THE LITTLE DEATH: ignoring powerful moves...

The psychology of the game is fascinating, especially at the moment of resignation.
The record above shows how black missed a truly vital point. The stone marked with a square connected a captured white stone out to life. Black could have played there first, but chose s15, possibly because it solidifies the black territory below.. however it separates the stones marked with triangles from it's neighbouring group. This is vital for black because there is no room to live for the separated group. This line on play is a mistake born from either misreading the dead group's chances, or from simply not reading it at all. The death of the marked group looses the game concisely for black, however we see that he continues to attack white (marked with an O) in a somewhat desperate fashion. Often it is a loss in one area that provokes such mele tactics as there is nothing to loose: invariably it is too late to make a difference.
I find the most deadly moves in Go are often the little ones that seem to do very little: the subtle invasion that swings the game two points in one's favour, the cut that kills elsewhere. I proves very hard to perceive these moves- In high level games they may take place tens of moves before the power is felt. Go demands we account for a balance across the board, not just in one area, a big setback is often delivered immediately after a positive sequence- it's the fine art of 'winning a won game.'

Crawling along the second line.

I find it amazing how often we ignore basic common sense. In go these are somewhat formalised into the canonical 'go proverbs'. One such proverb is about crawling along the second line (i.e. it;s a bad idea). What this boils down to are two points: It is inefficient: It gives away influence.
The game above illustrates both point well. Black has invaded against white's D16 opening position. The line white selects lives easily enough but black presses white down into the side, gaining liberties and strength in the process- this has given white c7 solid points of territory, in exchange for black entire area below: it is inefficient in terms of score.
The ramifications of this lead on the next point- influence- black becomes really strong in his enemy's area of play, the crawling gives black a solid wall to build a base deep inside what should have rightfully been a white dominated region. Some players refer to this strategy as 'the knife in his guts' meaning the wall of stones tears the opponent up from within. In this game we can see how black's formation eventually captures the outlying white stones above it (toward the centre) achieving a far greater localised score than white's invasion response. The stones marked with a triangle are dead. Black wins by resignation.
What I find interesting in these scenarios is that the players are competing for the ability to develop faster. As we see, white's tactic of solid territory grabbing by crawling is useless in the long term. The advantage is both oblique and subtle, ones tactic for gaining the development advantage must be weighed against a mental model of the opponents (which may be unreliable as it is a educated guess). This is where the proverbs can be used to guide the player- in recognition of a bad position and formulation of a way out of it.

Chinese Fueski: white's mistake marked.

This game saw Black employ the low Chinese Fuseki. The mid-game invasion by White (marked) proved ineffecient, living with seven points of territory. The invasion solidified Black on the lower side. The invasion aimed at killing the Black group immediately above (small x marked) but there was plenty of time for two eyes.