems into Go problems does not help in explaining the present human superiority in Go.


Endgame

Given that the endgame contains fewer possible moves than the opening or middle game, one could suppose that it was easier to play, and thus that computers should be easily able to tackle it. In chess, computer programs perform worse in endgames because the ideas are long-term, unless the number of pieces is reduced to an extent that allows taking advantage of solved endgame tablebases.

The application of surreal numbers to the endgame in Go, a general game analysis pioneered by John H. Conway, has been further developed by Elwyn R. Berlekamp and David Wolfe and outlined in their book, Mathematical Go (ISBN 1-56881-032-6). While not of general utility in most playing circumstances, it greatly aids the analysis of certain classes of positions.

Nonetheless, although elaborate study has been conducted, Go endgames have been proven to be PSPACE-hard. There are many reasons why they are so hard:

* Even if a computer can play each local endgame area flawlessly, we cannot conclude that its plays would be flawless in regards to the entire board. Additional areas of consideration in endgames include Sente and Gote relationships, prioritisation of different local endgames, territory counting & estimation, and so on.
* The endgame may involve many other aspects of Go, including 'life and death', which are also known to be NP-hard.[17][18]

* Each of the local endgame areas may affect one another. In other words, they are dynamic in nature although visually isolated. This makes it much more difficult for computers to deal with. This nature leads to some very complex situations like Triple Ko, Quadruple Ko, Molasses Ko and Moonshine Life.

Thus, it is very unlikely that it will be possible to program a reasonably fast algorithm for playing the Go endgame flawlessly, let alone the whole Go game.


Speculations on why humans are better at Go


Go has features that might be easier for humans than computers.[20] The pieces never move about (as they do in Chess), nor change state (as they do in Reversi). Some speculated that these features make it easy for humans to "read" (definition needed) long sequences of moves, while being irrelevant to a computer program, while no rigorous cognitive neuroscience evidence indicating so.

In those rare Go positions known as "ishi-no-shita", in which stones are repeatedly captured and re-played on the same points, humans have reading problems[citation needed], while they are easy for computers.

Order of play

Current, Monte-Carlo-based, go engines can have difficulties in solving problems when the order of moves is important.

Tactical search

One of the main concerns for a Go player is which groups of stones can be kept alive and which can be captured. This general class of problems is known as life and death. The most direct strategy for calculating life and death is to perform a tree search on the moves which potentially affect the stones in question, and then to record the status of the stones at the end of the main line of play.

However, within time and memory constraints, it is not generally possible to determine with complete accuracy which moves could affect the 'life' of a group of stones. This implies that some heuristic must be applied to select which moves to consider. The net effect is that for any given program, there is a trade-off between playing speed and life and death reading abilities.

State representation

An issue that all Go programs must tackle is how to represent the current state of the game. For programs that use extensive searching techniques, this representation needs to be copied and/or modified for each new hypothetical move considered. This need places the additional constraint that the representation should either be small enough to be copied quickly or flexible enough that a move can be made and undone easily.

The most direct way of representing a board is as a 1 or 2-dimensional array, where elements in the array represent points on the board, and can take on a value corresponding to a white stone, a black stone, or an empty intersection. Additional data is needed to store how many stones have been captured, whose turn it is, and which intersections are illegal due to the Ko rule.

Most programs, however, use more than just the raw board information to evaluate positions. Data such as which stones are connected in strings, which strings are associated with each other, which groups of stones are in risk of capture and which groups of stones are effectively dead is necessary to make an accurate evaluation of the position. While this information can be extracted from just the stone positions, much of it can be computed more quickly if it is updated in an incremental, per-move basis. This incremental updating requires more information to be stored as the state of the board, which in turn can make copying the board take longer. This kind of trade-off is indicative of the problems involved in making fast computer Go programs.

An alternative method is to have a single board and make and takeback moves so as to minimise the demands on computer memory and have the results of the evaluation of the board stored. This avoids having to copy the information over and over again.

Source: Wikipedia

About Go Software

Unlike chess, it is nearly impossible to create a Deep-Blue-like computer program that can defeat a halfway descent go player, basically because there are so many different moves a go player can make (about 200 compared to only 35 for a chess player). Despite decades or research, the expenditure of millions and offers of prize money as a reward the best go software is only as good a first-grade players in the amateur category. A good teenage player can beat the supercomputer go program.



Ben Macintyre wrote in the Times of London,“the very qualities that mark out the master go player are precisely those a computer lacks: intuition, planning, character and pattern reading. Go is not merely a matter of probabilities leading to certainties, at its best, the game reflects the defining characteristics of human intelligence.” The quest to come up with go software continues because if a computer can “learn” the game that advance is regarded as big step in unlocking the secret of artificial intelligence.

A Taiwanese organization has offered $1 million for the first computer program to defeat a junior Go champion. Among those that have played go are Albert Einstein, Rod Stewart, Mao Zedong and Nobel-Prize-winning economist played by Russell Crowe in The Beautiful Mind.

