oh... something like that ? is correct ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . 7 2 . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . X 5 1 X . Q . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . 6 4 3 8 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . 7 2 9 , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . X 5 1 X . Q . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . 6 4 3 8 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

I'm inclined to double atari like this.

Is that the only starting move for white, though?

I suppose white can try that too, I will try to see what I can do from here...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . X 1 . X . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216

That is a fairly advanced (dan) shape with a number of potential attacks. For example, as below:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . 1 X . . X . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Edit: As proof that it's an advanced shape, that 1 above isn't right. See below:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . 3 X . . X . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

There are a lot of moves for white, and in quite a few black can choose to give up one of the stones, so while it was a great question, it may not be the best situation for the you to study at the moment.

Actually, maybe the existence of those sequences in which black gives up a stone is EXACTLY the answer to the original question - in many cases stones that are further apart CAN be separated, but are still better than "safe" moves because they are more efficient and separating immediately is generally not good. So in addition to looking at how far you can play while still connected (which is extremely important), you should also look at how you would deal with moves that DO separate and get comfortable with the results.

The problem, of course, is that I can't think of a good example that is of appropriate difficulty. The below sequence is a well-known trick play, but does illustrate how being cut could result in a favourable outcome. Don't worry too much about the correctness of each individual move - can you tell who came out ahead?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Initial situation - white 1 invites cut at 2
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc 18 and a half points
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 O 1 2 . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . 3 X X 7 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 4 6 . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Continued
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X 6 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 X 9 O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 2 X X 4 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 O 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Conclusion
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 4 6 O X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 8 O O O X 1 . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O 7 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

I suppose I didn't make it clear originally, but I didn't mean for this to be a necessarily solvable exercise, so much as a springboard for thinking about reading. As you mentioned, there are a number of different ways to attack, depending on what white wants to do and the situation in the rest of the board, as well as a number of different strategies for black to employ. It's a fairly common situation, though, so it seems apropos to consider that white has options and things can be done.

Agreed. It's definitely a good exercise.

As a side note, while the sequence that was proposed does connect, white has a stronger attack which makes it hard for black:



So I think black should respond as below instead:

oh... that's a nice one... I first thought that black would kill all the white stones by forcing white to fill at "a"
but when I tried to do that, I didnt succeded... and white can make two eyes what ever I tried with black.

_________________
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216

Agreed.

• This is a 30-move sequence.
• You are asking a beginner to evaluate territory versus potential (after a 30-move sequence !!) ??
• When he is still struggling with basic ataris and liberties !

Have you completely forgotten what it was like when you were at oca's current level (~17k) ???

( Actually, some young children Go students really enjoy "trick" plays like this one.
So, it's fun to get exposure to it, for cultural purposes. But it's also important to think back
and try to remember what your reading ability was when you were still a beginner. )

( my emphasis )I strongly disagree. I think this can be very confusing for someone at oca's current level.

I think some of us have completely forgotten what we were like when we were still beginners.

Yes... previous posts was difficult for me to follow... but still enjoyed reading them.

To come back with larger moves, I have found this one http://senseis.xmp.net/?ExtensionFromAWall and it seems that there is three kind of what I called "larger moves"

- Extension from a single stone
- Corner enclosure
- Extension from a wall

At what I understand, they seems to occure more frequently during the fuseki than the rest of the game. is this correct ?

_________________
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216

Yes, and this is kind of what fuseki means. The literal meaning of fuseki isn't actually opening (Japanese for opening is the less commonly used 'joban') but more like "arraying of stones". In the opening you are trying to sketch out areas of influence with your moves, staking the first claim to areas of the board. Of course there can be interludes of some local skirmishes like a joseki in a corner but fuseki is basically plopping stones around the board. It is quite normal and acceptable for your stones played in the fuseki to get separated later as there will usually be plenty of space for them to make eyespace. As the game progresses to the middlegame discrete groups are formed and the connectedness of your stones becomes more important; for example if you have a weak group involved in a running fight and you need to jump to run away then you should probably jump in a connected way, the one point jump being a very common example (actually it's not totally connected but usually cutting it is not effective).

I'd recommend you take a look at this excellent tutorial:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorialForBeginners

Completely agree - maybe it would have been better for me to just show starting and ending without the sequence in between - just wanted to illustrate that getting cut is not necessarily bad.

