If you frequent the hallowed halls of L19, it's probably reasonable to assume you're interested in playing go to your best ability and in trying to become more skilful.

My biggest bugbear is what I think of as "negative go". It seems very frequent among kyu players, and it induces the least pleasant emotions and thinking patterns in me.

Here I am going to outline some of it signature features. Please feel free to provide your own examples and recommendations.

First, especially in the run-up to shodan, I am noticing most people focus on destroying and not on creation. Every extension has to be invaded immediately, every wall must be immediately denied its extension, every enclosure must be probed as soon as it is played, every big point must be taken before the opponent gets there even if it means leaving bases unmade and shapes ready to be squashed.

In fact, like many a bad thing, this kind of negative go is only a distortion and shadow of something good. Naturally, invasions and reductions and probes are all proper techniques and need to be studied. In a way, I am now beginning to feel even a little grateful to the players of this style, because they have been exposing the shortcomings of my go and pointing the way for me to get stronger. Yes, the leave themselves open for attack, but I was not as good at attacking as I believed.

On a higher level, destructive go mimics amashi strategy, and the prevalence of it may be partly as result of the definition of amashi given on gobase. But amashi is truly hard to do well, and the amateur imitation of it looks more like spite - "if I can't have it, you certainly ain't having it either, even it I do hurt myself!"

Then we come to people who have a hatred of walls. I seem to have an uncontrollable bias toward influence. Even if I open with 3-4 points and play as best I can in the classic style, by the end of one of my better conducted games I find myself with no corners, little side territory and a great big central empire a la Takemiya. I have no idea how this happens. Anyway, having this bias toward influence, I tend to make a lot of walls.

Yet people don't do the sensible thing and erase from afar. Oh no! They only go all out to capture your wall. As Bill Spight would probably teach, one way of dealing with that attitude is to go ahead and let them have the wall, in exchange for something better. Still, it's the mentality behind wall allergy that irritates me. It's like the neighbour who wants to smash your lovely rockery or pee in your goldfish pond even though there are much better things he could do in the area. You can read their minds saying "I'm going to have my enclosure, and take away your extension, and capture your wall as well, and after the game I'm going to come over and make gloves out of your cats!".

Then there is Go-llum. He tends to be among the easier of the negative-minded players to defeat. When you approach his area, even his least important stones, he will block and cling, and you can almost hear him whispering obsessively "My preciousssssss, she wantses my precioussss, oh, my preciouss!" The word "exchange" does not exist in his vocabulary. Go-llum tends to play the kosumi attachment when you approach his 4-4 stone, unaware that this is not so much a defensive technique for preserving the corner as an attacking manouevre. He will deploy the "footsweep", unaware of its aji, and will happily save kikashi stones rather than let them go.

Another type of negativity is practised by the anti-joseki specialist. You know the drill: you study a 5-3 joseki or 5-4 joseki, and want to practice it. Instead, your esteemed partner plays something like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki I: Shouldering the 5-3
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 1 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What do you do? I am not completely sure! However, the following line is my best bet for now:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki I: One direction
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . b . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 3 O 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . . . . . . . . X 1 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 8 . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black would like to play next at a or b.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki I: The other direction
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 9 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . 5 . 1 O . 8 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It seems to me that you can't smash the anti-joseki, but it you play reasonably calm and conservative moves you end up developing faster and more solidly. However, if I am displaying my ignorance here, then I would like to be corrected, because I want to get stronger!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki II: Attaching to 5-4
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 1 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And here is the best answer that I could find for myself. Again, am I in error?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki II: Attaching to 5-4
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If you double hane like a Viking, then as far as I can discover, you will end up with imposing thickness in exchange for the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki II: Attaching to 5-4
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . 5 X O 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 8 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But, then of course, your opponent will attempt to save 2...

Anyway, I am frustrated with negative go in its various forms, and largely because I am not very good at playing against it. It is, though, clearly one of the things one must tackle in order to become strong. Therefore, I would be grateful to read your opinions, advice and examples.

As a footnote, I used to play chess, in the dark and distant days of my misspent youth. Now, as many of you will know, chess players study openings intensively, and it is one of the most profitable ways to get stronger at the game. Naturally, some of us did not enjoy studying...and for that market, many unorthodox openings have been created, which are supposed to have "surprise" value and require less memorisation. But it always struck me as self-defeating in the end: if you don't want to study something, then how can you really and sincerely expect to get stronger in any genuine way? There are indeed some masters who have made a name for themselves by playing the wackier lines, such as Tony Miles and Michael Basman. But they were already strong to begin with! Back to go, you might like to play anti-joseki of various kinds, even the quite good ones (I do believe Go Game Guru carried an article about easy ways to handle the 5-4 joseki), but, ultimately, are you not simply avoiding the effort that is absolutely necessary to get stronger?