Computer Beat Shogi Pro

It's not a big deal for a chess software to beat top player in an even match, but the story is different in shogi, since it has more possibility than chess (the ability to drop pieces in shogi makes it more complex than chess).

A computer has taken down top women's shogi player Ichiyo Shimizu in a special game staged at the University of Tokyo, moving development of software for the Japanese chess game a step ahead.


Ichiyo Shimizu

The game lasted six hours and three minutes. Shimizu, a professional shogi, or Japanese chess, player, has won titles at 45 competitions, the most of any female player.

The shogi system, titled "Akara 2010," defeated Shimizu, holder of the women's Osho title, in 86 moves.

"It made no eccentric moves, and from partway through it felt like I was playing against a human. I'm a bit frustrated by the loss, but I gained respect for the people who took part in developing the software," Shimizu said. "I hope humans and computers will become stronger in the future through friendly competition."

"Akara," after which the shogi system was named, is a Buddhist term meaning "10 to the power of 224," a figure close to the total possible number of unique shogi games. The system combines four shogi software programs -- Gekisashi, GPS Shogi, YSS and Bonanza -- and selects the best move through a majority.

In the game with Shimizu, each side had three hours. Akara 2010 played with a "ranging rook" strategy, offering an exchange of bishops. Shimizu made a questionable move partway though the game, and Akara went on to win.

The game was staged after the Information Processing Society of Japan approached the Japan Shogi Association and suggested holding the match.

Society member Hitoshi Matsubara, a professor at Future University Hakodate, said the computer's win came after decades of work.

"I started developing shogi software 35 years ago, and for the software to become this strong is enough for me to forget all the hard work."

In 2005, the Japan Shogi Association introduced a ban on professional members playing shogi computers without permission. The latest game was the first human versus computer game approved by the association since Ryuo champion Akira Watanabe defeated Bonanza in 2007.

Will future go software will also able to beat human in an even game? If yes, how far that future is? Only time will tell.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Qisheng Cup Top16

The 3rd Qisheng Cup is on the run. Eight leagues are held and 2 top players from each league will advance to the next round. So far, some names already advanced to the top 16.

At league A, Lin Xiuping (3 dan) is the top scorer with perfect 4-0 score. The runner up is Zhang Huaiyi (2 dan) with 3-1.

Lin Xiuping

At league B, Lin Zhihan is leading with 4-0. However, 2 players follow him with 3-1 score. Zhou Yinnan, one of the player with 3-1 score, will play Lin at the last game. The second person is Lin Junyan.


Lin Zhihan

At League C, Lin Shuyang, Peng Jinghua, and Zhao Peizhe are tie with 3-1 score. Two extra games will be played to determine the top 2.

At League D, Xiao Zhenghao Tianyuan became number 1 with 5-0, followed by Zhou Junxun (9 dan) with 4-1.


Xiao Zhenghao

At League E, Zhang Yuanrong (1 dan) became top scorer with 4-0 while Lin Yuxiang (3 dan) at second place with 3-1.


Zhang Yuanrong

At League F, Jian Lichen and Xia Daming respectively became number 1 and 2 of the league.

Jian Lichen

At League G, Chen Shiyuan Wangwi is first with 4-0 score. The second placer will be determine with a game between Liu Yaowen and Chen Yixiang.


Chen Shiyuan

At League H, Hei Jiajia a.k.a Joanne Missingham is at the top, winning all 5 games with resignation. She also become the only female player at the top 16. While the runner up will be the winner between Wang Yuanjun and Ding Shaojie.


Hei Jiajia

Here are some games from the leagues:
Jian Lichen (black) vs. Xia Daming (white). Result: B+R

(;
EV[3rd Qisheng league]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Xia Daming]
WR[5d]
DT[2010-08-27]
BR[5d]
RE[B+R]
PB[Jian Lichen]
;B[pd];W[dp];B[pq];W[dc];B[fq];W[dn];B[jp];W[qo];B[pl];W[pn];B[oo]
;W[pp];B[oq];W[qq];B[qr];W[op];B[np];W[nq];B[rq];W[qp];B[or];W[nr]
;B[os];W[no];B[mp];W[nn];B[de];W[cg];B[cc];W[cd];B[dd];W[ce];B[cf]
;W[df];B[bf];W[bc];B[cb];W[be];B[ec];W[bg];B[ef];W[dg];B[lo];W[hq]
;B[hp];W[qf];B[qh];W[qj];B[pf];W[oj];B[qg];W[ln];B[kn];W[lm];B[km]
;W[ll];B[gq];W[iq];B[ip];W[lq];B[lp];W[dr];B[cl];W[cn];B[fe];W[pc]
;B[qc];W[oc];B[qb];W[od];B[pe];W[kc];B[ic];W[el];B[ej];W[dj];B[di]
;W[cj];B[ek];W[dl];B[mc];W[md];B[lc];W[ld];B[kb];W[kd];B[jb];W[nf]
;B[nh];W[mj];B[rj];W[rk];B[ri];W[qk];B[je];W[kf];B[jf];W[kg];B[jg]
;W[kh];B[ng];W[of];B[og];W[eg];B[fg];W[fh];B[gg];W[ei];B[mf];W[mg]
;B[mh];W[lg];B[oe];W[ne];B[li];W[jh];B[lj];W[ii];B[fi];W[eh];B[gh]
;W[hj];B[gj];W[hl];B[mk];W[nk];B[gr];W[rp];B[rr];W[bb];B[db];W[ig]
;B[if];W[er];B[lk];W[gk];B[ik];W[hk];B[ml];W[nl];B[mm];W[mn];B[fo]
;W[gn];B[fn];W[fm];B[hn];W[go];B[gp];W[gm];B[eq];W[dq];B[nm];W[om]
;B[sk];W[sl];B[sj];W[rl];B[nb];W[ba];B[ob])