I think a better and simpler example of how large extensions getting cut in the opening can be acceptable is this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black cuts 3-space extension, white doesn't mind
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White's extensions to is 3 spaces from the single stone of . The extend n+1 from a wall of n proverb* says that this is too far if we want to maintain connection between the stones (actually white can attach underneath and make some connection). But white doesn't mind if the stones get cut as if black invades he has space to extend to making a base for the stone. The stone is now weak but is quite flexible as it can be sacrificed by taking the top right corner at 3-3. Notice that is a 2-space not 3-space extension as white wants it to be connected with to form the base for a stable group. Extending 3 spaces now to one point below would not be a good idea because if black splits that 3-space extension white doesn't have room to extend below as black's shimari is in the way.

*shhh Robert Jasiek

Edit: And an even more stark (and only a little facetious ) example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black cuts 12-space extension, white doesn't mind
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

cuts the 12-space extension between and . So what? If there is not a strategic reason that two stones need to be connected and thought of as a unified group then it doesn't matter if they get separated. I hope that idea is clear now. Next is using that idea to play better moves .

I left this partially written and got ninjered by Uberdude but I'll post it anyway.

Looking back I struggled with the same thing as you Oca and I think the problem is less to do with understanding any particular extension and more to do with understanding that two stones can be disconnected but still relevant to each other. Take this example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . W . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Why does black extend so far from the corner when he can't be sure of connecting his stones? The simple answer is that it doesn't matter if white cuts his stone off:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . W . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . 2 . . 1 . . 3 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Blacks corner is strong so he can calmly settle with or press an attack, and white has pincered himself and doesn't seem to have much use for that stone at the moment. The point this demonstrates is that if a cut isn't dangerous to you you can reach for more than you can take because that leaves your opponent having to decide whether to expend a move stopping you (possibly putting himself in trouble as well) or just let you take it. Try to stop thinking of who owns the area between two stones and simply ask yourself "will my stones be okay if they get cut?" If the answer is yes then reach further, if it's no then play solidly. Sometimes you'll have to make a judgement call in terms of risk vs reward, but for now try to focus on the most clear cut situations and get a feel for how those work out for you.

P.s. I'm only a 3kyu so don't take this too much to heart.

Thanks for all your comments, here is What I have learned so far :

• I saw that a two space extension, even from a single stone, is not that easy to cut
  
• I can start playing larger moves by learning a few joseki
  
• When I want to connect, I should focus on that puprose, and depending on the situation, loosing a stone may be acceptable.
  
• Playing larger moves, especially during fuseki, is still better than playing "only small moves", even if I got cut.
  
• If I got cut, the stone may try to form a base for itself (with a two space extension, or invading a corner), or go toward the center to try to live (may be with one space jump), or just die later if it is not a that important stone regarding to the developpement of the whole game.
  
• More larger moves (3, 4 spaces) seems to be a good idea when there is a wall (still have to try this one a bit more...)

_________________
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216

Yup, good stuff. Maybe you implicitly assumed it but it's important to qualify that first point as a two space extension on the third line as being close to the edge gives a lot security. 2 space jumps in the centre of the board are usually quite easy to cut.

Yes, I got this.
By the way it seems to me that each line has it's own set of magical rules... the first line seems quite special...

_________________
Converting the book Shape UP! by Charles Matthews/Seong-June Kim
to the gobook format. last updated april 2015 - Index of shapes, p.211 / 216

Hi oca, as you gain experience at Go, you'll most likely
meet many well-intentioned people who are very happy (even ecstatic) to share with you
many "general guidelines," "general rules", "proverbs," and "general ideas and strategies."
In my experience, it seems unavoidable to hear about these guidelines. That's OK.
The really difficult part is to learn when a particular proverb/guideline applies, and when it fails.

During your Go career, you'll encounter tens of thousands of situations. (Practically infinite.)
Sometimes, a particular guideline will work; other times, it will fail.

For example, you'll hear things like "avoid the 1st or 2nd line in the opening (except for X…),"
or "avoid the empty triangle (unless Y…)", or "don't play end-game moves too early (but if Z…)", etc.
The tricky part is to figure out the XYZ's which are also practically infinite in numbers.

It's a very long journey. Enjoy.