The Premise of a Tenuki

SmoothOper · #1

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

I saw this in a sample page from a way to play go in the 21st century. I had an opportunity to ignore the kakari kick in a game, and I was pleasantly surprised how it turned out, given that most people play 7 at 8, and anyone can read that it will be a local loss, what is the strategic premise behind these plays? I am definitely thinking about sourcing a "Way to play go.."

Phoenix · #2

The premise is that you're certain to make up for the loss. This is a difficult strategy to play against a strong opponent simply because the local advantage White gets out of it is immediate and solid. :b7:

would have to be put to very good use.

Between this and nullifying White's influence, since you can't let him get both solid gain as well as outward effect, Black will be hard pressed to get a good whole-board result.

On the other hand, White has to worry about Black building up an enormous influence.

Definitely playable. It's definitely a more dynamic style than I would use, but Go Seigen used to pull this stuff and was practically invincible for about three decades. :mrgreen:

SmoothOper · #3

Phoenix wrote:

The premise is that you're certain to make up for the loss. This is a difficult strategy to play against a strong opponent simply because the local advantage White gets out of it is immediate and solid. :b7:

would have to be put to very good use.

Between this and nullifying White's influence, since you can't let him get both solid gain as well as outward effect, Black will be hard pressed to get a good whole-board result.

On the other hand, White has to worry about Black building up an enormous influence.

Definitely playable. It's definitely a more dynamic style than I would use, but Go Seigen used to pull this stuff and was practically invincible for about three decades. :mrgreen:

But why take the loss in the first place? Black can go back and rescue the stone fairly easily, and having sente is nice. I am kind of interested in trying to figure out what Go's overall style/strategy is. The first kakari can serve as a probe? There is also a bit of a psychological advantage to not giving his opponent the satisfaction of a response.

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

Phoenix · #4

Thousands of pros have tried to understand Go's play, hoping that they would be the generation to best him, to no avail. My understanding here is that there's only one good response for Black locally. Go didn't like it, so he moved on. :scratch:

Above all, Go didn't like to follow his opponent's pace. Even though the kick and extend, giving Black a nice three-space extension from his two-stone wall and leaving a bad shape in regards to the corner is not considered very good play, it does leave White with sente.

I don't think Go is planning to save that stone. Ever. You'll notice that :b7:

is just close enough, and yet far enough, that a White atari on the black stone doesn't yet undermine it.

What Go doesn't like, Go doesn't play. :mrgreen:

Toge · #5

Objective is to surround more territory than opponent. You can think of the game as one big ko fight, where each part of the board is calling for two moves in a row. Which two moves would be most valuable for me and which for my opponent?

billywoods · #6

Here's another perspective.

Situation 1, the black stone dies:

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

Does

here look good to you, capitalising on black's strange move :b1:

? If not immediately, then when?

Situation 2, the black stone and white kick never existed:

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

,

,

look like perfectly reasonable moves to me, but does white really want to play :w4:

here? Probably not - not now, and not for a long time. The exchange of the two marked stones gives black the option to pull the stone back out later. White has got thick locally, but black has developed much faster for the loss of a single stone.

Magicwand · #7

Teniki bad for black. End of discussion.

Prodigious · #8

The diagram in the opening post probably does not appear in Go Seigen's book

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

There is really no reason not to play 7 here, since white will have to protect his stones with 8 anyway and then black gets to make the nice extension at 9 regardless. The 6-7 exchange has only served to help black.

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm10 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . O 2 . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . O 6 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This sequence does appear in the book, however, and I think it's a bit different in nature. The idea is that if white extends upwards in response to black's kick, black is going to pincer and attack the white stones. That is why white opts to not extend upwards and instead extends under the star point on the side and develops pretty rapidly in comparison to black.

RobertJasiek · #9

The simple answer is: A local loss is global speed.

A complex answer could try to clarify which (in absolute terms) of the two is better (or whether they are equal).

SmoothOper · **#10**

Prodigious wrote:

The diagram in the opening post probably does not appear in Go Seigen's book

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

There is really no reason not to play 7 here, since white will have to protect his stones with 8 anyway and then black gets to make the nice extension at 9 regardless. The 6-7 exchange has only served to help black.

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm10 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . O 2 . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . O 6 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This sequence does appear in the book, however, and I think it's a bit different in nature. The idea is that if white extends upwards in response to black's kick, black is going to pincer and attack the white stones. That is why white opts to not extend upwards and instead extends under the star point on the side and develops pretty rapidly in comparison to black.