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Strange: it's not really my experience that you see this (I'm 2k on KGS). It really feels like stuff I saw a few ranks lower, and now it's been drilled out of the people I play.

In fact, while I do still see crazy and ill-advised fights, sometimes even ones that I started, I don't feel like I see a lot of the jealous kicks, or attaching to a corner stone and so on.

Lastly, what does accomplish in that anti-joseki diagram?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

If you mean the 7 in the second diagram, it was an oversight. Sorry! I have tried to correct it, but I am not sure whether playing there is good either.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

At the risk of distracting from your intended train of thought, this first premise is irrelevant.

I, for one, would be perfectly content remaining at the level I've attained so far. Sure, I'd like to get better still, but at this point in my life, I don't have the time or energy required. But I am still interested in the game, and enjoy watching a good game, and enjoy helping others improve (when I can).

It seems to me that if you are just drilling joseki, you'd worry about opponents deviating from the norm. But if you are studying joseki and why each move is played as joseki, you'd welcome deviations as a time to use your brain to explore how to punish.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I see moves like that 3-5 response and the 4-4 kick all the time on Tygem, Wbaduk etc at the low dan levels, not sure why though. (Incidentally, I always continue to the 3-3 in that 3-5 pattern, no idea if that's a good way to handle it.)

Well, I do study offbeats when they come up, and feel I have learned quite a lot by it, but it's the attitude behind it that grates with me - 'I would rather play a second- or third-rate move than study joseki'. One gets more practice with weird stuff than with good lines, and that's kind of frustrating after a while.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Well people spend their time studying different aspects of go. Joseki may not be their top priority. So don't let their 'attitude' affect your own study and effectiveness.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I would personally choose this, as I think Black is happy enough with his corner, and if White extends along the side, Black still seems happy enough

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki I: Shouldering the 5-3
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 1 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 7 2 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . X 3 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I feel that allowing White to bend is kind of soft somehow. If the lower left was a Black stone then your suggestion is a bit more interesting to me, as the bend will automatically start to create a useful sphere of influence at the bottom, but I think that's probably true of my sequence as well. 2p, enjoy the salt!

EDIT: Actually, in extension, can I just say how much I enjoyed your original post. You manage to make a really funny and relateable to anecdote out of your frustration, which is no easy feat. I sympathise, and I agree it can be very frustrating, but I also think coming up against it is important. It's all very well knowing a move is bad, but without knowing why or how (and that includes being able to properly take best advantage of it), you have a memory of what you were told as a truly understood piece of knowledge. Eventually, the refutations to all this wacky play will become easier and easier to see over the board, and you'll have these opponents to thank for it

Some further ideas:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Anti-joseki II: Attaching to 5-4
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X O 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I'm not sure a double hane on the outside is good particularly, although in this situation it has special application because of the top right position. White should just be able to connect here I think, and with the corner, and ability to hane out, this doesn't seem too horrible for White? EDITED with examples hidden just below:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Anti-joseki II: Attaching to 5-4
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X O 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B 1 7 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This feels like a simple way to play, and I think I'd prefer this. The only way to avoid this result for White seems to be to take bad shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Anti-joseki II: Attaching to 5-4
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . a . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . 6 . B 1 3 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Because of "a" and "b", I think either seem to work.

This block in the corner is an absolutely key point. It makes a base for both players. Weird moves are a good opportunity to test your grasp of fundamentals like this.

Well, if you hane on the outside when someone attaches to 4-4 it's hardly surprising that you end up with central influence! My instinct in such a position is hane in corner. As in previous post, corner is key place for base for both players. Maybe with your funny influential shimari above (which, incidentally might make some more traditional people think you are a weird/tricky/negative player yourself!) it makes some sense on this board.




I wouldn't call this negative Go from white. It is extremely generous to play all those awful ataris making you nice and thick! Also instead of 9 (which I'm assuming (too lazy to read) doesn't have much life and death affect on corner, if it does it's a great move) you could play atari at p2 (to make white's o2 capture gote) and then net the white stone at o6 for a simple result.

I'm no stranger to getting annoyed when my opponent plays in ways against me that I "know" are wrong. But as I got stronger and at the same time started to play on Asian servers, I started to see my annoyance at these people as more of a problem with myself than them.

I think the reason I got (and occasionally still get) annoyed at these moves is because I "know" they are wrong, but I was/am not strong enough (or perhaps confident enough) to be assured that I won't lose to them. My annoyance is a product of my own weakness. Yet for some reason, I direct my annoyance at them, as if it's their fault that I am weak at something and they ought not exploit it. I've noticed I don't get annoyed if a player significantly weaker than me tries something ridiculous, as it usually makes them even easier to defeat.