Ding Shaojie (black) vs. Huang Xinreng (white). Result: B+R

(;
EV[3rd Qisheng league]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Huang Xiangren]
WR[5d]
DT[2010-09-03]
BR[1d]
RE[B+R]
PB[Ding Shaojie]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[pq];W[dp];B[fc];W[od];B[cf];W[ee];B[cc];W[qc];B[rc]
;W[pc];B[qg];W[rb];B[qj];W[po];B[pm];W[mp];B[pp];W[jq];B[oo];W[dg]
;B[dc];W[cj];B[cq];W[cp];B[dq];W[fq];B[fr];W[cd];B[ed];W[bd];B[fe]
;W[df];B[ef];W[de];B[gq];W[fp];B[hr];W[bq];B[br];W[qo];B[rp];W[pk]
;B[ho];W[qk];B[pj];W[rj];B[ri];W[oj];B[rk];W[rl];B[sj];W[on];B[no]
;W[om];B[mo];W[nq];B[ol];W[nl];B[pl];W[pn];B[ok];W[lo];B[ln];W[ko]
;B[mm];W[nm];B[np];W[mq];B[lk];W[nk];B[rm];W[lj];B[kk];W[mj];B[cl]
;W[go];B[dk];W[hn];B[dj];W[ci];B[hp];W[gk];B[fj];W[fk];B[fh];W[in]
;B[ji];W[lg];B[kd];W[fg];B[gh];W[gg];B[gj];W[ge];B[gd];W[ff];B[fd]
;W[ih];B[hk];W[hl];B[il];W[hj];B[ik];W[id];B[gm];W[fm];B[kg];W[kh]
;B[jh];W[kf];B[jg];W[le];B[je];W[ld];B[kc];W[hd];B[hf];W[hg];B[if]
;W[ii];B[ki];W[lh];B[ek];W[fl];B[eh];W[eg];B[di];W[hh];B[ij];W[kb]
;B[jb];W[hb];B[gf];W[bb];B[bc];W[ac];B[cb];W[lb];B[jc];W[bo];B[ch]
;W[bh];B[hi];W[re];B[oi];W[nh];B[rd];W[qe];B[pe];W[pd];B[qf];W[rf]
;B[rg];W[ar];B[cr];W[er];B[eq];W[fs];B[gr];W[ds];B[dr];W[jr];B[gp]
;W[ep];B[es];W[sc];B[sf];W[sd];B[lc];W[mc];B[mb];W[nb];B[of];W[ma]
;B[or];W[nr];B[oq];W[ro];B[sp];W[qm];B[ql];W[he];B[hc];W[ib];B[ic]
;W[ja];B[dh];W[cg];B[gb];W[im];B[em];W[en];B[fn];W[gn];B[bk];W[bi]
;B[bg];W[bf];B[mf];W[lf];B[ne];W[nd];B[ha];W[og];B[el];W[fo];B[cn]
;W[bn];B[bm];W[jl];B[jk];W[km];B[lm];W[qp];B[qq];W[rn];B[sm];W[ph]
;B[dn];W[qh];B[rh];W[ka];B[ia];W[ab];B[ba];W[er];B[gs];W[am];B[al]
;W[an];B[lp];W[lq];B[kn];W[jo];B[nj];W[mk];B[bj])


