Posts: 4511 Location: Chatteris, UK Liked others: 1589 Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
I thought I'd offer some comments on my opinion of influence, for those that want to agree, disagree, discuss, or verbally abuse me about
So, what is influence?
In many ways, I think it's reasonable to say that any stone exerts influence on the board around it, even a 1-1 stone. The problem is, we all know that a) influential play is reasonable, and b) playing on the 1-1 is bad pretty much all of the time, so understanding more about how to use influence seems key to make comments like "3rd line for territory, 4th line for influence" actually turn into a game strategy that makes sense. I've noticed that, in general, the weaker end of the player spectrum seems to really struggle with influence based games, because territory is that much easier to "get".
The winner of a Go game is, obviously the person who earns more points per stone over the course of 200 or so moves. Territorial play is easy to assess, because you can see the points developing in front of your eyes - influential play however, requires both a patience in investing in the position for the future, and just as importantly, a basic understanding of how to convert that investment into points, something that will rarely happen by itself.
To begin this diatribe, I'm going to outline some definitions I tend to use, because I think they help with clarity of purpose when applied to stones on the board. I tend to differentiate quite strongly between thickness and influence, even though they are very similar. This is because the impact the difference has is quite profound on developing a strategic plan. In short, every stone has influence, which is reduced by nearby opposing stones and increased by nearby friendly stones. Thickness is easiest thought of as an accumulation of influence that exceeds a certain rather arbitrary value. The importance of this is related to the stone investment - because a lot more stones are played to create a thick position, the importance of getting as many "points per stone" (see second paragraph) as possible becomes urgent. It is very rare for a thick position facing across an open side of the board not to have a very high level of urgency for both players to manage promptly. If the thick player succeeds in developing effectively from his position, he should stand to make either a large territory that is worth the number of stones played, or alternatively should be able to construct an attack that achieves the same thing. In contrast, the goal of the player without the thickness should be to force the thick player to become overconcentrated. The punishment is not a crazy squeeze or a dastardly attack, more often than not, it's overconcentration: forcing the opponent to accept a small amount of territory for a large number of played stones.
In this second diagram, the top after Black's somewhat premature invasion becomes really important. White has created a genuinely thick position - it's both full of stones and with a noticeable lack of weaknesses. As a result, White's extension here is a fairly vital point for Black to be concerned about, and playing simply to prevent it and contribute to the development of the top left Black stone is unlikely to be terrible. In contrast, if Black is to play elsewhere, White's approach to find a cohesive plan at the top that works with his thickness seems eminently reasonable:
Of course, how to implement that plan isn't always obvious, and this returns to the "points per stone" issue. This actually isn't something there's a simple answer for, as it seems the accumulation of experience will teach it with all the caveats and exceptions much more easily than trying to learn it by rote, but in essence, the last diagram is unwise for White as Black can have an easy time making White overconcentrated. The top right White position is "thick", and has plenty of eyespace potential. As a result, it's not really a target, and building two facing walls like this is a good example of "making territory from thickness" being iffy. Instead, White can choose to approach the top left corner directly, where either result is relatively acceptable:
In this situation, White either gets to develop a moyo from his thickness on a suitably large scale for the number of stones invested, or he gets a corner (better than Black's in the top right) in exchange for the thickness. Black's position at the top, prior to , still has a lot of aji at "x" through "z", whereas White' position at the top right has almost nothing for Black to use as leverage. As such, Black following immediately with has a lot of sense - Whilst it might look like White is building points from thickness by playing at "y", it is likely to do so in sente as the threat of shenanigans against the top Black group is high:
This seems to be risking allowing White to have his cake and eat it, as Black still has some aji issues and not only did White take the corner, but his original thickness has both developed some points and the potential to develop yet further. So, again, Black and White's strategy is focused around the thick positions on the board. Continuing on:
is designed as a pre-emptive protection against "a", as Black's position at the top has solidified to the point where he can play "a" and the corresponding push / squeeze (see hide tag below for the sequence) in the hope of profiting on the left. Alternatively, because of White's thickness in the top right, an alternative could be to work on developing that side of the board, simply because Black, aware of the potential of White creating two directional thickness by bending at "b", will be wanting to approach around "c" as soon as possible. For example:
The thickness starts to quickly create a position which has some considerable White potential, provided Black doesn't get there first. Strategically, it is again apparent that making the most of thickness (or not) happens in just a few moves, and has a large enough game impact to be urgent enough not to neglect.
