Go Discussions  

Go Back   Go Discussions > GoDiscussions.com > Beginners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2010-04-02, 01:09 AM   #51
Joaz Banbeck
Super Moderator
 
Joaz Banbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Banbeck Vale
Posts: 1,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Just a thought, when higher ranks have no comments to add, you could probably just PM the next player, so we don't clutter the thread with pass posts.
Works for the players, but then the observers have no idea what is going on.

You can remove these ads if you create an account.

__________________
Register for go congress here:

https://www.usgo.org/congresses/2010/register.php
Joaz Banbeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-02, 01:12 AM   #52
Gresil
Senior Member
 
Gresil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 495
Default

My own thoughts for move 5:

(safe to read)
Hidden Section:

If Joaz hadn't forgotten the hide tags from his comment that pros do play W4, I'd have assumed it's not a good move. I have no idea what it's good for and I would never play that as white because it just begs for a perfect approach.

But knowing that W4 is in fact playable at a pro level doesn't really make me any more apprehensive about playing the "obvious" approach. B5 looks like the right and sober thing to do in any case and I did not seriously consider any other area to play. If he has a nefarious high-level plan, let's see it.

I picked the low approach under the influence of that Sensei's page I mentioned somewhere before which compares the statistics of high and low approaches. I don't know the joseki of the low approach as well as I do those of the high one, but nuts to that. I have dan players to bail me out.

(If he plays a one-space low pincer, I'll play the keima press and counterpincer. That much I know in advance.)
__________________
...unnecessary talents, / surplus curiosity, / short-range sorrows and fears, / eagerness to see things from all six sides... -Wisława Szymborska

DGS KGS

Last edited by Gresil; 2010-04-08 at 10:41 PM.
Gresil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-02, 09:36 AM   #53
Terr
Senior Member
 
Terr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 264
Default W6



Show Diagram Code[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code
B:0
W:0

Continuation from my reasoning yesterday, including my move selection.

Safe to read:
Hidden Section:

So, to briefly summarize what I discussed yesterday, I considered the near low and high pincers. I read a lot of variations that may or may not be likely, but I don't really know how to respond if black attaches at D4. The other option, the low further extension, can be good, but I thought about it: I want to put more pressure on the pincered stone, so I want to play closer. Having slept on it, I also want to put more emphasis on the south, so I decided to take the high pincer. The variations I showed for it didn't seem to bad, and I'm sure we'll manage to deal with anything that comes up. Blind optimism, go!
__________________
Chew on KGS. Currently around 7k
http://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=chew

"...I wish the West Texas highway was a moebius strip. I could ride it out forever when I feel my heart break..." -The Mountain Goats

Last edited by Terr; 2010-04-08 at 05:41 PM. Reason: unhiding
Terr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-02, 10:24 AM   #54
shapenaji
Senior Member
 
shapenaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 952
Default

Trigger:
Hidden Section:

EDIT: This is the last time I try to type a post on my iphone.. this thing is seriously typo-ridden

if this move is accepted by our second, I'll also approve it. Likewise, if this move is rejected by our second, I'll approve whatever he chooses.



Thoughts:
Hidden Section:

I'm okay with whatever fight develops, i have a feeling that since no one has adjusted yet, that this game is going to be a huge fight regardless of the opening. It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to stop that fight. I may reach in if our side is in danger of a bad result out of this joseki, but that should only need one move to show the idea
__________________
This signature is not self-referential

Last edited by shapenaji; 2010-04-02 at 04:36 PM.
shapenaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-02, 10:51 AM   #55
Joaz Banbeck
Super Moderator
 
Joaz Banbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Banbeck Vale
Posts: 1,512
Default Reflections on move 6

Well, it has happened, and sooner than I expected, and I am not really ready.

Hidden Section:
I'm sure that I can find a better move than younger brother, but now I have to determine if it is at least two points better.