Hei Jiajia vs. Chen Yongan (white). Result: B+R

(;
EV[3rd Qisheng league]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Chen Yongan]
WR[6d]
DT[2010-09-07]
BR[1d]
RE[B+R]
PB[Hei Jiajia]
;B[pd];W[dc];B[qp];W[op];B[oq];W[nq];B[pq];W[eq];B[np];W[qj];B[qh]
;W[qm];B[mq];W[cp];B[de];W[dh];B[gd];W[ee];B[ef];W[ed];B[ff];W[ge]
;B[fe];W[fd];B[hd];W[df];B[dg];W[cf];B[cg];W[eg];B[ch];W[bf];B[eh]
;W[fg];B[gf];W[fh];B[di];W[he];B[hg];W[ie];B[jc];W[fi];B[ih];W[ck]
;B[dk];W[dl];B[ek];W[cj];B[ei];W[hi];B[el];W[dm];B[em];W[ii];B[kh]
;W[hl];B[gm];W[jf];B[ji];W[ic];B[id];W[jd];B[kd];W[je];B[ib];W[kc]
;B[hc];W[jb];B[kb];W[ic];B[cd];W[cc];B[jc];W[hh];B[ig];W[ic];B[dn]
;W[jc];B[cn];W[bg];B[bh];W[bo];B[bn];W[gq];B[ij];W[gk];B[jl];W[hm]
;B[gp];W[hq];B[in];W[hn];B[io];W[jm];B[km];W[fn];B[fp];W[fm];B[rl]
;W[ql];B[rk];W[qi];B[qk];W[pk];B[rm];W[ph];B[qg];W[qn];B[rn];W[oi]
;B[ok];W[pl];B[nh];W[pg];B[qf];W[ni];B[nf];W[nl];B[fq];W[fr];B[gr]
;W[er];B[hr];W[iq];B[ir];W[jq];B[jr];W[kq];B[kr];W[lq];B[lr];W[mp]
;B[nr];W[no];B[lp];W[nq];B[mr];W[ko];B[im];W[lo];B[dp];W[dq];B[bq]
;W[cq];B[ho];W[gg];B[hf];W[hj];B[gb];W[fb];B[lb];W[lc];B[mb];W[ia]
;B[oc];W[an];B[am];W[ao];B[bm];W[ep];B[ik];W[go];B[lk];W[mj];B[mm]
;W[nm];B[fo];W[gn];B[eo];W[do];B[en];W[co];B[np];W[mo];B[oo];W[nq]
;B[po];W[qo];B[ro];W[np];B[pp];W[ml];B[ll];W[pf];B[pe];W[rh];B[rg]
;W[ri];B[be];W[ce];B[ag];W[dd];B[af];W[bd];B[sg];W[qc];B[rd];W[li]
;B[ki];W[nd];B[lh];W[rc];B[qd];W[jn];B[il];W[lj];B[kj];W[ae];B[ah]
;W[ob];B[pb];W[pc];B[nb];W[od];B[nc];W[qb];B[pa];W[me];B[lf];W[jg]
;B[jh];W[le];B[kf];W[ke];B[cr];W[br];B[fs];W[ds];B[om];W[ol];B[on]
;W[nn];B[jp];W[kp];B[mk];W[nk];B[fj];W[gj];B[fl];W[gl];B[ka])


Wang Yuanjun (white) vs. Zhang Zhengping (white). Result: W+R

(;
EV[3rd Qisheng league]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Wang Yuanjun]
WR[3d]
DT[2010-09-17]
BR[2d]
RE[W+R]
PB[Zhang Zhengping]
;B[qd];W[dp];B[po];W[dc];B[lc];W[qm];B[pq];W[qj];B[qh];W[ro];B[pl]
;W[pm];B[ql];W[rm];B[rl];W[ol];B[pj];W[pk];B[qk];W[ok];B[rj];W[oj]
;B[qi];W[qp];B[pp];W[qq];B[lq];W[jq];B[om];W[on];B[nm];W[nn];B[mm]
;W[mn];B[lm];W[ln];B[km];W[kn];B[jm];W[nq];B[jp];W[ip];B[kp];W[mq]
;B[iq];W[hq];B[ir];W[hr];B[io];W[hp];B[jn];W[le];B[pn];W[pr];B[or]
;W[qr];B[oq];W[nr];B[ns];W[ms];B[os];W[np];B[ke];W[kf];B[je];W[ld]
;B[kc];W[nd];B[lf];W[mf];B[lg];W[mg];B[kg];W[mc];B[oc];W[od];B[pc]
;W[nb];B[mh];W[qe];B[re];W[pd];B[qf];W[nh];B[pe];W[mi];B[lh];W[og]
;B[de];W[fc];B[cc];W[cb];B[cd];W[bb];B[kd];W[of];B[cj];W[co];B[fe]
;W[li];B[ki];W[kj];B[ji];W[lr];B[kr];W[lp];B[kq];W[ko];B[jo];W[cl]
;B[ek];W[bj];B[bi];W[bk];B[ch];W[dk];B[ej];W[gd];B[ge];W[lk];B[fq]
;W[fp];B[dq];W[cq];B[eq];W[ep];B[cr];W[bq];B[gr];W[is];B[br];W[jj]
;B[ij];W[ik];B[ii];W[jr];B[ks];W[qo];B[jk];W[jl];B[il];W[kk];B[hk]
;W[gs];B[es];W[ar];B[dr];W[hl];B[jk];W[qc];B[qb];W[ik];B[ls];W[mr]
;B[jk];W[rc];B[rb];W[ik];B[no];W[mo];B[jk];W[bs];B[cs];W[ik];B[oo]
;W[qn];B[jk];W[ho];B[fr];W[ik];B[im];W[gk];B[jk];W[he];B[hd];W[ik]
;B[hj];W[gm];B[jk];W[hc];B[id];W[ik];B[oi];W[ni];B[jk];W[jg];B[jf]
;W[ik];B[mk];W[oh];B[jk];W[gj];B[kl];W[nc];B[pb];W[fi];B[pi];W[el]
;B[gb];W[gc];B[hb];W[fb];B[ic];W[bc];B[lb];W[oe];B[bd];W[dj];B[nj]
;W[di];B[ci];W[dh];B[cg];W[ib];B[jb];W[pf];B[qe];W[gg];B[hg];W[hh]
;B[ig];W[ef];B[dd];W[df])