So, back to the original points on influence and thickness. I see the two normal outcomes of influential stones as being thickness or territory. If you play territorially to secure a few points or give one of your groups safety, you've taken your result immediately. With an influential move, the outcome is generally unclear until further moves have been played in the area. A 4-4 opening stone is a quintessential example of this, where with another 2 stones you have a big corner, but just as often you'll have a big wall of stones and your opponent will have the corner. That doesn't mean to say you wait for your opponent to dictate to you what you're allowed to have. Sometimes the whole board changes in a way where one result becomes good for you, and the other less good, and you dictate the terms before your opponent gets the chance to. For example:
Here, with , Black tries to create a situation where an easy path for White becomes much less clear. Prior to , "a" and the extension, a vaguely possible "b", and invasion at "c" and contact fun with "d" all are ideas White might like to throw around. Suddenly, after , White's options become a lot more limited, and all of the remaining ideas give Black more than he could have previously expected. So, the other aspect to think about with influential moves is what to do to develop them, and I think this is probably the point that most kyu players struggle with. Essentially, there is no way out of learning the variations that are possible for each side, as that determines what aji is in a position. From learning that, a good time to develop the position further is when you can change a local miai situation (very common with 4-4 stones) into a local win-win situation (albeit at the cost of allowing your opponent a move elsewhere). The rest is simply timing
My brain is addled, so I'll stop here, but I figured I'd throw it out there for discussion / debate on the offchance we could get a really good thread going on common examples of influence and development ideas in real games. The ones above are somewhat flawed but just a few of the concepts I thought I could contextually try to get across quickly!
Posts: 181 Location: Japan Liked others: 34 Was liked: 52
Rank: KGS 3-5k
topazg wrote:
Territorial play is easy to assess, because you can see the points developing in front of your eyes - influential play however, requires both a patience in investing in the position for the future, and just as importantly, a basic understanding of how to convert that investment into points, something that will rarely happen by itself.
I probably shouldn't be posting a response because it might be beyond my level. I also just skimmed through the explanation, so if you said this and I missed it, I apologize. However, there is one thing I want to emphasize that often gets overlooked in terms of influence and thickness. Points do not just come from getting your own territory. Points come also from eliminating your opponent's territory and keeping it small. I notice in a lot of high level games, the players have actually very little territory on the board because the players limit each other so well. A lot of people (including myself at times) want to "make points" with thickness, but this does not actually mean you need to make territory with thickness. I often see beginner players try to make thickness into a moyo and into territory, when sometimes it is better to play elsewhere and wait for the opponent to enter. In this way, we use thickness to minimize an opponent's territory rather than to increase our own territory, which has the effect of increasing our points.
Posts: 6725 Location: Cambridge, UK Liked others: 436 Was liked: 3719
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
The example I like to use of influence that is not thick is the 3-3 shoulder hit joseki as in viewtopic.php?p=88803#p88803. That post includes a game where Sakata shows it is not thick by attacking it ferociously
$0.01 (pro): is too close to W. $0.02 (pro): Even if we ignore and the rest of the board, if we just look at the upper right corner, the result is already good for W -- B makes a few points in the corner, but W's immediate points (the ones directly touching W) are already bigger than B's; moreover, W has development while B has none. Because of B's premature ( ) jump into 3-3, W could get a good result blocking either side.
$0.03 (my feeling): the caption "thickness lost" is a misnomer. Thanks to B's two questionable moves ( and ), the result is both locally and globally good for White, so if anything, it is Black that's a little "lost."
Posts: 6725 Location: Cambridge, UK Liked others: 436 Was liked: 3719
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
Agreed with Ed that black's 17 is an overplay and too close to thickness. Should be knight's move in corner if anything. Rather similar to viewtopic.php?p=89085#p89085
I'll leave my other criticisms until tomorrow after 2:40am
Posts: 4511 Location: Chatteris, UK Liked others: 1589 Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
Ok, further thoughts, and explanation as to the point of the thread.
I think we need an alternative to . The purpose was to create a contrived position where thickness existed for the purpose of trying to illustrate the urgency of at least addressing thickness facing an open side. The fact that is a rubbish move probably detracts from the aim, so an alternative opening may help more - even if that constitutes some approach/pincer/3-3 joseki.
