daal wrote:
Bill - twice, at

and

you pointed out that my decision was sub-optimal because it failed to take into account the strength of the group on the bottom right, so I guess I'm not appreciating or understanding what to do with such strength. After

it was the left that had more potential for development, correct?
It's a close call, but I prefer the pincer. The proverb says not to approach strong stones.

Quote:
And what

ought to be doing is increasing the potential of the bottom instead of trying to cash in? I'm usually worried in this sort of situation about increasing the potential and then losing the cash. Risk-avoidance mentality you think?.
I would not go so far. First, I think that

shows a lack of appreciation of the power of thickness. In this case, not only does the thickness aim at the bottom side, where an invasion would face pressure from both sides, but it aims at the center, where White already has some thickness, and it also secures the White group on the left side. Second, I think that it is simply over-concentrated. Too many White stones take too little territory at this stage of the game.
As for losing the cash, what you generally want to do, especially in the opening, is play close to the edge. (Not the edge of the board!

) If your opponent invades in the opening and you can force him to live small in gote, that is almost always to your advantage. Even if he lives small in sente, that is often good for you. If you get an enduring attack, that is good for you. Takagawa had some good advice here. He said that territory is made in the skirmishes. For me the corollary is, if you can make territory without a fight, you probably shouldn't.

I have added some commentary to both plays.