Analysis: Open Tournament, A: nqeron v. Simmon

Note: The analysis and positions described are for the 6x6 game. Extend the principles and ideas to the 5x5 and the 8x8 at your own risk...

Last month held the first ever online Tak tournament, the Tak Strategy Summer Invitational Tournament. In the wake of this, a more recent tournament has arrived, dubbed the Open Tournament. In contrast to the previous tournament, the pool of participants was open to any participants (though restricted to 16 total). In addition, whereas the summer invitational was scheduled with a live stream following - along with commentary - this tournament is schedule-free and none of the games have been commented on - in any form. Due to this absence of commentary, so far, I thought I would offer some of my own insights into the games of the tournament.

Before starting, however, a few things should be clear. My analysis is not intended as an end-all and be-all of analysis. Rather, it is intended to be a jumping off point - my own subjective evaluation, subject to scrutiny, criticism, and input from other experienced players. In the same regard, it is not intended to be complete. There is a lot that could be said about specific games and the strategies or possible lines - too much to be covered in individual analysis pieces. For the sake of brevity, and to highlight the more interesting moves, I probably won't discuss every position or idea. Where there are interesting ideas that fall out of scope, I will attempt to delve into them in more in-depth posts.

Finally, note that all the games will be oriented to the a1 and lower right triangle, using the idea of collapsing board symmetries. (As a result, while the games will be identical, the PTNs used here and those listed in the archive may have different orientations).

Without further ado, let's delve into the first game that I'll be looking at:


The players - nqeron (white) and Simmon (black) -  begin with a fairly common Opposite corner opening, with nqeron opting for the Close Center line (2. d4):

[PTN 1. a1 f6 2. d4]

This is becoming a relatively common opening in the 6x6 meta and is fairly versatile with it's close connection to the f1 corner and direct control over the center. The major downside in this opening is that it cedes tempo to black - allowing them to dictate the shape of the game. In playing against edge crawl¹,  it would be arguably better to start out with the far center (2. c3) - this would then lead to easy connections to d2 and b4 as needed. In either case, the tempo shifts to black.

From here, Simmon takes control of the tempo with edge crawl, building a threat down the 1-rank, starting with 2. ... b1.  In response, though, nqeron plays a questionable 3. e2? :

[PTN 1. a1 f6 2. d4 b2 3. e2?]

While not necessarily a bad move, it seems a bit too weak and passive. It lacks good connection to the other pieces, doesn't really add to a road threat, and doesn't even directly interfere with black's tempo. Instead, white might have considered 3. c1, d1 or even e1. All of these 1-rank moves would have directly interfered with black's immediate tempo while simultaneously picking up the tempo for white, with the potential vertical road threat.

In response, black follows up with 3. ... e1, maintaining the immediate road threat, and threatening the weak e2 stone. White then responds with a cut at 4. d1, finally interfering with black's threat, and slightly building a vertical road threat, but not with enough tempo. This lets black run up the board with 4. ... b2, 5. c3 d3:

[PTN 1. a1 f6 2. d4 b2 3. e2? e1 4. d1 b2 5. c3 d3]

Here, black is still maintaining tempo, with a road threat now aimed vertically. In addition, despite white's control of the center, the pieces are a bit scattered, not really supporting each other or forming any effective road potential.

With white responding at 6. b4, white finally manages to pause black and set up some potential, while threatening b3.  Black responds to this threat and aims around the b4 move with 6. ... a3:

[PTN 1. a1 f6 2. d4 b2 3. e2? e1 4. d1 b2 5. c3 d3 6. b4 a3]

This neatly supports black's stones, but ceding move priority to white. Note, however, that black still maintains tempo, but it's the same tempo from the last turn, rather than progressing tempo. This would allow white to build structures to either gain tempo or position.  There is also an interesting structure with white's b4, c3, and d4 stones (highlighted). This, along with his stones at the bottom sort of let white aim both west and south with a road. Despite, this, the structure is weak, with an open center at c4.

So where white played 7. a4?, it would have likely been better to have played 7. c4, solidifying the central structure, and aiming the road in both directions. (With this play, black would still have tempo, though, so black could pursue the line : 7. ... a4 8. d5, or even 7. (C)c2.

