if you see below...if black plays a then i will play b so black can not easily invade my 3-3 point. for beginners, if you see similar situation now you know which picture i prefer.
I figured he'd take one and I'd take the other, and I suspected this would be the one he'd take.
For beginners:
It's fairly common now to kick the Black stone. The reason being, if White pulls back and then Black slides into the corner, Black is basically completely stable and gets to reduce White's points, possibly doing so in sente:
Instead, by kicking, White can do a better job in the corner, whilst simultaneously depriving Black of being completely settled and somewhat overconcentrating his stones:
Yes, there's still aji in the corner at "x", but by invading it too early, Black normally damages his outside group. Depending on the timing (as it's gote), White can follow with the a -> b -> c sequence later to give Black messy thin shape whilst removing most of the aji in the corner.
if you see below...if black plays a then i will play b so black can not easily invade my 3-3 point. for beginners, if you see similar situation now you know which picture i prefer.
[go]$$Wc $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 5 . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , X O O . . X O X . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . X . X O O O O X . X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X X O O X X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O X X X . O X X X | $$ | . . . O . . . O . . O . . O X O . O . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . O . O O O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O X O . . . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . O . X X X . X . . . . X . X . X . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]
Noting the "similarity" (or so I thought) on the left side of the 4 variations above, I said, Looks like Magicwand blocked the correct direction with (C11), as pointed out in my game. To my surprise, pro opinion was, No, it's better in Magicwand's case to block the other direction (C7), and then the reasons were explained to me. Go is so difficult.
OTOH, if White extends this way, those exchanges help in the fight in the top left quadrant. In addition, expands the White moyo on the bottom and works well with the stones.
_________________ The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on? — Winona Adkins
You have players with pro rank living in your neighborhood or was it over the Internet (like kgs)? If the former, California sure sounds like a great place to live, debt crisis and all.
_________________ Ontological imperative holds that my losses occurred only in imagination.
Yeah, the high extension was better than low, it's much better for keeping up the pressure on my group. So, I didn't really want to play this move - it's nice and solid but it's really a bit .. one-dimensional and slow. It helps with dealing with the potential of White's stones above, but not as much as I'd like - so, why did I play this one?
However, as I don't have a favourable ladder in either of them, I don't think they can be good. If White had played his extension low, I was half wondering about playing a forcing (but possibly aji-keshi) move as a ladder breaker:
The idea here of course is to get a simultaneously strong group with some potential for points around "x", whilst reducing White's potential area at "y". However, what if White responds with at "a"? I hadn't read things in detail, but if I end up not getting the passive response above (which I suspected was optimistic anyway), then I think it's a bad idea to play this way. I should probably be glad White played high after all, even though I suspect it's objectively better.
So, solidly does it, this is a sort of form of honte really, and there are so many big points I'm ok with this. Besides, it makes C3 a bit more attractive later as White can't so easily play to split and harrass this group.
For beginners (A):
"One point jumps for running, knight's moves for attacking" (or some loose paraphrase thereof) goes the proverb, and of course it's flexible with its application. In my experience, a knight's move should often be sought after in these positions, trying to press your opponent down in one direction, giving yourself more outside thickness in the other. However, every knight move can be cut at the waste, depending on the ladder. So, if you're ever in a similar position, ask yourself as Black "does the ladder work for me?", and if you're White and Black just played it, ask yourself "Can I cut directly .. right now?"
There are times when White, if he has a weak group, may want to play at "a" as a way of settling his shape, but I would be surprised if it's a better way to play than "a" directly except in very rare circumstances. Basically, if the cut works, it's worth seriously reading as a playable option, particularly in a situation such as this where Black would be split into two sad groups. If the cut doesn't work, and you can't find a move you really wanted that makes it work (with, for example, a ladder-breaker-cum-extension), just leave it alone.
For beginners (B):
The group looks sort of safe right? I mean, it has a two point extension on the edge and an extra stone, surely living here is straightforward enough that I should be going after one of those big points in the top right or some such like?
Actually, this is one of the harder aspects of Go to grasp in my opinion. It's not that the group shouldn't have trouble living, it's the potential in about an 8-9 space square around that group that can be affected by local continuations. Essentially, when building a framework, two walls facing the center are very hard to turn into any real points. As a result, it shouldn't be too urgent to handle the situation compared to the remaining large fuseki points. However, if your opponent can build a third wall in sente, all of a sudden he gets three walls and an additional move and can threaten 30+ points of territory, seemingly out of the blue.
