OK. Let's get down to cases.

Here is a game that was previously discussed here. Black's play in the top right corner is horrible. Black makes bad shape and reading errors. But that is not all that we can say. I have added some brief comments to stimulate discussion. It would be valuable to get some comments by DDKs about both the play and the comments. What makes sense to you? What doesn't? What do you agree with? What do you disagree with? The goal is to help us to help you.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

_________________
While I was teaching the game to a friend of mine, my mother from the other room:
"Cutting? Killing? Poking out eyes? What the hell are you playing?"

Move 14:



IMO the 3-3 is overconcentrated here. Black's actual play is better. It either walls off the corner nicely, or cuts White in two.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It interesting to see that someone can create a different mental model of the game than is communicated through traditional teaching. From what I can tell, a lot of traditional teaching comes from experiences teaching inseis. But there are some problems with that:

1. Inseis usually start as children. So just from age alone, the way they learn and the options they have for learning are different than for adults.

2. They are both self-selected and selected by others, so pros teaching inseis are starting with students who appear to have some potential to begin with.

3. They have a lot of dedicated time to put into studying go. This can hide a lot of inefficiences; on the other hand, there could be some techniques that only work if some significant amount of time is available. Consider this anecdote from An Younggil 8p talking about Park Younghun:

"When he was an insei, his teacher commanded his students to play 300 game records a week, and all students thought it’s impossible except him. He said it’s easy because he can do 50 games each day, and he can even have a day off."

So for those of us who don't have the luxury of a) being a child b) having a lot of innate talent or c) having no other personal or professional responsibilites other than studying go, what is to be done? I'm not sure. I don't think there is any easy path, but if there are some heuristics that can capture the low-hanging fruit, that may help.

I wish the Robert the best of luck with his books, but the proof will come if and when a lot his students and/or readers credit these ideas for their own improvement, and it takes time for such evidence to accumulate...

Just this. I don't think it's practical to create a complete top-down decision procedure, but if you can teach a player to ask themselves before every move, "Is there a way for me to cut my opponent and stay connected?" they will already avoid lots of the DDK mistakes. Obviously this doesn't apply to every situation, but when you have a move that does both these things, it's usually a good move, I think.

I believe that the subject of this topic is at odds with the skills of the target group. That is, it is impossible to fruitfully teach the "goals of joseki" to students who have not mastered the very basic ideas in Go.

Let's go back to Joaz' original request. I think the list is very telling if we compare it to the game posted above by Bill. Do NOT look only at the initial exchange in the upper right corner. Go beyond that to see how the rest of the game develops. Then ask yourself what do these players know about Go so far and what have they not yet learned?
Consider:
B32 the tenuki from the lower left
B46 failing to connect
B54 as a way to develop
W71 now White's tenuki from the lower left!
The exchange of W73 for B74
W93 filling in a bamboo joint
W97 the timing of the capture of the three stones in the upper right
and many, many more...

Throughout the game the players show that they have yet to master very fundamental Go concepts. This must mean that they will not be able to benefit or apply anything specifically on the goals of joseki. It is too soon for that. Indeed it is almost certainly not helpful to analyze their "joseki" in this game. They made no mistakes in the upper right joseki that they did not repeat across the board throughout the remainder of the game. Therefore comments on a specific part of the board may make them think that, if they had just played that stone here instead of there, all would have been well.

Before we can work with a basic joseki goal like "try to stay connected", they need to have a sound grasp of what is a connection. Before we can ask them to deny their opponent eye space, they need to have a sound grasp of what eye space is and be able to determine to a reasonable approximation where and to what extent it exists.

What are the basic concepts that a player should understand before being introduced to "joseki" (in the sense of standard, accepted lines of play in the corner/side)?
1. Creating groups
2. Living groups
3. Extending, connecting, cutting
4. Big versus small (areas, groups, moves?)
5. ...?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

It is always difficult to interrupt discussion flow right in its middle but I think that some splitting can be done.

If I were reviewing this game for black (at least just the section you commented), I would just say to not make empty triangles, and more or less leave it at that. If black avoids empty triangles he can hopefully find better moves for B10, B12, and B26, which seem to be 3 of the bigger mistakes B made in the opening. Explaining the shape should be straight forward, making sure to distinguish from full triangles...then after that just pound home the fact that making an empty triangle should set off alarm bells and suggest looking for a better move (=

My two cents: DDKs probably only need to learn two things about joseki.

First, they should learn to see corner sequences through the lens of fundamentals, not through the lens of joseki. (How do you handle a cross-cut? How you handle a push-and-cut? When should you push from behind, and how do you get ahead? When I was a DDK, I frequently bungled situations in the corner that I would have done fine with in the side or center.)

Second, they should be shown the end points of a bunch of different joseki, to build up their ideas of what a "fair exchange" is, and so that they get an idea of how to balance sente, thickness and territory. (I once had the rather stupid idea that tsumego situations were what you would expect to get out of a joseki, so that coming out of a corner with only thickness was no good unless your opponent's corner was just barely alive.)

The reason I say "only" those two things is because, as has been noted, DDK play is so whimsical in other areas that failing to play actual joseki couldn't possibly change their games that much.