The new millennium of European Go began halfway through a tournament, the London Open as usual straddling New Year's Day. The Roundhouse venue in North London had been refurbished, but in the hiatus of sponsorship of the European tour (between Hitachi and Toyota) some of the top stars stayed away. Those who came were perhaps the worse for celebration or flu (or both). The system is an eight round McMahon over four days, with the twist (apparently on its last outing) of a knockout decider for four top players after Round 6, with random choice in the usual case of ties.
The Closing Stages
This year the top four were Zhang Zhongyong (5 dan, China), Valentin Urziceanu (4 dan, Romania), Uemura Yoshiyuki (4 dan, France) and Victor Chow (6 dan) of South Africa. Zhang beat Chow, and Urziceanu beat Uemura; and in the final Zhang beat Urziceanu to win overall and take the top prize.
Moral Victor?
Victor Chow is a return visitor to London, having placed seventh in 1998/9; this time he finished second, but had 7/8 and the highest tie-break score. He is originally from China, where he had the benefit of Go academy training while young. This always makes for characteristic strength in the fundamentals, even in those who don't go down the road of professionalism. Victor is known as a trenchant critic, and good expositor of his own theories. Here is the significant part of the fighting from his game in Round 6 against young British star Matthew Cocke (5 dan), who came fifth. Comments come from Victor himself, who supplied the record, and also Seong-June Kim (6 dan), a strong Korean amateur resident in Cambridge, who came seventh.
(1-58) Black: Matthew Cocke White: Victor Chow
34(VC): Seems to be a peaceful opening. 42(VC): This might be wrong. 55(VC): Seems a bit passive. (SJK) 55 is OK. 57(SJK): This should be at A. In this game the centre is more important than points on the side.
(1-15) The boundary area between Black and White's frameworks becomes the scene of a sharp battle, leading to a trade. The highlight of the whole game is in this frontier dispute and its aftermath.
1(VC): Excellent. 5(SJK): There is a timing question here. Black should play at 9 before 5. 6(VC): Possibly premature? 15(VC): This exchange seems to be in Black's favour. (SJK) I judge it better for White.
(1-41) White takes costly measures in the top right.
5(SJK): Omit this forcing move (see variation diagram below). 11(SJK): I would play this at 12. 19(VC): Superfluous? (SJK) White is now in trouble. 24(SJK): But this should be at 40. The centre is still more important. White's forcing peep at A isn't the major issue. 30(SJK): Black is clearly ahead now. 31(VC): Wrong direction. (SJK) I agree.
At 41 the development of the game seems clear: Black will rescue the stones floating on the right-hand side, White will connect out in the top left corner, and the endgame will begin. Black could hope to win from here; but slipped up and lost by a small margin.
Variation (SJK) This is how I see White's plan for the top right. The preliminary moves were fine. At 11 of the last diagram, White should pull back (1 here). This seems to be enough for White, when you add in the further plays shown here. With that in mind the exchange White A, Black B from the game would be detrimental; so should be left out.