Why is this relevant here? White has a relatively strong collection of stones in the top left, and a good position in the lower left, with an extension along the bottom. If I decide to tenuki and White manages to seal the group in and force it to live in gote on the edge, I could be in global trouble all of a sudden:
I'll be honest, I just threw those stones out without any real reading at all, so please don't look too hard for combination that refute it (although, in practice, these are very important to have read out, as they determine the urgency of the local play). The point is more simple - after this sequence, not only has Black given White the whole bottom left as secure territory (as opposed to the juicy 3-3 aji he wants to leave), but he's also made the entire area around "a" start to look extremely promising for White. It's not exaggerating to say that, in the position just above, I would already consider Black comfortably behind even though he's not going to die on the edge. Being sealed in, particularly whilst conceding sente to your opponent as well, can be positionally fatal - it's very important here for Black to take consideration of what White might want to try and do with the stones he has on the board, and make a plan that helps himself (in this case, helping secure the stability of the group) and also makes it harder for his opponent to build a plan of action (in this case, using those stones on the board to start creating the skeleton of a framework).
if you see below...if black plays a then i will play b so black can not easily invade my 3-3 point. for beginners, if you see similar situation now you know which picture i prefer.
[go]$$Wc $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . 5 . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , X O O . . X O X . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . X . X O O O O X . X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X X O O X X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O X X X . O X X X | $$ | . . . O . . . O . . O . . O X O . O . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . O . O O O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O X O . . . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . O . X X X . X . . . . X . X . X . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]
Noting the "similarity" (or so I thought) on the left side of the 4 variations above, I said, Looks like Magicwand blocked the correct direction with (C11), as pointed out in my game. To my surprise, pro opinion was, No, it's better in Magicwand's case to block the other direction (C7), and then the reasons were explained to me. Go is so difficult.
I know nothing about go, but my idea is that the board positions are different in terms of influence. In MW's board position, I think Bill Spight gave a good explanation of why to try a different direction. In particular, white's marked stones have influence and play a part in giving incentive to push black's stones toward that influence:
In my opinion, white's play on the bottom left is more valuable for this reason. Namely, he gets to push black into his area of influence with a move that's probably sente, and he also gets to help the bottom left.
I feel this is a little different from the board position you posted. In particular, while there is influence in the marked area, I feel black and white kind of cancel one another out:
[go]$$Wc $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , B O O . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . B . X O O O O X . X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . B X O O X X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O X X X . O X X X | $$ | . . . W . . . W . . O . . O X O . O . | $$ | . . . . . W . . . . . O . O O O O . . | $$ | . . . O . O X O . . . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . O . X X X . X . . . . X . X . X . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]
In particular, I really can't feel like white has great influence in the bottom left, because of black's marked stones. That makes me feel that it's less effective to "push" black into white's influence - white doesn't have that much influence, as it's cancelled out...
I don't know if that makes sense, or if it's even correct. But it's a rough idea of how I feel about the situation. I wonder what a pro might think
Pro thinking includes the efficiency of W's stones on top: since the shape is quite solid for W, the exchange becomes bad for W -- W would rather invade, say at (a) instead, than to help B solidify B's top like in the real game.
For my game, pro opinion was my bottom group was weak, and blocking at C9 kind of makes a perfect shape with the stones:
To summarize, would it be correct to say that the pro rationale for playing that way in your game has little to do with lack of white influence as I suggested, but more to do with white having a weak group?
what i played isnt much better but..we will see. white is ahead on points..so if i can suck the points out of his territory..it will put some pressure on him.
_________________ "The more we think we know about The greater the unknown" Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
Personally, I'm torn a bunch of ways on this move. It's late and I'm very tired, but in effect, what I'm avoiding is the ease with which White can do this:
Trying to prevent White from quickly settling is very tricky here, and allowing White to connect around the outside is .. not so nice. Of course, a move like this also risks simply being dame, but that depends somewhat on how White plays next. Certainly, I need to be very careful, and I dislike playing moves to contact White's central stones just to harrass this one. I think this move may be too slow, but it also opens up other possibilities for me in the middle. The harder to read sequences start:
My shape seems good enough now that "a" is quite hard for White to play, so I'll probably respond with "b", but then White gets to slide anyway, so I still need care. At least the kosumi allows me to bump his top slide without complications:
difference is a and b trade... i think that trade will leave more aji than not trading. and knight move is more flexable than plane jump... plus it seems more intresting. ^^
mmm, fascinating move. I think this is the only real response, as I think preventing White from playing on this side is more important than preventing the slides. I'll do a bit better a write up of the last two moves when I'm feeling a bit better
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum