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.)

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!

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.

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

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:




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.

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

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.

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.

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.