Looking for a modern basic joseki book

DrStraw · **#21**

Kirby wrote:

Yes, it means established pattern, but maybe if it's not good, some might say that it's no longer an established pattern :-)

To be honest, I'm a little confused on it as well, because I've seen distinction in go books between Joseki and an "even" position. So on one hand, I feel joseki != even.

But I've heard pros that have joseki (or the equivalent jungsuk) in their native language say that "this is no longer joseki". So the usage saying that joseki is a living and changing thing still exists.

Clearly most pros are not linguists.

Kirby · **#22**

topazg wrote:

I'm not trying to be unnecessarily antagonising in general, and certainly not to you specifically Brian, but how many semi-common josekis do us participants of L19 really actually understand? I mean, if professional research takes a certain line out of favour and we hear that it's "no longer considered joseki", do we even have the reading skills to fully comprehend why that's the case, even if someone tried to explain it to us?

Perhaps I'm being unnecessarily pessimistic of our Great Go Skillz, but I suspect learning joseki by rote, regardless of new or old, is still probably not all that fruitful an exercise. Certainly many joseki sequences have particularly ugly shapes, because they end up all about precise liberty management, and others are sort of nebulous in terms of what they return for one player, depending on what's going on elsewhere. Sure, it's useful to learn things like "this is only a good idea if ladder X works for you", but yeah .. I'll stop, I'm rambling

Reading your whole post, I think we agree more than we disagree. I like that you mention that learning joseki "by rote" may not be fruitful. In fact, this is part of the reason that I think that it's interesting to see how joseki changes over time. That's because, by understanding the reason a particular joseki changed can help you to understand the original joseki, itself. And you can understand strengths and weaknesses of the shape.

In the particular shape I showed, just knowing this idea, "this is not joseki" may not be all that helpful. But there's reason behind it. I can't claim to fully understand, but here is a partial explanation:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . W . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

A common follow-up to the pincer is also this move. Locally, it helps the white group. Black can select several options from here, of course, but one natural response is to hane:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

It's a common shape, but the weakness at 'a' is apparent. If white plays there now, there could be concern over black pushing through to cut:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 4 . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O 7 X 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 9 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

So white might consider trying to move out like this, first:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . a . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

So black might defend somewhere along the bottom, for example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . a . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O , X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . X . . 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Seems normal. If white now aims at 'a', the following used to be a set pattern:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 9 8 6 . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O 0 X 7 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . X . . 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 4 X O O 1 | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O O X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . X . . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Now it's looking bad that white played the marked stone. If white could choose his move over, again, it'd be good to maybe play a jump instead:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . W . 4 X O O 1 | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O O X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . X . . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Seems better shape. But when white starts out with the diagonal move at the start, the same position can arise in a different order:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . a W . 9 8 6 . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . b . O 0 X 7 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 1 . . X . . 4 2 3 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

etc.

---

Of course, either player can deviate. Furthermore, pros later thought that 'a' was a good response after attaching, and maybe now 'b'. And in a few years, it'll probably change again.

So I don't know all of the possibilities of this shape, and I don't know the best response to every variation. But I do know some variations. And while my opponent may deviate, I know some positions where I can establish a small lead. It won't win me the game. And maybe the variations I know will have refutations in the future. But I think that all of these ideas are useful, and when put together, they're quite powerful.

---

That's the first reason I think that it's useful to study some trends. The second reason is that knowing these shapes isn't only applicable to joseki.

There's a common opening that we studied in the AYD:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 8 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 6 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Yada, yada, yada - there are lots of variations. Anyway, it's a common opening. Thing is, your opponents don't usually play this way. I rarely play this opening, so while I went to the lecture, I thought, "Well, it's fun and interesting - but not that useful, since I don't use this opening much."

Fast forward a few weeks to a game I played on KGS.

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . . . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was black. I gained some thickness due to a mistake by my opponent in the bottom left, but I misread, and lost some stones. I was a bit emotional.

I decided then, that I needed to make up for this loss. I put on my aggressive face, and dove in to split his stones:

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . B . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Okay, maybe possible. But then...

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , . . . 3 . , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . 1 . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I tried to move out with the stone. Call it anger, call it emotion, whatever. But probably you can also call it a lack of knowledge. Inseong reviewed this game for me. He pointed out the similarity to the opening we studied earlier.

I didn't play that opening. I wasn't trying to force that joseki. But if I really had known about it, and studied the shape, in this situation, maybe I wouldn't have tried to move out the stone. Maybe I would have played a more reasonable way.