Secondly, it's an interesting point on - again, I was trying to illustrate the urgency of the area, but an overstretch may again undermine the underlying point. It might actually be useful to have a continuation for White there as to why thickness needs to be handled with care, and I'm not sure I would be able to punish very well.
Thirdly, the original purpose of the thread was to encourage making a plan based on factors on the whole board. I'm quietly hopeful it may be able to be a useful collaborative short piece eventually if good comments continue to come back, but I also don't want to get bogged down in the intricacies of subtle errors on individual variations. The biggest issue I seem to encounter from helping players between 8k and 15k is a lack of cohesive plan.
I wanted to do a few little articles like this, tightened up with community support, that could then find their way into the beginners section as helpful idea guides: Thickness/influence/territory and how they impact the important areas of the board (this one), 3rd/4th line stones in fuseki and how they open up good and bad development ideas (related but not quite the same), weak groups and how / when to attack (another tricky topic), and probably more as I think of them.
The idea isn't to give a bunch of variations apart from where contextually necessary, but to help players not feel "lost" in the opening and early midgame when decisions have to be made that don't directly relate to any book examples they might have, by providing a bunch of generalised ideas that people can come up with their own plans for.
As I once heard (second hand) from Matthew MacFadyen: "Always have a plan. Even a bad plan is much better than no plan at all".
I'm finding this useful. I still don't "get" influence or why many moves in the 15 to 30 move range are more urgent than others and the coordination with the broader board. Questions like "Is it better get my stones coordinated or better to cause disruption to my opponents coordination?" trouble me.
I often look at dan level games and see the early build of influence and thickness apparently come to nothing locally .
Although there are some glimmers. The 3rd Dan Chinese guy who is still playing me twice a week (he now has a 2 dan mate who also beats me up) occoasionally seems to start attacks from something thick which then seem to come to a focus on a distant part of the board. But it's very hard to quantify
Must admit Uberdudes 33 observation put my mind at rest. I was just responding 44 with the following moves. It's clearly a crap strategy in many circumstances..
Agreed with Ed that black's 17 is an overplay and too close to thickness. Should be knight's move in corner if anything. Rather similar to viewtopic.php?p=89085#p89085
I'll leave my other criticisms until tomorrow after 2:40am
amazing!! i was thinking same thing when i saw that move.
IMO above two diag is better than below. i prefer first over second..but i guess that is preference and can not say which is better. below is trying to limit white's influence but can not help thinking it is loose. Thickness has not been lost. it is still there and breathing hard on that lonely black stone that came too close. my philosophy on thickness... if you opponent plays thick..then you have to do the same.
My ¥2: I think that there are two different senses of influence that are in common use. One is a translation of seiryoku or gaisei, which could also be translated as power or outside strength. Trading territory for influence is an example of this sense. The second sense comes from computer go (as far as I know), and means the effect that a stone or group of stones has on empty points or stones. This kind of influence could even be negative. When people talk about not understanding influence, they generally mean the first kind. Very few people really understand the second kind, IMO. Which is one reason that current computer programs have pretty well abandoned it.
As for the invasion on the 3-3, we all agree that it is bad. To the extent that I understand influence of the second kind, I think that it loses around 4 points. White gets almost a wrap-around wall, and a wrap-around wall is said to be worth more than 40 points. I used to think that that was an exaggeration, but now I think that it is about right. My (educated) guess is that the wall is worth around 30 points.
You do not neutralize the influence of that kind of wall in a single play. It is too strong, and radiates influence in more than one direction. Takagawa says that there are two kinds of walls, those that need an extension, and those that do not. That classification is fuzzy, but this wall definitely does not need an extension. It is very strong.
My feeling is to block the invasion on the right side, so that the wall faces in that direction. Because of the strong wall, I like . Any closer to the corner and White will pincer and make use of the wall to attack. The result is that the wall produces territory in the bottom right corner and influence towards the bottom side. Any questions? Then I like , driving Black towards the wall. One virtue of such a strong wall is that it hinders the development of the opponent's stones. Versus nirensei an approach from the top drives Black towards a friendly stone. Approaching from the left does not do that. Here the wall pays off by the territory that Black does not get.
And I agree with my colleagues that for Black the play is or a.
