You know perfectly well this is a silly conclusion.

1. The sample is too small.

2. The opening usually has black in the corner. We expect Black to make a big plus score anyway in no-komi games.

3. The knight's move in several of these games was played late in the game when many adjacent stones affected the position, so it cannot be said to be the decisive factor (and even without adjacent stones there is nothing to say mistakes elsewhere did not decide the game).

You are sounding desperate to shore up your theory. I think it's more honest to ask what the pros might know that you don't.

Remember I am not saying that move A is better or worse than B. I am simply pointing out that pros do not share your rigid thinking. Again, ask why?

OC, statistics prove nothing. I show my statistics as a reminder that your statistics in viewtopic.php?p=186984#p186984 also prove nothing because they refer to an even less related (earlier) shape.

You need not point out a rigid thinking of mine because I have already clarified in this thread (by specifying to presume a 3rd line extension for the question about the usually right distance of such an extension, meaning that other moves can be considered anyway) and with the flexibility in my principle in the book that my thinking is not rigid. Uberdude, just because I do not provide a complete discussion of whole board strategy in every message does not mean that my rigid thinking should be presumed.

A reference to pro thinking and asking pros do not help us because we have hardly any chance to know their thinking in those games about the extension. We need to study the games and draw conclusions from that.

Then don't use such strong words as "correct" and "punishes" without qualifiers.

Sounds fair enough, but you know the consequence of expecting, also in informal discussion, everybody everywhere to write "usually correct", "usually punishes" etc. E.g., you yourself would have to replace "makes almost sente" by something like "depending on the global positional context can make an immediate sente or prepares a severe follow-up", "threatens to separate" by "usually threatens to separate", "provides one such global position" by "it can be argued that it is such a global position" etc. Do you really want everybody to apply the same precision in informal texts I apply to formal definitions? Great! :)

There is a balance to be had between precision and readability of language. I thought mine struck a good one, whilst yours did not.

No, Robert. This illustrates nicely the problem with monolithic thinking: picking up on one thing and ignoring whatever may suit everyone else. Uberdude mentioned TWO things: "Then don't use such strong words as "correct" and "punishes" without qualifiers." You picked up on "qualifiers" but ignored "strong." If your original statement (move A was "correct" and move B was a "refutation as it threatens the connection" had been expressed as move A was "more usual" and move B simply "threatens the connection", there would have been fewer words, not more, and the meaning would have actually been clearer, and I don't think anyone would have commented on it (to oneself at most, perhaps, with an internal shrug and a "well, ok for beginners, I suppose...").

Your comment that we can't know what the pros thought can also be challenged.

In the case of Shusai versus Segoe we have commentaries by both players and by an outsider. I think it is instructive to look at these. The full game is below.



SHUSAI
“Black 17 is a fine move appropriate to this juncture.
“(Supplement: Black 17 is the kind of good point known as “staring in eight directions.” It has the implication of a two-space pincer against White 12 next at A [H3] and also has a long-term aim at invasion on the right side at B [Q7], and also it copes in a far-off way with a White attachment at C [D15]. If Black omits this move, and White does attach at C in the upper left, he will have no way to push in severely with the hane at D [D16]. If he nevertheless does, what follows is White E [C16], Black F [E16], White connection at G [C17]. Then if Black tries the ladder at H [D14], White can run out at I [E15] and Black will have nowhere to play. But with Black 17 in place, the ladder works for him, so that when Black does hane at D it does not make sense for White to atari on the inside at E, so he has no option but to atari on the outside at F. Therefore White has to proceed on the basis of taking into account that he cannot play at C immediately, and so he first defends at 18. There is no move as powerful here as Black 17.)”

The "supplement" here is Kido's expansion of what the Master said.

SEGOE
“This was a game in which White was fertile with variations. I won this game to end up with four wins in a row, but there is no record of who I played in the fifth game.”
His first comment on the moves was: “The result of the sequence White 30 to 36 was to make the game full of possibilities.”

Segoe's only other comment was on the sequence 129 to 139, in the upper left, which he said was mochikomi and so a bit of a loss for Black.

However, Shusai commented that White 30 was not well timed. He said, “The timing dictated that I should first have played the knight’s move at R18 in the upper right, or the diagonal attachment at C16 in the upper left to see how Black will respond.” There is detailed explanation of this and quite of lot of other commentary, omitted here but none of it relates to the right side. However, at the end there is a summary of the flow of the game which says that Black was able to maintain the advantage of first move by proceeding nice and cautiously and he got his reward in the middle game with a superior position. Shusai played well to lose by only one point (Shusai criticised only two of his own moves, 88 (“unreasonable,” should be 89) and 218 (the losing move).

So what we see here is that there is no sense that Shusai regretted his wide move on the right. If anything it gave him richer possibilities and his only regret in that area was that he mistimed White 30. In the actual game the connection never came under direct threat or caused any commentable problems. Black 17 (which was also a common move even against the narrow extension, incidentally) caused Shusai regret, but the suggestion appears that this is first because of its effect on the lower side (which is where he chose to respond - the not the right side) and second on the upper left, which is where Shusai would have loved to have played (to justify his 3-to-1 stone investment), but he was inhibited from playing there for a long time because of the ladder). Further, the one comment that does relate to the right side simply says Black has a long-term aim (nerai) there. To me there is a big difference between a long-term aim and a threat.