---

Studying trends in joseki won't make you pro. It won't win you games. But learning about how joseki changes, and the reason for certain shapes is certainly useful, and I believe that it can make a difference.

topazg · **#23**

I also expect we sort of agree, but you've highlighted my point:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 4 . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O 7 X 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 9 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

You followed this as "therefore White might try to do this instead", but my instinctive reaction was:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 4 . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O 7 X 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 9 2 O 1 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

Does he need to? (and of course that's why :b7:

is played at :w8:

in most of these joseki lines IIRC)

Kirby · **#24**

topazg wrote:

I also expect we sort of agree, but you've highlighted my point:
...
Does he need to? (and of course that's why :b7:

is played at :w8:

in most of these joseki lines IIRC)

Well, looks like I made a mistake in this part (can I blame the ascii go diagrams? :-)

). I think I mistook this position for this one:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 2 W . . 8 6 4 . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , 3 . 1 . O 7 X 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 9 O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

And I think that was part of the reason the marked white move was discarded for awhile. But I think I heard recently that there is a refutation to this diagram, as well.

As the positions are studied more, there are more and more refutations.

And it's possible to make mistakes, like I did in the diagram you pointed out. But I think such a path is on the way to getting closer to mastering the position. I am far from mastering it, but I don't think it deters from the value of studying these variations.

Probably I'll never master it fully, but at least I can keep trying to get closer.

Tami · **#25**

I'm surprised that Robert himself has not already put it forward, but since he hasn't, I shall: have you seen Robert Jasiek's Easy Learning Joseki? (http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/)

I think it's probably a suitable solution to the needs of the OP. It contains about 70 common joseki plus some short essays on strategic concepts. It's fairly free of the more idiosyncratic Jasiekine jargon so it should be easy to follow and understand within the framework provided by other elementary books.

Anyway, I like it and I think it's worth a look.

Bill Spight · **#26**

Kirby wrote:

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . . . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was black. I gained some thickness due to a mistake by my opponent in the bottom left, but I misread, and lost some stones. I was a bit emotional.

I decided then, that I needed to make up for this loss. I put on my aggressive face, and dove in to split his stones:

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . B . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Okay, maybe possible. But then...

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . | $$ | . X O O . X X . . , . . . 3 . , X . . | $$ | X X X O O O X . . . O . 1 . O . . . . | $$ | O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I tried to move out with the stone. Call it anger, call it emotion, whatever. But probably you can also call it a lack of knowledge.

Well, yes, but. . . .

I have been arguing for a knowledge based approach to things like the snapback, but joseki are on a higher conceptual level. Am I just the odd man out, arguing for basic knowledge over reading, but judgement over joseki? When I see :b3:

I think that other parts of your game must be excellent. (I know that's kind of a joke, but no kidding. You are a good player.

) Yes, if you knew this joseki you would not even consider :b3:

, and you probably would not if you knew similar joseki. And you may have learned why :b3:

is not joseki. But in truth the question may not even have come up. Once you get into deviations from joseki, there are too many variations to explore them exhaustively. You have to develop your judgement.

Quote:

Studying trends in joseki won't make you pro. It won't win you games. But learning about how joseki changes, and the reason for certain shapes is certainly useful, and I believe that it can make a difference.

That is an important point, which you have well illustrated. And now is a time when old joseki are being critically questioned and examined as never before. As a result, old joseki are being discarded and new joseki are arising at a rapid rate. At the same time, this new research probably has little effect upon truly basic joseki. There are modern joseki that appear in the oldest surviving game records. Now that's basic!

It seems to me that studying joseki trends is a fine thing for advanced amateurs. But as far as basic joseki are concerned and studying them to develop your judgement, keeping up to date is not necessary. Even if some of the joseki in a book are now obsolete, the basic lessons should still apply.

Bill Spight · **#27**

Kirby wrote:

Position at move 34

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ Position at move 34 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | C B O O . X X . . , . . . . . , X . . | $$ | B B B O O O X . . . O . . . O . . . . | $$ | W W B B W O X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was black. I gained some thickness due to a mistake by my opponent in the bottom left, but I misread, and lost some stones. I was a bit emotional.

I decided then, that I needed to make up for this loss.

This is a bit OT, but let's talk about judgement. How do we assess the bottom left corner?

If we do a quick tewari with the marked stones, we find that Black has lost one net stone in the corner. That's a significant loss.

But if we look at the corner as a whole, we find that Black has made a wrap around wall, which is a big plus. Maybe we can regard the lost stone inside as a sacrifice.

Wait a minute. That does not compute. If Black lost a stone in the corner how did he get a huge wall? A count of the stones reveals 17 Black stones but only 16 White stones. But Black made the next play. So each side has played 17 stones. Either the diagram is inaccurate, and there is another White stone somewhere on the board, or White lost a stone on the :ec:

point. (Actually, that makes sense. Otherwise how did the Black shape arise?)