----
P. S. There is a good chance that I will give a presentation of my research into influence of the second kind at the U. S. Go Congress this summer, probably by long distance. There is no firm agreement yet.
_________________ The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on? — Winona Adkins
Posts: 566 Liked others: 39 Was liked: 59
Rank: 1k
Universal go server handle: mw42
Quote:
Takagawa says that there are two kinds of walls, those that need an extension, and those that do not. That classification is fuzzy, but this wall definitely does not need an extension.
I thought the distinction was you do not extend from a thick wall. Perhaps the determination of thickness is the fuzzy area, but it at least gives you a criterion for choosing whether or not to extend.
Takagawa says that there are two kinds of walls, those that need an extension, and those that do not. That classification is fuzzy, but this wall definitely does not need an extension.
I thought the distinction was you do not extend from a thick wall. Perhaps the determination of thickness is the fuzzy area, but it at least gives you a criterion for choosing whether or not to extend.
The criterion Takagawa uses is eye potential. However, in looking over pro games where walls are left without extensions, they do not always have obvious eye shape. So now I think of strength as one criterion. And thickness and strength are similar.
_________________ The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on? — Winona Adkins
This long knight would also be my move in this game, but the primary reason I didn't post it is because my reasoning is that it addresses the influence and strengthens the corner at the same time, making it a fairly useful dual purpose move, and making the left side rather attractive. I played the top middle hoshi to focus on the subject at hand, but this discussion about too close is fascinating. Is that because White can overconcentrate Black? Is it because White can actually invade between the top two Black stones and get a favourable result? How is White supposed to punish the too close-ness?
Is it because White can actually invade between the top two Black stones and get a favourable result? How is White supposed to punish the too close-ness?
Isn't that always the problem with playing too close to thickness? I thought that if you're worried about a thick position the best course of action is to batten down the hatches and avoid giving the opponent anywhere to start a fight.
Posts: 4511 Location: Chatteris, UK Liked others: 1589 Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
jts wrote:
topazg wrote:
Is it because White can actually invade between the top two Black stones and get a favourable result? How is White supposed to punish the too close-ness?
Isn't that always the problem with playing too close to thickness? I thought that if you're worried about a thick position the best course of action is to batten down the hatches and avoid giving the opponent anywhere to start a fight.
It's not clear to me how a continuation of the attack is supposed to happen? Black looks alive, White still has issues to deal with, and Black's building points on the left. I'm wondering if the other approach makes Black just have a suboptimal result, but I'm not clear on that either:
Play somewhere else. To me the wedge stands out. The wall will help invade the top left framework, but an invasion now would be premature. No point in letting Black make a huge framework.
_________________ The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on? — Winona Adkins
This black 19 is already showing the effect of the white influence. When someone approaches a 4-4 and you already have the 4-10 in place, it is de rigeur to kick to make heavy, prevent slide to corner, and cause overconcentration due to the 4-10 stone in the way of a good extension. That you didn't play this presumably reflects your feeling that in this position although in one respect it makes f17 heavy, it also weakens and reduces connectedness to the k16 stone. (Maybe 24 could be one to the right).
In fact I think the above is better for black than one point jump to 19 as that allows white to slide to corner (and of course if black doesn't 3-3 white is content to play there). This way white's group has more eyespace so is practically alive locally, black is simply running on dame and weak, and white can aim at a.
Then again, maybe you don't play on the top yet at all and just get on with playing some fuseki. Leave black to worry about k16 getting attacked later. If he plays submissive moves out of fear for an impending attack your thickness is working without you even trying. Once you have got some stones on the left side it is likely to make the invasion on the top even more powerful.
A rather similar position came up in a game I played with Matthew Macfadyen. He invaded in the wrong place (h17 on this board), so it's not an easy question if our 6d 25-time British Champion can get it wrong . h17 was wrong because the cap at h15 was a good answer that helped d16 and k16 link together. That's why a 4th line invasion is better, it directly severs that connection.