We also see that Segoe chose not to comment on the right side at all.

On top of all that, although a statement that "White R9 [instead of White 14] is more usual and Black 15 threatens the connection" would not have been objectionable, it doesn't help us judge the whole game in the way Shusai+Kido or Segoe's comments do.

If, however, we look at the position purely as a local joseki, it seems that there is a better way of phrasing the otherwise unobjectionable comment. Kitani, for example, says of this joseki that after R9 the point N6 (Black 17) is important for both players. Then he adds that This applies even more so if the extension is wider, to R10. There is no hint of criticism in that - just an implicit reminder that timing of the knight's move will matter, which is precisely what we saw in the Segoe-Suzuki game, where it must be noted, Segoe did not respond to the wide move at once; he played in the upper left first, and it was that that apparently caused Shusai problems.

My argument is that by being less dogmatic and prescriptive than RJ, the Japanese commentaries have been much more informative about the whole game, yet have also aided study of the joseki qua joseki by illustrating its rich possibilities and hints for both sides, and they have done this with no significant extra wordage. I have added more than of few words, of course, but that should not be allowed to obscure the leanness of the Japanese commentaries.

Yes, he definitely tailors for Western students, and overall I think it's a good thing. Its biggest drawback is that for some students the principles become rules (as the OP requested) that they always apply, without necessarily accounting for the neighboring stones.

From the introduction of Fundamental Principles of Go:

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

It is impressive that enough old commentaries exist to allow citation of a commentary on a related game, thanks John!

It remains unclear why the 4-space extension would given White "richer possibilities". Different possibilities for sure, but why richer? Black's richer invasion possibilities are hardly discussed. In particular, the pro comments do not discuss the disadvantages of the wide extension and do not compare well the 3- with the 4-space extension. In particular, it is worth discussing why Black 21 does not invade on the right side. It is easy for Shusai not to regret his wide extension because Black did not challenge it. Instead, Black waited until White 28 could establish a reasonable shape. The common sense comments by the professionals are all fine and well, but they avoid the more interesting discussion about the extension. If I am dogmatic and prescriptive about something, it is not move 14 but the duty to reflect the characteristics of also this move.

As for why professionals would not invade immediately, I think the answer is simple : other moves were bigger/more urgent, and White coming back to solve the problem is a win in itself.

It can easily be an inefficient move (loss in the global context) because White plays two moves where he could have settled the connection and life by just one move.

Words are there to be used, in moderation.

Having said that, there is a huge difference between saying "this is correct" and "this looks better to me".

The former looks and sounds conceited, irritatingly authoritative, almost sanctimonious, and often baseless - since none of us really know what "correct" is. Not even the pros, especially in more complex positions. Otherwise this game would have been solved and boring... and certainly without many surprises. Even when pros use words like "correct", I often cringe, having seen some of those "correct" moves being then in turn criticized and rejected by other pros as years go by and fashions change.

The latter is much more palatable, and shows some nice character traits, like modesty and constraint. Not to mention a little more realistic evaluation of one's own abilities, which - lets face it - are not really all that hot, or we would all be able to write the honorific "Honinbo" by our names.

PS>
Reminds me of this one chapter in Yoshiteru's book (Dramatic Moments), where several pros were given the same position to evaluate, and each was very sure that there was only one "correct" move. The trouble was - each pro insisted it was a completely different move. Made an huge impression on me, and illustrated how very little we know about Go. Certainly not enough to willy-nilly blanket-label moves as "correct", especially in a more global sense, no matter what theories we come up with.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Possibly, but not necessarily.
The extension also influenced Black moves, which would surely be different if the extension was narrower. This needs to be calculated into the overall win/loss ratio for such positions. Part of that difficulty lies in that the game could have moved along completely different path if this extension were different. Maybe White did not like this particular path, maybe that was a path which White knew suited Black's style better, or whatever...

To bring it down to a concrete example - a move which works better against Takemiya might be a losing move against Kato, and vice versa.
Or something like that.

I think there is a lot in Go (as a competitive game) which is not as black-and-white as you seem to suggest.
And it is good so, since it shows the depth of the game, which is very hard to reduce to strict rules and equations.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Robert: I have spent years trying to tell you that there's a massive amount of stuff available. Throughout the 20s and 30s every Oteai got a long commentary, very often from Shusai. Nowadays all the space goes on variation diagrams. In those days readers had hair on their chest - even the women - and could read commentaries full of Black A, White B etc based on diagrams with 100 or more moves.

On top of that, because pros were not as spoilt as they are now, they did almost all the work of commenting and article writing themselves. So all the articles are from the horse's mouth, and not the other end.



You've got to do two things: one is not to over-analyse and the other is to read what is written. The commentary said it was the game that got richer possibilities, i.e. both players, not B or W.

As to "richer" it just means a wider variety. Don't read too much into it.