Terr, as I understand his logic, correctly saw that the biggest space was up top. He didn't like the loss of sente that comes with the wedge at K17. That sounds good too.

So he shifted to a pincer on the right. That's where I think that a small leap of logic happened. It seems that he found that one particular play up top lost sente and thereby dismissed all plays up top.

By doing so he overlooked the approaches at the points marked 'x'. They all are sente. ( At least, the one-space approaches are. I think that I recall that Ishida says you can tenuki from the two space high. Presumably the two space low is lesser or similar urgency. )



Show Diagram Code[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . x x . . . . . . . x x . . . . |
$$ | . . X c x x . . . , . . . x x d X . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

I think that at least one of those is bigger than any pincer. My logic is this: there are 10 spaces from 'a' to 'b', inclusive. There are 13 from 'c' to 'd'. So all other things being equal, we would rather play in the big gap up top than the smaller gap to the left.

But which of the points marked 'x'? 'Urgent before big', the proverb tells us, so I if I find a move that is bigger, it also has to be as least as urgent. In other words, it has to be sente, and at least as compelling a sente move as the proposed pincer. To be sure of achieving that, I'll pick the tightest and most aggressive of the four approaches. ( For now, since the upper side is symmetrical, I'll just arbitrarily assume that a move on the left is just like a move on the right )

Notes on approach moves for beginners:
Hidden Section:

An 'approach' - or more properly, an 'approach move' - usually refers to a move that approaches a opponent's stone that is alone and that is in a corner.
Approaches are generally classified by two orthogonal characteristics: height and distance.
1) Height: They are almost always either second or third rank, either 'low' or high'. ( For a discussion of high/low, see http://senseis.xmp.net/?High )
Generally, a low approach against a low stone is seen as uncompromisingly aggressive, as is a high approach against a high approach, for the two stones are head-to-head like Zax vs Zax. Whereas a low approach against a high stone is more flexible, offering the possiblity of the stones sliding past each other. ( A high approach against a low stone usually does not work unless the low stone is a 3-3, for reasons that are too complex to get into here )
2) Distance: Most approaches are one-space or two-space. A three-space is theoretically possible, but so distant as to be easily ignored. A four-space approach move, like move #1 in the example here:



Show Diagram Code[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

...does not even qualify as an approch because black can comfortably put another stone in between.
A zero-space approach move - otherwise known as a contact move - is so different in character that it is not considered an approach move either.




Show Diagram Code[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , a . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

In summary, I have to answer two questions:
1) Is 'a' at least two points bigger than 'b'? ( I think that it is bigger, but how much bigger? )

2) Is 'a' as urgent as 'b'? I have no idea how to quantify that. It may require the ad hoc invention of a new term. I'll probably call my new unit of measurement an 'urg', and attempt to measure urgency in urgs.

I'm going to take a few hours, maybe a day or so to think about this.

__________________
Register for go congress here:

https://www.usgo.org/congresses/2010/register.php

Last edited by Joaz Banbeck; 2010-04-03 at 08:09 PM.
Joaz Banbeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-02, 11:02 AM   #56
daniel_the_smith
Senior Member
 
daniel_the_smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,192
Default

Shapenaji, you might want to separate your trigger and thoughts into two different hide sections!
__________________
This signature also does not refer to ShapeNaji's.

--

SGF to diagram converter: http://senseis.xmp.net/tools/sgf2diagram.php
daniel_the_smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-03, 02:32 AM   #57
Gresil
Senior Member
 
Gresil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 495
Default

Trigger: if that gets approved, my next move is:


Hidden Section:




Show Diagram Code[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code


With comments to follow later.
__________________
...unnecessary talents, / surplus curiosity, / short-range sorrows and fears, / eagerness to see things from all six sides... -Wisława Szymborska

DGS KGS

Last edited by Gresil; 2010-04-03 at 02:35 AM.
Gresil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-03, 10:57 AM   #58
Joaz Banbeck
Super Moderator
 
Joaz Banbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Banbeck Vale
Posts: 1,512
Default Reflections on urgency

Hidden Section:

In my last post, half of my interest was determining the relative urgency of two moves.