Thank you for the clarification, I don't like to quote the book exactly without trying to reinterpret it myself.

It appears that in this case the purpose is to rapidly develop a large moyo, which is what I am starting to see as part of Go Seigens style, the whole game as a two move ko threat angle is interesting given Go's propensity to win ko fights, maybe this is an integral part of his style.

Bill Spight · **#11**

SmoothOper wrote:

Thank you for the clarification, I don't like to quote the book exactly without trying to reinterpret it myself.

But then your readers will not know what the book said, will they? They will be likely to get the wrong impression.

In this case, the title of the thread is "The Premise of a Tenuki", but then you show a tenuki and attribute it to Go Seigen, and then it seems that he never made it or proposed it.

Bill Spight · **#12**

Here is a similar position from Go Seigen's 21st Century Go, vol. 10 (in Japanese).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm9 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 7 . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 8 . . . 9 . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . 2 1 . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . O 4 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Again, if

were at 17, Black would pincer.

SmoothOper · **#13**

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Thank you for the clarification, I don't like to quote the book exactly without trying to reinterpret it myself.

But then your readers will not know what the book said, will they? They will be likely to get the wrong impression.

In this case, the title of the thread is "The Premise of a Tenuki", but then you show a tenuki and attribute it to Go Seigen, and then it seems that he never made it or proposed it.

Yes, precisely I am not lifting copyrighted material, if they want the original source they can get the original source, it was cited.

skydyr · **#14**

SmoothOper wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Thank you for the clarification, I don't like to quote the book exactly without trying to reinterpret it myself.

But then your readers will not know what the book said, will they? They will be likely to get the wrong impression.

In this case, the title of the thread is "The Premise of a Tenuki", but then you show a tenuki and attribute it to Go Seigen, and then it seems that he never made it or proposed it.

Yes, precisely I am not lifting copyrighted material, if they want the original source they can get the original source, it was cited.

I think what Bill is getting at is that if you have a position you have a question about, but when you ask the question you present a slightly different position, the answer may no longer be relevant to the position you were originally wondering about.

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that if you're not reproducing significant portions of the text, but instead just an excerpt (like a single problem or a couple diagrams), you are not going to run afoul of any copyright restrictions.

xed_over · **#15**

SmoothOper wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Thank you for the clarification, I don't like to quote the book exactly without trying to reinterpret it myself.

But then your readers will not know what the book said, will they? They will be likely to get the wrong impression.

In this case, the title of the thread is "The Premise of a Tenuki", but then you show a tenuki and attribute it to Go Seigen, and then it seems that he never made it or proposed it.

Yes, precisely I am not lifting copyrighted material, if they want the original source they can get the original source, it was cited.

but copyright law allows for fair use citations.

SmoothOper · **#16**

skydyr wrote:

I think what Bill is getting at is that if you have a position you have a question about, but when you ask the question you present a slightly different position, the answer may no longer be relevant to the position you were originally wondering about.

skydyr, the original position I was wondering about is actually much different than either of these, I am trying to figure out how to apply that kakari approach and tenuki idea to a position to my non mainstream san-san openings. So the original position isn't exactly relevant in the first place.

illluck · **#17**

SmoothOper wrote:

I saw this in a sample page from a way to play go in the 21st century.

SmoothOper · **#18**

illluck wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

I saw this in a sample page from a way to play go in the 21st century.

SmoothOper · **#19**

Bill Spight wrote:

Here is a similar position from Go Seigen's 21st Century Go, vol. 10 (in Japanese).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm9 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 7 . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 8 . . . 9 . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . 2 1 . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . O 4 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Again, if

were at 17, Black would pincer.

I think something that has stymied me in the past is when people tenuki my kakari, I tend to take my chances with a double kakari, but I feel this is fairly risky.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . 2 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

hyperpape · **#20**

SmoothOper wrote:

skydyr wrote:

I think what Bill is getting at is that if you have a position you have a question about, but when you ask the question you present a slightly different position, the answer may no longer be relevant to the position you were originally wondering about.

skydyr, the original position I was wondering about is actually much different than either of these, I am trying to figure out how to apply that kakari approach and tenuki idea to a position to my non mainstream san-san openings. So the original position isn't exactly relevant in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, when it's attributed to Go Seigen, most of us say "it looks weird, but maybe there's something to it?" We're deceived by the suggestion that the position is coming from someone much more knowledgable than us.

Without that, it's easy to see the position for what it is, and say "it's not good."

The Premise of a Tenuki

Who is online