A similar shape also came up in the recent Meijin title match. http://gogameguru.com/yamashita-keigo-wins-36th-meijin/. In that game Iyama made a rather strange choice to build a gote wall which Yamashita then reduced with k16 (not holding back at f17/g17), but then black's wall in that game is not as thick as white's in topazg's example so k16 seems more reasonable. Iyama invaded at h17, the mistake move in my game, but in his game white does not have the ladder which is required to play the f15 cover after black f16 (see my Macfadyen game for the ladder variation), so white is forced to play the not-so-nice g16. (And in topaz's game white has the ladder to black can't f15 so h17 is back on the menu). In the comments on that game David Ormerod said he expected a black invasion on the 4th line. Maybe the lack of the ladder is why he did it, I would be interested to see a pro commentary!
Posts: 8859 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Liked others: 349 Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
topazg,
topazg wrote:
How is White supposed to punish...?
(pro) That may not be the best way to think about things. Here's an alternative: my opponent has made (at our levels) a sub-optimal move. I will continue to strive to make (at our levels) the best moves. All else being equal, I will come out at least equal or even ahead.
If you're asking what to play for , you'll probably a different reply depending on the kyu persons, dan persons, or even the different pros you ask.
In other words, there is a subtle but significant difference in mentality between: (a) is ridiculous! How dare him! I'm not going to let him get away with it! I must punish him! (b) What is the best move for (and , , ... etc.)?
My feeling (without any statistical evidence) is (a) is very common among amateurs, perhaps especially in kyu levels -- the key feeling here is punish, a very basic human emotional response; whereas the closer to pro or pro-like training, the more often (b) happens -- a much more non-emotional, objective response.
Posts: 4511 Location: Chatteris, UK Liked others: 1589 Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
@Andrew: You're quite right on the kicking issue, though I'm not entirely sure the final result is that unhappy for Black. However, the 4th line invasion point sequences are very compelling, and make a lot of sense. In the final position, it is fairly clear that White's wall has far more potential to hurt Black than Black's wall to hurt White. It's also reasonable to assume that Black playing contact plays to settle when White invades is similarly problematic, for much the same reasons. It's funny, I have a bit of a blind spot for H16.
@Ed:
EdLee wrote:
topazg,
topazg wrote:
How is White supposed to punish...?
(pro) That may not be the best way to think about things. Here's an alternative: my opponent has made (at our levels) a sub-optimal move. I will continue to strive to make (at our levels) the best moves. All else being equal, I will come out at least equal or even ahead.
I'm not sure that answered any of the question I was asking. There are instances where there is no need to punish, particularly when the opponent plays a slow or overconcentrated move, where insufficient points are gained for the stones invested regardless of the opponent response. In which case, you can rather perversely assume you have some profit simply by it being your move again.
However, there are equally cases where this is not the case. Particularly where someone has played too close to thickness or played too thinly, ignoring it can often allow players to turn a bad move into an unreasonably good move, and profit accordingly. In this particular instance, additional moves by Black will make his position strong enough that the original move was perfectly ok, therefore it isn't unreasonable to guess that, at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity.
I don't see the relevance :S Would you prefer it if I phrased the question "How does White make sure that he profits from Black's suboptimal move?" even though the difference is basically semantics? His post was primarily one of attitudes towards opponents and the game, whereas my question was hoping for an objective analysis of the weakness of Black's move.
EdLee wrote:
If you're asking what to play for , you'll probably a different reply depending on the kyu persons, dan persons, or even the different pros you ask.
That's not the question. The question is "how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?"
EdLee wrote:
In other words, there is a subtle but significant difference in mentality between: (a) is ridiculous! How dare him! I'm not going to let him get away with it! I must punish him! (b) What is the best move for (and , , ... etc.)?
My feeling (without any statistical evidence) is (a) is very common among amateurs, perhaps especially in kyu levels -- the key feeling here is punish, a very basic human emotional response; whereas the closer to pro or pro-like training, the more often (b) happens -- a much more non-emotional, objective response.
I'm not sure where this is aimed? I have countless professional examples of moves, sequences, and responses that would fit the western understanding of the word punish (terminology which is rarely used in most of the literature I have on the topic, but the spirit of the word is still evident). Using the word punish doesn't mean that the individual has the attitude of "a" at all, just that the player is seeking the move locally that would lead to the best result for him at the expense of the opponent (the key requisite, over the course of a game, of scoring more points). I think by focusing on the word punish you've rather missed the point of my post.
Example of "punishing" in "Reducing Territorial Frameworks" (Shuko):
"Making the hane underneath at gives White a good sequence from . In the result to , Black has been made to play much more submissively than in Joseki 2"
In this instance, it is reasonable to assume that common Western terminology would see as leading to a punishment of the slack , even though that word itself isn't used once in the book.
