I was inputting a 1935 game between Onoda Chiyotaro 6-dan (White) and Hashimoto Utaro 4-dan and the fuseki made me blink with disbelief. Play it out below and see what you think.

The New Fuseki fad had rather run its course by then, but in any event neither of these players had shown much previous interest in it anyway. However, this was a hors concours game sponsored by Kido in response to a poll of fans; these two popular players had finished as joint runners-up to Go Seigen in the Oteai. We can suspect therefore that there was an element of grandstanding for the fans, though it was at the same time a very serious game: two days were allocated to it.

Onoda may not be as familiar as Hashimoto, but he was one of the very best of his era. He won successive Oteai sessions with perfect scores (Autumn 1942 and Spring 1943), and this contributed to a remarkable winning ratio just before he died. He was also known for a famous incident in the Oteai when he played a game that would decide whether he would be promoted to 7d (against a 4d identified only as K). K resigned but Onoda refused to accept it, saying the game was not yet decided. They continued till midnight whereupon it proved he had lost by a point. The next day he shaved his head in penance.

But the most significant point of this post is that both players (and also the Kido editor) commented on the game and gave comments for almost every move of the fuseki. I found them unusually interesting and so share them here.


White 4
Onoda: Combining the star point and 3-3 is perhaps contradictory, given that the ideas behind them are different, but I had wanted to try it out.

Kido: The star point has something of a positive feel and 3-3 perhaps feels negative, but if it is possible to proceed throughout the game with a consistent strategic approach, it becomes a perfectly valid strategy, at least for novelty, so long as the individual features of both aspects are realised from the beginning.

Black 5
Hashimoto: If 5 is used to enclose the corner at 7 (P16), White R10, below the side star point, becomes an ideal point, and that I disliked. However, given that this let White play 6 (R14) and the location of Black 5 was less than satisfactory, it was clearly a mistake. As to why, if we change the move order and enclose with Black 5 at 7 (P16), it is as if play then went White 8 (R11), Black 5, White 6 (R14).

White 6
Onoda: Approaching at P17 instead of 6 invites Black Q15. The pros and cons of that exchange are unclear, and so, though not in every case, I have avoided playing the low knight’s move approach. But that is just my own pet theory.

Black 9
Hashimoto: Enclosing the upper left corner with 9 would be usual, but in this case I thought it felt out of balance with the upper right corner. If 9 does enclose there, White can start constructing a moyo around D10.

White 10
Onoda: As with my White 6 (R14), I avoided approaching at E17 in exchange for Black D15 because I could not assess whether it was good or bad.

Kido: Onoda’s comments about White 6 and 10 are characteristic of him. Hitherto, and even today, in cases such as in this game, instead of 10 White would focus more on Black’s possible enclosure in the upper left corner and would typically play an approach at E17 or E16 with the idea of preventing that enclosure. But Onoda has reservations about these approach moves and, as a result of several investigations, has formed the view, not with certainty but to some degree, that it is impossible to assert that making the exchange for the kosumi at D15 is better than allowing Black the enclosure. And so, if you look at his games, you will hardly see him play an approach move, but some new idea instead. He cannot play a move he does not trust. The strength with which he holds fast to his views truly commands respect for his art, does it not?

Black 11
Hashimoto: Enclosure in the upper left corner is also a big point for 11, but if Black plays there he allows White 11, and the game becomes too expansive [hiroi] for my liking.

White 12
Onoda: 12 at M3 or N4 is also possible, and I can’t say whether they are superior, but I chose White 12 as the most suitable response to Black 11 (K4).

Black 13 and 15
Hashimoto: Black 13 and 15 are dubious moves, but if I play the enclosure in the upper left for Black 13, that allows White H4, Black K6, White H6, which makes White’s 3-3 move effective.

Black 17
Hashimoto: 17 was too concerned with the size of the enclosure, and proved unsatisfactory. I ought to have jumped to K6 to forestall White 18 (G4). Then, next, blocking at D3 would be a rather good point, and so it is unclear whether this or the enclosure at 17 is bigger. At any rate, I was unhappy about allowing the invasion at 18.

(The fuseki now degenerated into a fight when Black attached at G5.)

As always, I'm struck by comments that make it sound like a kyu player could see the problem with the move, as in Black 5. As always, I wonder what the relation is between the comment and the professional evaluation. Is the comment cheating?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I doubt if many kyu players would have found , which is necessary to understand the comment about .

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

But why make the assumption that the comment was aimed at the kyu player? This was from a 1935 Kido, when the expected audience would have been mostly what we count as dan players.

I was not assuming it was aimed at a kyu player. What I am saying is that the comment makes it sound like the error is simple enough that it could be caught by a player well below professional level. And if this is true, it doesn't mean the comment was targeted at a kyu player, or even a non-professional player (though of course it was). It's a claim about the simplicity of the explanation.

I do take Bill's point: that kyu was probably an unintentional exaggeration. I doubt I would have thought to try 6, and thought about adding that as a caveat to my original post.

_________________
Occupy Babel!