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Weon Sungjin Became GS Galtex Challenger

It seems that Weon Sungjin (9 dan) is in a good form. Not only successfully became Myeongin's finalist, he also became the challenger of the 15th GS Galtex Cup.

Weon won the final game at the main tournament from Park Yeonghun (9 dan) by resignation. Weon will play in a 5 games series against the current title holder, Cho Hanseung. The tournament is sponsored by Daily Economic Newspaper & TV.

Here is the final game record:
Weon Sungjin (white) vs. Park Yeonghun (black). Result: W+R


(;
EV[15th GS Caltex Cup challenger decision match]
KM[6.5]
FF[3]
SZ[19]
GM[1]
PW[Won Sungjin]
WR[9d]
DT[2010-10-07]
BR[9d]
RE[W+R]
PB[Park Yeonghun]
;B[qd];W[dp];B[pq];W[dc];B[de];W[oc];B[cc];W[cb];B[cd];W[gc];B[pf]
;W[qh];B[qk];W[oh];B[nf];W[ld];B[qg];W[ri];B[mh];W[ql];B[pl];W[qm]
;B[pm];W[qn];B[qj];W[rg];B[rl];W[pn];B[rf];W[pk];B[pi];W[ol];B[ph]
;W[nq];B[qp];W[op];B[nr];W[or];B[oq];W[pr];B[np];W[mq];B[oo];W[mp]
;B[qr];W[no];B[mr];W[lr];B[ps];W[qc];B[rc];W[pd];B[qb];W[pb];B[pc]
;W[eb];B[ch];W[qc];B[qe];W[fq];B[cn];W[dk];B[en];W[co];B[bn];W[go]
;B[gn];W[hn];B[fo];W[gm];B[gp];W[fn];B[fp];W[eo];B[ep];W[do];B[dq]
;W[cq];B[eq];W[cr];B[iq];W[ci];B[bi];W[cj];B[em];W[bo];B[bj];W[dh]
;B[cg];W[bk];B[fm];W[gn];B[cl];W[aj];B[bh];W[ck];B[fk];W[gl];B[ek]
;W[fi];B[gk];W[fr];B[gq];W[jp];B[jq];W[kq];B[gr];W[hi];B[ik];W[ji]
;B[kk];W[li];B[mk];W[nj];B[ij];W[ii];B[jn];W[io];B[lo];W[kp];B[nm]
;W[om];B[nn];W[po];B[mo];W[on];B[fg];W[ei];B[hd];W[lm];B[km];W[ef]
;B[eg];W[dg];B[df];W[fe];B[hg];W[gf];B[gg];W[hj];B[hk];W[ll];B[jg]
;W[ko];B[kl];W[jj];B[im];W[kn];B[bl];W[jk];B[jl];W[in];B[ln];W[lp]
;B[nl];W[mn];B[kj];W[ki];B[mj];W[mi];B[ni];W[kg];B[oj];W[jf];B[je]
;W[if];B[hf];W[hl];B[il];W[ie];B[he];W[fd];B[di];W[dj];B[kf];W[ke]
;B[lf];W[ig];B[jd];W[id];B[ic];W[jh];B[hc];W[jc];B[jb];W[kc];B[gb]
;W[fb];B[kb];W[lb];B[ia];W[bb];B[mg];W[ga];B[hb];W[bf];B[be];W[cf]
;B[af];W[ai];B[ah];W[ag];B[ak];W[ae];B[ce];W[aj];B[ad];W[ac];B[af]
;W[dr];B[er];W[ae];B[eh];W[di];B[af];W[jr];B[ir];W[ae];B[mc];W[lc]
;B[af];W[hp])

Rui Naiwei Stopped Choi Kyubyeong

The Female team at the 4th GG Auction Cup stays alive with the victory of Rui Naiwei over Choi Kyubyeong (9 dan).

Actually it was still An Kwangwuk's turn to represented Senior team, but it seemed he couldn't play for the match and was replaced by Choi Kyubueong. I don't know whether An Kwangwuk's absence was counted as lost by forfeit or not.



The next game will be played at October 15. It will be between Rui Naiwei and Cho Hunhyun.