I thought I'd offer some comments on my opinion of influence, for those that want to agree, disagree, discuss, or verbally abuse me about
Since nobody else wants to, I'll go for verbal abuse.
My main problem is that you title the thread "A vague treatise on influence," but then go on to ask "what is influence?" and not answer the question, then you say you will define your terms and don't define influence, and then you say that you make a strong distinction between thickness and influence and go on to discuss thickness for the next ten diagrams and then when you finally do get around to the topic at hand, you fizzle out with an addled brain after a measly two diagrams. (Aren't you glad to be back?)
Seriously Topazg, it's great to read your voice again.
But back to my mad ravings: If I understand you correctly, in order to play a game in which an influence-based strategy makes sense, you need "a basic understanding of how to turn that investment into points."
You sum up how to do this with the following:
Quote:
So, the other aspect to think about with influential moves is what to do to develop them, and I think this is probably the point that most kyu players struggle with. Essentially, there is no way out of learning the variations that are possible for each side, as that determines what aji is in a position.
Are you serious? At least I know why I struggle with it. Would you suggest studying the san ren sei, or what variations are you referring to?
At the very end, you offer one juicy tidbit of general advice:
Quote:
From learning that, a good time to develop the position further is when you can change a local miai situation (very common with 4-4 stones) into a local win-win situation (albeit at the cost of allowing your opponent a move elsewhere). The rest is simply timing
So, what I'm hearing is: Influence moves (4th line + moves in the opening?) need to be developed in such a way as to yield an advantage somewhere, no matter what the opponent does. Right?
I just want to remind you (and the other illustrious commentators in this thread) that it's kyu players you're dealing with, and indeed we all too often see our proud high stones become useless. Thickness is one thing, but I'd like to see more of this developing influence business.
The difficulty in discussing it though is that the "central" issue seems to lie in the center. Influence stones allow the opponent to get a territorial lead that needs to be made up in the middle and end game. Their role involves: a) reducing the opponent's safe territory or supporting invasions, b) giving one an advantage when fighting breaks out in the center, and c) otherwise creating territory. These sorts of developments are as individual as snowflakes.
The discussion surrounding is how these things tend to wind up. Not that it's uninteresting, it's just that a vague treatise on influence shouldn't get so darn specific.
Posts: 4511 Location: Chatteris, UK Liked others: 1589 Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
daal wrote:
Giant fat snip....
Many thanks daal, that's _exactly_ the sort of feedback I was hoping for. I'll come back to you properly on your points soon, and update the original post when I do so, and adjust a couple of moves to please the haters
EDIT: Actually, I'll make a new post and link to it from the top of the first post. I agree with the frustration on the move 17 discussion. On one hand, it is relevant, as I don't want to give the impression of recommending bad moves. On the other hand, the purpose of the thread was precisely not to discuss specific moves other than contextual examples for the generation of ideas and plans that "make sense" regarding the rest of the stones on the board. Part of the reason my brain was addled was the realisation about how poorly I'd answered my own original question, and the dauntingness of starting over
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
topazg
, still has a lot of aji at "x" through "z", whereas White' position at the top right has almost nothing for Black to use as leverage. As such, Black following immediately with 
is designed as a pre-emptive protection against "a", as Black's position at the top has solidified to the point where he can play "a" and the corresponding push / squeeze (see hide tag below for the sequence) in the hope of profiting on the left. Alternatively, because of White's thickness in the top right, an alternative could be to work on developing that side of the board, simply because Black, aware of the potential of White creating two directional thickness by bending at "b", will be wanting to approach around "c" as soon as possible. For example:
, Black tries to create a situation where an easy path for White becomes much less clear. Prior to 
is too close to W.
( 
) jump into 3-3, W could get a good result blocking either side.
.
, driving Black towards the wall. One virtue of such a strong wall is that it hinders the development of the opponent's stones. Versus nirensei an approach from the top drives Black towards a friendly stone. Approaching from the left does not do that. Here the wall pays off by the territory that Black does not get. 
- 
. With such a strong wall I want Black to invade. 
or a. 
, you'll probably a different reply
, ... etc.)?
. In the result to 
, Black has been made to play much more submissively than in Joseki 2"