If so, then the tewari is wrong, and Black has suffered no net loss in the corner, and still got a huge wall. The wall is not solid, so there is some aji to worry about, but Black came out ahead. (And if there is another White stone on the board, Black's loss is small.)

There is a moral here, you know.

Edit: Looking at that bad aji more closely, I think that maybe Black should strengthen the wall, perhaps with a play at "a". That doesn't affect the moral, however.

Kirby · **#28**

Bill Spight wrote:

It seems to me that studying joseki trends is a fine thing for advanced amateurs. But as far as basic joseki are concerned and studying them to develop your judgement, keeping up to date is not necessary. Even if some of the joseki in a book are now obsolete, the basic lessons should still apply.

Yes, I think that the main benefit from this type of joseki study is to develop judgment (though, I guess you could also get judgment from game experience). I think that you can still learn this from old joseki, and the new joseki of today will be different tomorrow. I am just saying that I think that seeing the changes in joseki can point out more aspects of the joseki that I might have missed otherwise.

For example, if I study this shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 2 , 1 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------[/go]

I might realize that the diagonal shape allows to keep the opponent split. I might realize that it is effective for pressuring both sides. But I might not realize some of the techniques I learned in finding out why a new joseki exists now.

I still make mistakes about that shape, as topazg pointed out, but I think I know more about it now than I did before I learned about the "new" joseki.

Kirby · **#29**

Bill Spight wrote:

This is a bit OT, but let's talk about judgement. How do we assess the bottom left corner?

If we do a quick tewari with the marked stones, we find that Black has lost one net stone in the corner. That's a significant loss.

But if we look at the corner as a whole, we find that Black has made a wrap around wall, which is a big plus. Maybe we can regard the lost stone inside as a sacrifice.

Wait a minute. That does not compute. If Black lost a stone in the corner how did he get a huge wall? A count of the stones reveals 17 Black stones but only 16 White stones. But Black made the next play. So each side has played 17 stones. Either the diagram is inaccurate, and there is another White stone somewhere on the board, or White lost a stone on the :ec:

point. (Actually, that makes sense. Otherwise how did the Black shape arise?)

If so, then the tewari is wrong, and Black has suffered no net loss in the corner, and still got a huge wall. The wall is not solid, so there is some aji to worry about, but Black came out ahead. (And if there is another White stone on the board, Black's loss is small.)

There is a moral here, you know.

Edit: Looking at that bad aji more closely, I think that maybe Black should strengthen the wall, perhaps with a play at "a". That doesn't affect the moral, however.

I think the assessment is interesting. Maybe black wasn't as bad as I thought. But what is the moral? I'm not sure I am making the connection.

Bill Spight · **#30**

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

This is a bit OT, but let's talk about judgement. How do we assess the bottom left corner?

If we do a quick tewari with the marked stones, we find that Black has lost one net stone in the corner. That's a significant loss.

But if we look at the corner as a whole, we find that Black has made a wrap around wall, which is a big plus. Maybe we can regard the lost stone inside as a sacrifice.

Wait a minute. That does not compute. If Black lost a stone in the corner how did he get a huge wall? A count of the stones reveals 17 Black stones but only 16 White stones. But Black made the next play. So each side has played 17 stones. Either the diagram is inaccurate, and there is another White stone somewhere on the board, or White lost a stone on the :ec:

point. (Actually, that makes sense. Otherwise how did the Black shape arise?)

If so, then the tewari is wrong, and Black has suffered no net loss in the corner, and still got a huge wall. The wall is not solid, so there is some aji to worry about, but Black came out ahead. (And if there is another White stone on the board, Black's loss is small.)

There is a moral here, you know.

Edit: Looking at that bad aji more closely, I think that maybe Black should strengthen the wall, perhaps with a play at "a". That doesn't affect the moral, however.

I think the assessment is interesting. Maybe black wasn't as bad as I thought. But what is the moral? I'm not sure I am making the connection.

I guess that Black did capture a White stone on A-04, and therefore suffered no net loss in the corner. Maybe you were unaware of the value of a wraparound wall. They occur infrequently, so there are not many opportunities to learn about them from experience. (I learned about their value when I was studying joseki as a 2 dan.

) Even if Black takes gote to solidify the wall, the result is a plus for Black.

Now, you may not have reached that conclusion in the game, but you could have done the tewari and realized that, despite your reading error, the loss of 6 stones did not mean a bad result in the corner. The moral is that when something goes wrong you step back, wash your face, and do a cool headed analysis.