I actually wish I had someone at my local go club who would be just slightly stronger than me, but would play in a way that would violate all general principles and would tick a part of me off (and many such players do exist). I find I learn most from games where I am forced to confront styles of play that make me uncomfortable.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Reminds me of a time some 20+ years ago. I lived in Hamburg (Germany) at the time, and I used to play chess regularly over perhaps two years with a “friend”. At some point he began regularly complaining that I played so badly. This continued until he quit playing with me, and he even quit friendship.

… I used to win perhaps 8 of ten games … and yes, I used tricks like sacrifice (in German “poisoned figures”), and maybe some “unorthodox” moves since I was by no means a “good” player.

<shrug>

Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I think this might be the best punishment.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black punishes
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 3 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . 1 5 6 8 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

the other option, if white chooses correctly and plays like below, reverts to a joseki (avalanche or large Avalanche?!)
IF white chooses to extend in the other direction black will get a better result.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black lets white revert to joseki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 4 2 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In this case though, I would hane on the other side:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black lets white revert to joseki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 5 4 2 a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This feels more like the 'head' of the two stones, whereas 'a' feels more like the tail. Next, if white 'a', black 'b', and if white 'b', black 'a'. If white pushes at 'c', I think black 'a' puts a lot of pressure on white.

If white plays in the other direction, I don't think any move is as good as black taking 3-3 himself:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 2 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If black plays anything other than 3-3, white taking the 3-3 himself gives him a pretty good result.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

I think we need to be careful of falling into the belief that a weird-move-that-surprises-me must be a bad move. That would imply we know more about Go than we do. Another way to end up with the shapes in Dusk Eagle's diagrams is attaching on top of a 3-4 as in viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5145. If Lee Changoho played it then it can't be that bad (though I do wonder if playing an amateur meant he felt he could afford to experiment a bit more than usual)

That was also a board in which his opponent had a Kobayashi/Chinese mutant hybrid position! That doesn't prove it's a good move than we can assume a second move 3-3 point invasion of a 4-4 is good because you see it played later in the game.

What I do think it reinforces is that early in the opening, every move accomplishes something, and the game is about relatively small advantages in efficiency. Later in the game, a move may really be like a pass, or it may be the difference between life and death, but at the very beginning, a move is just more or less efficient. You will get something and your opponent will get something, and you just have to make sure that what you get is a bit better, and you may not be able to do much better than that, even if your opponent plays a bad move.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

@hyperpape: I was not using that Lee Changho game as an attempt to prove the shoulder hit to 5-3 is a good move, but to disprove weird-move-that-surprises-me must be a bad move. If someone played that attachment against you on KGS, would (at least part of you) think "What's this nonsense?! Must be wrong. Why are are you trying to trick me Mr Annoying". Part of me would, though less so now than a year or two ago. The shoulder hit to 5-3 will usually be a bad move, but maybe it could be good sometimes, Similar idea is the weird shoulder hit to a 3-4 at c16 in viewtopic.php?p=86453#p86453.

OtakuViking's diagrams seem to show some of this weird=>bad thinking. I think his "black punishes" diagram might be good for white. He dismissed the 2nd diagram as "Black lets white revert to joseki". This implies he thinks white's move was bad and thus deserves to get something worse than joseki. But maybe it's ok and a joseki shape is a fair outcome. Something to note about ending up with the small avalanche shape is black usually only plays this when he has the ladder, or else white can make the r6 extension as in LCH's game. So in fact going to a joseki, which black would not have chosen due to lack of ladder, could actually be counted as a success for white!

@DuskEagle: Agree, in my OGS game I felt outside hane was more important side. But LCH game he haned in corner first and w blocked and then hane outside. I think it probably ends up the same. As you say white blocking at c is probably bad. Hane outside first does give white the option to extend into corner, but then black 3-3 looks good.

When I started the "Greed (33 invasion as the first move)" thread a number of people lambasted me as a somehow rigid minded person while not comprehending at all that I am not annoyed because I may lose such a game but because of the attitude which spoils the fun for me. I can empathize with Tamsin very well. But there is a little truth with regards to rigidity. In all of Tamsin's answer diagrams there is not one, where she calmly takes the corner when offered. Can it be you are very much biased towards influence, and usually take the influence side of an exchange, even if your opponent goes to such length as to offer you a good exchange just to upset your original influence oriented plan? Just take the corner for a change.

You can find plenty of professional games which feature the position after 4-5 stone, 4-4 kick, because quite often the 4-5 stone is played as a kind of ko threat (and ignored) or ladder breaker (and the ladder taken) in the opening. I once made a little page about it: http://senseis.xmp.net/?44Point45Contact