Here is the game record:
Rui Naiwei (white) vs. Choi Kyubyeong (black). Result: W+R


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]GN[Rating game]EV[4th GG Auction Cup, game 20]
DT[2010-10-02]PB[Choi Kyubyeong]BR[9p]PW[Rui Naiwei]WR[9p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[W+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[dc];B[pp];W[dp];B[de];W[ce];B[dd];W[cd];B[ec];W[cf];B[db];W[cc];B[kc];W[fc]
;B[fb];W[ed];B[eb];W[fe];B[gc];W[cn];B[iq];W[nq];B[oq];W[np];B[pn];W[kq];B[fq];W[eq]
;B[fp];W[jo];B[en];W[fr];B[gr];W[er];B[el];W[cl];B[mn];W[ip];B[jq];W[kp];B[hp];W[ho]
;B[jp];W[io];B[do];W[cp];B[ep];W[hq];B[hr];W[gp];B[gq];W[kr];B[co];W[bo];B[bn];W[dn]
;B[eo];W[bp];B[dj];W[dl];B[ek];W[hk];B[hm];W[im];B[il];W[hl];B[gm];W[jm];B[kl];W[jl]
;B[ik];W[kk];B[ij];W[hj];B[ii];W[hi];B[ih];W[hh];B[hg];W[ei];B[bk];W[bl];B[ch];W[eg]
;B[go];W[hp];B[is];W[js];B[ir];W[ig];B[hf];W[jg];B[ki];W[lg];B[mi];W[hd];B[kf];W[kg]
;B[kj];W[lk];B[gd];W[ge];B[he];W[id];B[jf];W[kd];B[jd];W[je];B[jc];W[if];B[ie];W[ke]
;B[gg];W[gh];B[fg];W[fh];B[ic];W[md];B[me];W[lf];B[nd];W[ng];B[oi];W[ne];B[oe];W[nf]
;B[pg];W[pf];B[od];W[ph];B[qg];W[oh];B[pj];W[mc];B[di];W[cg];B[dh];W[eh];B[dq];W[dr]
;B[fd];W[ff];B[hc];W[ok];B[ml];W[lm];B[ll];W[jk];B[mm];W[mk];B[nh];W[mo];B[ql];W[og]
;B[ln];W[pl];B[pk];W[nj];B[ni];W[om];B[on];W[nn];B[qh];W[qq];B[or];W[pi];B[oj];W[ol]
;B[pm];W[no];B[qi];W[qo];B[po];W[rr];B[ro];W[rp];B[rn];W[pr];B[ee];W[ef];B[bb];W[cb]
;B[ca];W[bc];B[bg];W[bf];B[bi];W[fj];B[qp];W[pq];B[op];W[sp];B[ob];W[of])

Friday, October 8, 2010

Untouchable

Iyama Yuta showed an impressive skill at the 35th Meijin championship. He defended his title with a perfect score 4-0!


Iyama Yuta (right) vs. Takao Shinji (right)

Day 2 of the fourth game started by Iyama playing his sealed move, a tobi tsuke at J15. After this move, a difficult fight started at the upper board. Iyama showed an impressive living skill with his sequence from move 161-171. He successfully got a flower ko fight and later revived the group.

After 265 moves, Takao Shinji resigned. His big group at the center die.

Congratulations for Iyama Yuta! This is his second Meijin title in a row. Hopefully he will do better in both domestic and international tournament.


Iyama Yuta

Here is the game record:


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]GN[Rating game]EV[35th Japanese Meijin, title match game #4]
DT[2010-10-07]PB[Iyama Yuta]BR[9p]PW[Takao Shinji]WR[9p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[dp];B[dc];W[qp];B[ce];W[od];B[oc];W[nc];B[pc];W[nd];B[qf];W[jd];B[oq];W[fc]
;B[fq];W[dn];B[po];W[qo];B[pn];W[qn];B[pm];W[qm];B[pl];W[eq];B[fp];W[ip];B[kq];W[go]
;B[fo];W[gn];B[fn];W[fm];B[hp];W[in];B[em];W[en];B[iq];W[fl];B[cq];W[fr];B[bn];W[hq]
;B[gr];W[er];B[gq];W[bp];B[do];W[cn];B[co];W[cp];B[eo];W[dl];B[bo];W[bq];B[lb];W[mb]
;B[ld];W[jc];B[kc];W[me];B[le];W[lf];B[ke];W[if];B[ie];W[je];B[kf];W[pe];B[qe];W[lg]
;B[jf];W[he];B[kh];W[mi];B[ng];W[og];B[nh];W[mf];B[lh];W[mh];B[kj];W[pi];B[oh];W[pg]
;B[ph];W[qh];B[nj];W[qg];B[ql];W[kg];B[ig];W[hf];B[jg];W[jh];B[lj];W[mj];B[oj];W[ji]
;B[ij];W[jj];B[jk];W[ii];B[hi];W[ik];B[kk];W[hj];B[hg];W[nf];B[fe];W[gf];B[fg];W[ff]
;B[ef];W[ee];B[eg];W[ed];B[gg];W[pr];B[gd];W[hc];B[mk];W[ob];B[pb];W[rf];B[re];W[sf]
;B[or];W[jp];B[jq];W[cd];B[gc];W[fb];B[sh];W[rh];B[rl];W[si];B[rq];W[cf];B[be];W[de]
;B[df];W[bd];B[bf];W[cg];B[bg];W[ch];B[gb];W[hb];B[di];W[cc];B[bh];W[rc];B[rb];W[ra]
;B[oa];W[na];B[nb];W[pq];B[ma];W[rr];B[cb];W[dd];B[ab];W[ad];B[eb];W[ec];B[fa];W[ha]
;B[ba];W[db];B[da];W[ea];B[ri];W[sg];B[eb];W[ga];B[dc];W[ln];B[km];W[jn];B[gk];W[il]
;B[ho];W[ej];B[gj];W[gi];B[fi];W[dj];B[ci];W[hh];B[fj];W[hn];B[ck];W[lp];B[hl];W[gm]
;B[cl];W[lq];B[mo];W[kp];B[jm];W[im];B[mg];W[el];B[so];W[sp];B[db];W[kr];B[ae];W[ea]
;B[jr];W[js];B[hr];W[mr];B[fa];W[hd];B[bc];W[ea];B[pp];W[rj];B[fa];W[ge];B[ps];W[qr]
;B[ac];W[fd];B[sr];W[sn];B[cm];W[dm];B[rs];W[qq];B[qs];W[rm];B[se];W[pd];B[qc];W[lm]
;B[np];W[nm];B[kn];W[lo];B[nl];W[ei];B[eh];W[cj];B[bj];W[is];B[os];W[rk];B[io];W[jo]
;B[pf];W[of];B[hk];W[bi];B[ai];W[mp];B[nq];W[dk];B[fk];W[ml];B[ll];W[jl];B[kl])