On top of that, it is just my top-of-the head choice for a Japanese word, and may not be the best choice. The word in question is "hiroi", which usually means "wide", but that doesn't fit here. It's a very common word and you must have come across it many times in English translations, but probably didn't notice it much because it would often be (mis)translated as "wide". I have discussed it a bit in the Shuei game commentaries, but it needs (dare I say it) wider exposure.

Although common in commentary texts, hiroi is rare in books and articles. I think I have seen only one book that discusses part of it, maybe by O Meien but I've forgotten. It's like amashi, also very common in commentaries but rarely discussed in depth. The most I've seen on that is as part of articles, e.g. on technical terms.

I think there's a good reason for that, but I am now entering the realms of speculation. The reason is that these are concepts that can only be sensibly discussed once you know all the basics inside out, and so can apply only above about 6-dan amateur. And pros rarely write for other pros. In fact, I deduce that, leaving aside physical and psychological improvements and the gradual build-up of experience and keeping up to date, these two things are the most important aspects a low-dan pro learns as he moves up the dans. Nowadays, however, dealing with a hiroi game is probably more noticeable because weaker players have more or less learned to avoid suffering amashi strategies, and so we see fewer example than in the past, with the recurring exception of that caricature of amashi, the one-weak-group strategy.

Hiroi essentially describes a game that is rich with (= full of) possibilities. It means a game with a lot going on. However, it does not mean mayhem. Players who play a hiroi game have to have that an attribute similar to the controlled aggression taught to London bus drivers and F1 drivers, or to the ability to go to the limit but not beyond that top rock climbers have. By its nature such a game is likely to benefit a stronger and/or more experienced player - typically White in no-komi days.

Your remark about White playing hamete in no-komi days is a bad misuse or misunderstanding of the word. A pro only extremely rarely tries to trap a fellow pro with a trick move. However, he will very often use hiroi moves.

Both hiroi and amashi strategies are used even in komi games, though as I said actually achieving amashi is quite nowadays.

For an amateur to learn to play hiroi moves is difficult not just because of the need to master the basics first. Another factor is that he may not get to play stronger players enough, either on level terms or giving a handicap. But in no-komi days this was common. At B-W-B handicap, a weaker player got to play a stronger player with White and no komi in one out of three games. This was a marvellous opportunity to challenge him to a hiroi or amashi game, and it's part of the reason that players like Kato Shin believed that no-komi go should have been retained. The Japanese have a lovely way of describing this, borrowed from sumo wrestling. They refer to it as "borrowing the chest" of a stronger person so they can practise pummelling him. This term is fairly common in go, but for obvious reasons it usually can refer only to pros.

Again, don't try and over-analyse any of that. I've typed it with one eye and two ears on the TV as the general election results come through, and it may all be gibberish, but I'm confident there will be a grain of truth somewhere.

Could hiroi be translated as "going all out" with a move or strategy?

Nowhere close. I still recommend starting with "rich in possibilities", and bear in mind that a good, experienced player can choose a simple option out of all those possibilities. He's just given himself more options (and if you want to be cynical, he's given the opponent more ways to go wrong.)

Would "Depth"/"This move has a deep meaning"/"It's meanings lie far down in the tree", be close to a sister to the word "Hiroi". It seems as if it means that when pros are behind, they do what An 8p calls "making the game more complicated", by increasing the width of the game tree with "Hiroi" moves?

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

I know what you mean and have sympathy with the point, but hiroi is used even when you are not behind, so it is not the same kind of complication (i.e. as I said before it does not lead to mayhem). Also, "deep" just introduces the perennial problem of using a word that has too may other uses and nuances. Note also that the opposite of hiroi is legitimately used in similar circumstances (semai), as of shutting the game down, but it would seem odd to use "shallow" about go strategy.

As an indicator that scale does not really come into it, could we perhaps argue that small ball in baseball, which seeks to eke out runs by creating a richer set of possibilities than just going for the fences every time, is "hiroi"?

Thanks John. I think I understand what you're talking about, and I think any player who has played white in handicap games will probably understand it too. We may not play "hiroi" moves as you describe, but we tend to complicate the game (leaving it richer in possibilities) in many ways, by, for example, playing tenuki more often than we would tend to do in even games. I would not call these hamete, as they are not trick moves, we just leave situations less resolved, confident that our extra skills or experience will help us eventually prevail. You stress the point about mayhem - I don't know that I understand the practical difference between mayhem (or chaos) and complicated, but I think I agree with you - by complicated I mean more possibilities available, and more opportunities (for the opponent) to pick a faulty path or suboptimal move.

In fact this should help our normal games, as you describe with the chest analogy, if only we can resist the urge to thrash out local situations to their bitter end in our even games (speaking for myself, that is).

So horoi seems to be "(strategy of) creating possibilities". If so, it is not special for professional players.

No. It is more refined than that. It does not include ajitsuke or probes or miai or other ways of creating possibilities. These are essentially local but hiroi is not limiting.

It is not specific to pros but you do need to be a pro to be able to make effective use of it, more so than with the above.

And hiroi is an adjective.