Small avalanche variation refutation

Bill Spight · **#21**

Bill Spight wrote:

lovelove wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 Joseki $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . . $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . $$ | . . X O . 6 . . . , . $$ | . . 3 X O . . . . . . $$ | . . . 2 1 4 . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

That is no more joseki. White is thick.

If current opinion is that this is not joseki because White is too thick, then I suppose that :b1:

is the deviation from joseki?

lovelove wrote:

Black has an option to fight, but the double hane joseki has become really rare.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 Fight $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . 9 . . . . . . $$ | . . . 3 8 5 . . . . . $$ | . . X O 4 6 7 . . . . $$ | . . X O 1 0 . . . , . $$ | . . X X O 2 . . . . . $$ | . . . O X O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

This kind of fight is not new. Which still leaves me wondering why opinion has changed about the above diagram. It does not seem like any refutation has been found.

Quote:

a or b in the next diagram is the modern choice in this avalanche joseki, which b is becoming more popular.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 Modern Choice $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . a . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . $$ | . . X O . . . . . , . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . $$ | . . . b . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

Yes, I think that "b" is a new idea when Black does not already have a stone at "a".

DeFlow · **#22**

skydyr wrote:

The shape looks similar to the fight that developed from the small-avalanche double hane in my malkovich game against Deflow. It's not exactly the same, but might be worth looking at because it features the same general idea of a crosscut fight stemming from it.

Jep, it might me worth looking at. =]

My reason for playing it was related to your judgement of the position, Otenki. In retrospect however, the cut does not seem to create two weak groups for white.

P.s. I'm back! At least, I am relatively back.

Tommie · **#23**

Isn't this so easy to compare?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 Fight? - no simply bad style? $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . 9 . . . . . . $$ | . . . 3 8 5 . . . . . $$ | . . X O 4 6 7 . . . . $$ | . . X O 1 0 . . . , . $$ | . . X X O 2 . . . . . $$ | . . . O X O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

Herw, White has an eye and Black only cutting points.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm6 Black has no cutting points $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . Y . . 4 . . . . $$ | . . X O . 2 3 . . . . $$ | . . X O . 1 . . . , . $$ | . . X X O . . . . . . $$ | . . . O X O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

Here Black has no cutting points and White is still attackable (i.e. not completely alive).
Hence, atari :b1:

above is premature - bad style, IMO.

Before calling a variation obsolete, I still would like to know how to proceed,
once I am in it (i.e. having played E2).

Tommie · **#24**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bm1 shape problem for both $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . a . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . $$ | . . X O B . . . . , . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . $$ | . . . b . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

How about practising shape evaluation?
BC as option (c).

Uberdude · **#25**

skydyr · **#26**

Uberdude's variation looks fairly equal to me, if not advantageous for black, but wasn't the original comment about it being obsolete that _white_ is too thick?

Uberdude · **#27**

skydyr wrote:

Uberdude's variation looks fairly equal to me, if not advantageous for black, but wasn't the original comment about it being obsolete that _white_ is too thick?

Joseki evaluations like that are based on an empty board. This board is not empty. Black already has a strong group on the lower left and white is open at j2, and white has only extended as far as k4 from his thickness so it already clear what profit white can get from that thickness (less than on an empty board where white would make a bigger extension). Black evidently judged it was not too much.

Small avalanche variation refutation

Who is online