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Park Yenghun Advanced to Final

A new Myeongin will be born! Park Yeonghun beat the 13 times Myeongin title holder, Lee Changho, at the semi-final of the 38th Myeongin.

This is the first time for Park to advance to the final, while for Weon Sungjin, this is his second shot at the title.



Here is the game record:
Park Yeonghun (black) vs. Lee Changho (white). Result: B+R


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]GN[Rating game]EV[38th Myeongin semi-final]
DT[2010-10-05]PB[Park Yeonghun]BR[9p]PW[Lee Changho]WR[9p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[pp];B[dc];W[dp];B[cn];W[fq];B[ch];W[od];B[oc];W[nc];B[pc];W[nd];B[qf];W[jc]
;B[bp];W[gc];B[jd];W[ic];B[de];W[cq];B[nq];W[qn];B[pr];W[mq];B[mp];W[lq];B[lp];W[nr]
;B[oq];W[jq];B[kp];W[iq];B[qq];W[qp];B[or];W[qk];B[dl];W[dk];B[el];W[di];B[dh];W[fi]
;B[eh];W[ck];B[cl];W[fk];B[gg];W[fl];B[do];W[fn];B[fo];W[go];B[en];W[gn];B[qi];W[og]
;B[ld];W[lc];B[oi];W[ok];B[nm];W[no];B[oo];W[on];B[nn];W[op];B[np];W[qg];B[rg];W[rf]
;B[re];W[ni];B[nj];W[mi];B[he];W[oj];B[pg];W[mo];B[ln];W[ie];B[if];W[id];B[jf];W[db]
;B[eb];W[cc];B[cb];W[dd];B[da];W[ed];B[cd];W[bc];B[ce];W[ec];B[db];W[fb];B[bb];W[rq]
;B[rr];W[pq];B[qr];W[bq];B[ep];W[eq];B[cp];W[dq];B[pl];W[ql];B[aq];W[ar];B[ap];W[ob]
;B[pb];W[bk];B[kq];W[kr];B[ns];W[mr];B[ms];W[lr];B[rp];W[ro];B[sq];W[bi];B[bh];W[po]
;B[jm];W[kl];B[jl];W[km];B[kn];W[kk];B[lm];W[jn];B[jk];W[kj];B[jj];W[ji];B[ii];W[jh]
;B[ih];W[in];B[gj];W[je];B[kf];W[fj];B[lh];W[li];B[bl];W[ge];B[hf];W[ah];B[ag];W[ai]
;B[bf];W[le];B[fa];W[ga];B[hd];W[hc];B[oa];W[nb];B[na];W[ma];B[pa];W[mc];B[rj];W[ph]
;B[qh];W[pf];B[qg];W[al];B[am];W[ak];B[br];W[bm];B[an];W[bs];B[as];W[bn];B[ao];W[ar]
;B[cm];W[cr];B[pm];W[qj];B[pn];W[pi];B[om];W[oo];B[rk];W[rl];B[gd];W[ri];B[si];W[sk]
;B[rh];W[fd];B[of];W[pe];B[ng];W[oh];B[mf];W[ml];B[me];W[md];B[ke];W[kd];B[ff];W[so]
;B[ll];W[lk];B[nl];W[nk];B[jp];W[ip];B[jr];W[os];B[ps];W[ir];B[gk];W[qe];B[rd];W[rs]
;B[ss];W[sr];B[qs];W[sp];B[rq];W[gi];B[hl];W[hi];B[hj];W[fe];B[pk];W[pj];B[jg];W[fp]
;B[kh];W[ki];B[eo];W[lf];B[lg];W[ld];B[hh];W[oe];B[im];W[nf];B[ci];W[cj];B[ei];W[dj]
;B[qm])

Game 4 of Meijin

The fourth game of the 35th Meijin championship was played at October 6. This time challenger Takao Shinji will go all out against Iyama Yuta Meijin. Takao Shinji must win this game or he must wait one more year for another shoot at the title since Iyama is leading the series with 3-0.