One of the golfing greats, I think it was Walter Hagen, said that he expected to make three bad shots per round, so that if he made a bad shot, he took it in stride. At your level, I think that it is a good bet that you will make at least 5 bad plays per game, plus some lesser errors. Take them in stride. I know a dan player whose technique is kyu level. But he wins many games because he simply refuses to lose. It is not that he takes desperate measures, but that he looks for and seizes opportunities. It is almost as though he wins by sheer force of will.

gowan · **#31**

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

Kirby · **#32**

Bill Spight wrote:

Now, you may not have reached that conclusion in the game, but you could have done the tewari and realized that, despite your reading error, the loss of 6 stones did not mean a bad result in the corner. The moral is that when something goes wrong you step back, wash your face, and do a cool headed analysis.

I really like the idea of stepping back to do a cool headed analysis, though, it's something that is very difficult for me to do during the game - especially with time pressure. Perhaps also without time pressure, due to the emotional attachment I get to the game. If my plan fails, I feel I have failed, and it is difficult for me to be objective.

emeraldemon · **#33**

This is not a book but An Younggil's commentary on pro games is very modern and often explains specific joseki and alternatives in depth.

https://gogameguru.com/get-better-at-go ... -go-games/

oren · **#34**

gowan wrote:

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

gowan · **#35**

oren wrote:

gowan wrote:

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary treats basic and fundamental as synonyms. The Japanese kihon is translated equally as basic, fundamental, or standard. I don't see any reason to choose one over the other and, in practice, basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

Boidhre · **#36**

gowan wrote:

oren wrote:

gowan wrote:

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary treats basic and fundamental as synonyms. The Japanese kihon is translated equally as basic, fundamental, or standard. I don't see any reason to choose one over the other and, in practice, basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

The problem is the difference between asking for a basic book on Russian grammar and a book on basic Russian Grammar. Some people buy the wrong book.

EdLee · **#37**

gowan wrote:

basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

I fundamentally like basic.

Bantari · **#38**

gowan wrote:

oren wrote:

gowan wrote:

Both the Ishida and Takao books are of basic joseki. The newest variations are arguably not really basic (yet) so not finding some special sequence in these books does not condemn them. I appreciate the Ishida books for all the example game diagrams, which are not present in Takao's books but I prefer many things in the Takao books, too.

I prefer the translation of Fundamental Joseki over Basic.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary treats basic and fundamental as synonyms. The Japanese kihon is translated equally as basic, fundamental, or standard. I don't see any reason to choose one over the other and, in practice, basic has overwhelmingly been chosen for go book titles.

To me, as a non-native english speaker, there is a pretty clear difference between 'basic' and 'fundamental'.

Fundamental is something you can build on, like a foundation.
Basic means 'simple', and that's that.

You can have 'basic' which is not 'fundamental' and 'fundamental' which is not 'basic'.
For example - some variations of taisha I would call 'fundamental'. I would not necessarily call them 'basic'.

Might be just in my brain, but I'd like to think this is a reasonable distinction.

Boidhre · **#39**

Bantari wrote:

To me, as a non-native english speaker, there is a pretty clear difference between 'basic' and 'fundamental'.

Fundamental is something you can build on, like a foundation.
Basic means 'simple', and that's that.

You can have 'basic' which is not 'fundamental' and 'fundamental' which is not 'basic'.
For example - some variations of taisha I would call 'fundamental'. I would not necessarily call them 'basic'.

Might be just in my brain, but I'd like to think this is a reasonable distinction.

Good explanation here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ic?q=Basic

It's a tricky distinction in English. The problems are: the 3rd definition is much more commonly used than the 1st listed there and the rules for basic vs fundamental get a bit tricky when dealing with something like joseki. Often "fundamental skills" and "basic skills" mean essentially the same thing when said even though strictly they have different meanings. I've seen a tendency to say "fundamental X" rather than "basic X" to avoid the confusion about whether you mean "simple X" or not. Language evolves etc. Main takeaway: basic doesn't always mean simple.

Kirby · **#40**

My intuition about these two words matches pretty much what Bantari has pointed out.

The feeling I have for the word "fundamental" is more of "something you should have", perhaps "foundational" to more complicated things.
I don't have such a strong feeling with "basic", other than something that is simple or rudimentary.

However, a quick search online shows the etymology of the words:

* fundamental - from the Latin "fundare", which means "to found".
* base - "bottom, foundation, pedestal," early 14c., from Old French bas "depth" (12c.), from Latin basis "foundation," from Greek basis "step, pedestal," from bainein "to step" (see come).

The words seem very similar to me, but I do feel that one or the other is better suited for certain contexts.

Back to the topic, if we're talking about joseki, I'd personally feel the following:
* Fundamental Joseki - "Ah, this book must include joseki I've gotta know. More complicated Joseki will build off of this one!"
* Basic Joseki - "Ah, this book must include the easy stuff."

As the words are so similar, you could probably use the names interchangably, yet I still have these initial feelings when hearing the titles.

Looking for a modern basic joseki book

Who is online