Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc B2 Bomber
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 5 X X . .
$$ | . . 2 3 X O O . .
$$ | . . . X O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

For my 2 pence worth, I don`t think Black is doing badly here. Yes, the peeps are irritating, but White can only live small in the corner with 6 at the 3-3, and then her stones on the outside are wasted. For instance,

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc B2 Bomber - can still fly
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 6 . . . . 8 a .
$$ | . 5 2 4 O . . . .
$$ | . 7 3 X X X X . .
$$ | . . O X X O O . .
$$ | . . . X O . . . .
$$ | . . . . 9 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

From my POV, White has lived small with bad aji and her stones on the outside have become useless. Locally, I`d prefer Black, but a lot would depend on the position as a whole. And, as jts pointed out, Black also had the option of resisting instead of making the B2 Bomber.

I think this situation, while the same shape, is different from the reduction joseki (when misplayed) that mitsun mentioned. In that case, permitting yourself to be peeped at would be to become heavy, but in this one Black simply suffers a little irritation while gaining a compensation (the wastage of White`s outside stones).

Instead of 9, Black can also block White in with a. Whether that would be better than 9 would depend on the overall position.

Anyway...don't make bad shape carefree (as Takemiya says!), but don't be dogmatic either. It all depends.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Tami,

well, I was thinking about the shape in an abstract way and the fact that it doesn't look right in any place of the board.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Dubious shape
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . X . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

As an example, in this situation for instance, the peeps help white solidify the bottom right area and don't have any cost for white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Good exchanges for white
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X 4 X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X 2 1 . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . O X X . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But forget it, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking about shapes without context is almost meaningless!

As you say, an abstract example has little meaning, so in your example, resist the peep by making a ponnuki!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Awful exchanges for white
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 6 O X 2 1 . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . 4 O X X . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 5 O O . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It could be you`re about to make a step forward in your understanding, Samura...

As far as I grasp it, shape is something that results from an exchange, not something you usually make in isolation. In other words, if you get a ponnuki as a result of capturing a stone, it is usually a blessed and lovely thing, but if you were to make one simply by adding a stone to a tiger`s mouth, it probably won`t have the same effect. So, to make shape you have to read carefully. Often it`s better to sacrifice to get a good shape than it is to hold on to stones in bad shape. Good shape helps you to fight effectively - as in the example Alguien gives.

Go is very, very, very, difficult. Sometimes good shape is good, and sometimes it isn`t. Sometimes bad shape is bad, and sometimes it isn`t.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

The way I use "good shape" is to consider them first when making a move (prioritize in order to cut down the amount of reading I have to do). I also have a mental database with some of the key points (e.g. liberty shortage problem with bamboo joints, peeps for tiger mouths, cutting points, influence outside, endgame potential) that I use to evaluate (also to cut down the amount of reading required). I suspect that all players have such a database.

For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.

Maybe I`ll make a complete nurk of myself by attempting to explain, but here we go:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Ponnuki and ponnuki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . X . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The top left is a common joseki. Black could play at a to make a ponnuki, but I can`t imagine there would be many players who would. It`s more efficient to play away from the strong tiger`s mouth shape than to add to it.

In the lower right, Black needs to capture the White stone, before it runs away and causes trouble. Since Black needs to capture the stone, it is not a wasted move to make the ponnuki shape - far from it, in fact. After capturing, Black`s shape is extremely strong, and he has gained this only by doing what was necessary.

So, just making a ponnuki in isolation is adding strength to strength - inefficient and slow. But capturing a stone to make a ponnuki is to create something powerful by completing a necessary task - that is very efficient.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Just a random thought, after seeing Tami's Post #27 (maybe it's redundant, not sure):

For the lower right corner, W only needs to add 1 move to get this result (huge difference if captures here instead)...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B tenuki
$$. . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$, . . . . X O X . . |
$$. . . . . . X . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . |
$$---------------------[/go]

...but for the upper left corner (yes, stones removed), W needs 2 moves (much less urgent for at here):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ tenuki, tenuki
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . , X 4 X . . ,
$$ | . . . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

PS. Is "efficiënt" more ëfficiënt than mere "efficient" ?