At the end of day 1, Takao Shinji started a fight by attacking black's weak group at the upper board. However, white must be very careful since his group at the upper right is not yet settled.


Iyama handled his sealing move.


Board position at the end of day 1

Xie Won Game 1

Xie Yimin Female Honinbo started her title challenge well. She won the first game of the 29th Female Honinbo championship which was played at October 6.


Nigiri

Xie who played black in this game opened the game by playing the Micro Chinese opening. Mukai's joseki choice at the bottom right corner is very territory oriented. I personally dislike the move since black already played Q10 which works well with the wall. The game came to a break at move 80 for lunch break.


Ishida Yoshio is the commentator for this game

A surprising exchange was played during the game. The exchange at move 204-205 let Mukai got a ko fight to save her group while Xie got 4 stones and a chance to destroy white's corner. After 237 moves, Xie won by resignation. White is behind in territory and still has a ko fight to handle.


Busy press room


Xie Yimin


Losing is not everything. Just look at Mukai Chiaki's expression.

Here is the game record:
Xie Yimin (black) vs. Mukai Chiaki (white). Result: B+R


(;CA[Windows-1252]SZ[19]AP[MultiGo:4.4.4]EV[29th Female Honinbo title match, game 1]
DT[2010-10-06]PB[Xie Yimin ]BR[5p]PW[Mukai Chiaki]WR[4p]KM[6.5]HA[0]RE[B+R]MULTIGOGM[1]
;B[qd];W[dd];B[pp];W[dp];B[fc];W[cf];B[lc];W[hc];B[pj];W[nq];B[lq];W[qq];B[qp];W[pq]
;B[op];W[nr];B[mo];W[fd];B[cn];W[cl];B[en];W[fp];B[dk];W[dl];B[el];W[ek];B[ej];W[fk]
;B[fl];W[gk];B[cj];W[bj];B[bi];W[bk];B[ci];W[bn];B[bo];W[bm];B[co];W[al];B[gi];W[fi]
;B[fh];W[fj];B[eh];W[ck];B[dj];W[gh];B[gg];W[hh];B[ff];W[jh];B[gd];W[bq];B[gn];W[hp]
;B[in];W[gl];B[jl];W[fm];B[eo];W[go];B[fn];W[em];B[gc];W[dc];B[ep];W[eq];B[fq];W[er]
;B[fo];W[gp];B[ip];W[iq];B[jp];W[nc];B[pc];W[hg];B[hf];W[he];B[ie];W[if];B[gf];W[kd]
;B[ld];W[hd];B[jf];W[ig];B[ke];W[kb];B[lb];W[kc];B[ge];W[le];B[nb];W[kf];B[je];W[lf]
;B[bd];W[be];B[bg];W[bc];B[hb];W[ic];B[ib];W[jb];B[eb];W[qh];B[qj];W[rq];B[pg];W[ro]
;B[rp];W[sp];B[qn];W[md];B[mb];W[pe];B[qe];W[nh];B[oi];W[rm];B[cd];W[ba];B[ce];W[de]
;B[bf];W[cc];B[ae];W[ab];B[rn];W[sn];B[qo];W[so];B[qm];W[rl];B[rk];W[ql];B[pl];W[jq]
;B[kq];W[hn];B[hm];W[ho];B[gm];W[kk];B[kh];W[jg];B[db];W[cb];B[lj];W[oc];B[ob];W[og]
;B[pf];W[of];B[oe];W[ne];B[ml];W[od];B[oh];W[pd];B[qc];W[mp];B[lp];W[kl];B[km];W[jk]
;B[hq];W[gq];B[hr];W[gr];B[jr];W[io];B[jm];W[jo];B[ir];W[ph];B[qf];W[mk];B[ni];W[lk]
;B[ik];W[lm];B[ll];W[qk];B[sk];W[rj];B[ri];W[no];B[ln];W[np];B[ij];W[mn];B[mm];W[lo]
;B[ji];W[kn];B[mr];W[pk];B[ok];W[ol];B[sm];W[pm];B[sq];W[nk];B[oj];W[lm];B[nm];W[on]
;B[ln];W[hl];B[il];W[lm];B[cq];W[li];B[mj];W[kj];B[ki];W[mh];B[nl];W[nn];B[ln];W[pl]
;B[sl];W[lm];B[kg];W[hi];B[ln];W[jn];B[im];W[lm];B[cr];W[br];B[ln];W[ks];B[ms])