Black, then, takes advantage of white's mistake and plays 7. ... c4. In response, White plays 8. d4 <:

[PTN ... 7.a4? c4 8. d4<]

Here, white has finally regained tempo, has a decent set of connected stones and is even building potential threats, both north-south and east-west. On the other hand, this move cedes control of the center and the east group of stones is fairly vulnerable without much scaffolding.

In response, black attacks the center group at 8. ... d4, threatening the weak c4 stone. White follows up with 9. d3, further attempting to connect his groups and create threats, but leaving the c4 stone weak. A play at 9. c5 could have helped to support the weak stone, and extend up, helping with the secondary road threat. (but, not increasing tempo). Again, black moves in with this precise critical point, with 9. ... c5, creating a significant threat at c4, and even cutting into some of white's ability to expand north:

[PTN ... 8. ... d4 9. d3 c5]

At this point black now has control over the c4 square and is ready to cut through white's pieces and establish a powerful road potential, while also gaining tempo. White decides to respond with 10. d3+, capturing the d4 stone and regaining control of the c4 square. In addition, it maintains white's tempo lead (but without pressing it). It does, however, lack some aggression and and gives up more center control and the connection with the southern white stones. 

A more aggressive option would be to play 10. d2, filling in the gap and creating  a fairly strong road threat, requiring black to respond. Even though black has a cut at c4, white has enough influence to take it or add threats to either the north-south or east-west road. One line with this - suggested by TakticianBot, is the following: 10. ... c5- 11.b4> d4- 12. d4 13. Cc5, c3> 14. c5-, d5.

In this game, black responds with 10. ... b5, leaving the board in this position:

[PTN ... 10. d3+ c5]

White here follows up with a weak 11. a5?, which doesn't help his situation much. (TacticianBot recommends 11.d3). Black responds by continuing to build his structure up with 11. ... b6, which white then makes something of an effort to circumvent with 12. d5:

[PTN ... 11. a5? b6 12. d5]

Black responds with a fairly powerful 12. ... b5-!, connecting his groups and stealing tempo from white, allowing him to gain the upper hand. White responds to the road threat with 13. Cb5, effectively cutting off black's pieces again. In return, black cuts white's pieces and road threat with 13. ... c5-, which also renews black's north-south threat:

[PTN ... 12. ... b5- 13. Cb5 c5-]

From here, White moves his cap down (14. Cb5-), threatening the c4 stack. Black responds by running his stack down (14. ... 2c4-12), which allows white to connect his pieces with 15. c4. In return, black develops his own cap with 15. ... Cd3:

[PTN ... 14. Cb5- 2c4-12 15. c4 Cd3]

White now plays 16. e5, which attempts a road threat, and connects loosely to f6. Another move that could have been better in this context would have been 16. 3b4-12, capturing up some of black's influence and creating alternative potential north-south road options. Black follows up with 16. ... d3+, cutting the road threat with his cap, but allowing white to renew the threat with 17. c5. Black, however, is able to gain a strong foothold and block with 17. ... 2d4+:

[PTN ... 16. 3b4-12 17.c5 2d4+]

This point pretty much marks the beginning of the end. Black has a significant advantage in board control, road threats, and flat count. In contrast, white's pieces are more spread out, relatively weak, and doesn't have many options for strong recourse. While white manages to stave off Black's victory for a bit, but without any real contestations or moves that regain tempo. In the end, white loses by missing a road, netting Simmon 52 points for the game.

Perhaps the most significant move -  even here - would have been 3b4-12, which could have potentially helped white regain momentum, but white neglected to see this as a viable option and mostly played defensive moves that really couldn't gain much ground.

Overall, white lacked a bit fair bit in execution of ideas. In particular, white would have benefitted from being more aggressive, paying more attention to the connectivity of stones, and looking for options to invade black's base of power. Black, by contrast, played consistently throughout the game, capitalizing on white's missteps, securing board control and creating strong road threats.

---

1 edge crawl is a strategy where the player plays the beginning mostly on the edge of the board. ^↩

----
Think with mind of air
Listen close to heart of stone
A beautiful game