Since then, my first attempts to define urgency often led to the definition becoming the same as the definition of 'big'. Then the concept of urgency is redundant, and the phrase 'urgent before big' is idiotic. So I have been looking for a definition that has nothing to do immediately with points. ( BTW, after this game is over, I expect to find better definitions in observer's comments. )

The best that I can currently do toward defining urgency is as follows: How many moves does it take before the allegedly urgent situation is irrecoverable? Another way of stating that is: how many moves before the essential nature of the defender's stone is lost?

Let's compare them, and see how long the defender can reasonably tenuki.

For the approach move up top:


Show Diagram Code[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , 1 . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

Black can ignore move 1, knowing that move 3 can be answered with 4. It is then joseki just a tempo down. The essental nature of the stone - its ability to take corner territory - is still there. It is just less effective due to the extra white stone. ( Presumably move #2 is worth 2*komi someplace else. )

Black can't ignore 3, for then the 3-4 stone is totally compromised. The ability of the black stone to take territory is completely lost.



Show Diagram Code[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 X , 1 . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . 7 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

If white is allowed 5 when 4 is tenuki, then for every move that white makes, he makes territory, every move that black makes just enlarges the target that the black stones have become.

Black must answer in two moves, so I conclude that move #1 above is worth 2 urgs.

So much for measurement of the approach move. Now let's look at the pincer in the lower left. It attacks a stone whose primary purpose is to dispute white in the corner:



Show Diagram Code[go]$$Wc
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

Black can ignore move #1, knowing that 3 can be answered with 4. Like the other move, black finds himself cramped, but still alive and able to dispute possesion of the corner.

Black can't ignore move #3, for #5 totally compromises the blackstone. It's essential nature - the ability to challenge white's occupation of the corner - is lost. That is two moves before black to avoid irrevocable changes, so I assign this one 2 urgs also.



Show Diagram Code[go]$$Wc
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

And, yes, I realize that this is tremendous oversimplification, but one must start somewhere. The job is half done, so I'll probably make a move tonight.

For those of you who are shaking your heads and saying 'Joaz has gone off the deep end this time', I ask you for your definition of 'urgent', that can be used so that the phrase 'urgent before big' is neither redundant nor idiotic.
__________________
Register for go congress here:

https://www.usgo.org/congresses/2010/register.php

Last edited by Joaz Banbeck; 2010-04-03 at 11:04 AM.
Joaz Banbeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-03, 11:26 AM   #59
Bill Spight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,705
Default

What I would like to see. (But probably won't. )

Hidden Section:




Show Diagram Code[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . 1 . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . 2 . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
[/go]Hide Diagram Code

B3 was discovered by Hashimoto Utaro, IIRC.

__________________
5% in '11!
Bill Spight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-03, 03:34 PM   #60
Hummingbird Cyborg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 320
Default

Hidden Section:
He's stronger than me, but I think that Joaz shouldn't mettle with this move. It may not be ideal, but it's reasonable.

I mean, I also think that this particular pincer feels pretty urgent.

To me, it feels great for white if he is allowed to attach on top of black and connect his stones so easily.

Also, couldn't white consider an approach to one of the corners as miai if he wanted?

I just don't feel like the BB need to mettle just yet.
Hummingbird Cyborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malkovich registration thread Joaz Banbeck General Go Chat 183 2010-04-16 04:40 PM
Survey on the Malkovich games. sol.ch Beginners 53 2010-03-30 04:51 AM
Malkovich Viewing Area shapenaji General Go Chat 0 2010-03-22 01:31 AM
My first finished game at OGS - a Malkovich approach karaklis Game Analysis 5 2009-09-08 01:17 PM
brother vs brother (11k) rebent Game Analysis 3 2009-03-03 08:51 AM

You can remove these ads if you create an account.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.