Certainly.I seem to recall multiple other instances of this discussion,
and I seem to remember some people disagree with this, but here's my take on it:
We always look at the results. We don't look at any shapes in isolation, but always in context.

If a shape merely looks "ugly" or "bad" (e.g. empty triangle, dumpling, broken shape, etc.) but works, it WORKS!!
Conversely, even if a shape looks "pretty" or "good," if it does not work, it DOES NOT WORK!!

So:
Sometimes, a good-looking or pretty shape works. (Do you call it a "good shape"? If and only if it works?)
Sometimes, a good-looking or pretty shape fails. (Problem: do you say it's a "good" shape that fails, or simply a "bad" shape?)
Sometimes, a bad-looking or ugly shape fails. (Do you call it a "bad shape"? If and only if it fails?)
Sometimes, a bad-looking or ugly shape works. (Problem: do you say it's a "bad" shape that works, or simply a "good" shape?)

If he has a Dutch auto spell, I'm sure it is.

Ed, do you think that what you're saying fits with the way the term is used? I recall hearing that Otake was famous for good shape (but all pros play moves that work), and also claims that modern Korean players are less likely to worry about shape (An Younggil said this about Lee Sedol in the quadruple ko game).

To me, it seems like shape is a lot more specific than "empty triangle bad, table shape good". It seems like strong players and pros have a database of literally hundreds, if not thousands of patterns, and what is good shape in each of those patterns. But I've always thought it was about those patterns, and there could still be surprising bad shape that works in a particular circumstance.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

hyperpape, actually I'm not even sure how the term is used, not even in English, let alone other languages.
But what I do know is this topic/question of "good shape"/"bad shape" keeps coming up in threads,
and I don't seem to recall any definitive answers.
So my own take is: look at the result. One can talk about "good shape" and "bad shape" too,
but only in the context of a specific situation.

My questions remain: "OK, this shape LOOKS good/pretty, but FAILS in this situation -- what do you call it then?"
Conversely, "This is a super ugly dumpling shape of the century, but it KILLS here and wins the game -- what do you call it then?"

A good argument may not always be very convincing, or thorough, or pithy. A good shoe may make a terrible hammer. A good go player may be a horrible human being.

There is nothing disturbing or confusing about a good X not always being a perfect embodiment of The Good (tm). But if you are trying to learn why good shapes are good, you'll probably get a better sense of it from focusing on examples where good shapes are good.

I take pleasure in playing ugly moves that happen to be good, particularly the poor old empty triangle which gets such a hard time from everyone.

Yes.

OC, just looking at the go board, the shapes appear to be the same. (They won't be the same when we look at the whole board, though. ) You can tell by looking only at the local region if you see the ghost of the captured stone.

You are correct that efficiency is the key. Usually you can tell the local efficiency of a shape by looking at other stones in the neighborhood. You cannot do that, however, if stones have been captured. You have to take those stones into account, as well.

There is a saying that ponnuki is worth 30 points. That is not meant to be taken literally, but it is fairly close. How was that number derived? Not by averaging over many go positions, was it?

Here is what I think. There is a traditional estimate in the early part of the game that a well placed stone is worth 10 points. But, you may say, there are 4 stones, so the estimate should be 40 points. The thing is, there are only 3 stones net, because of the captured stone. That yields the estimate of 30 points.

Ponnuki indicates the capture of the single stone. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?APonnukiIsWorthThirtyPoints

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

jts got it right. The Dutch like guessing pronounciation less than the English. ië in dutch is pronounced as a diphthong as in siege. ie as a digraph as in sieve. We think that is more ëffïcïënt for the reader.

tour tower, flour flower ; sigh; nevermind

edit: I had my example wrong. The ie Siege is pronounced as the ee in sheep. The ie in sieve as the i in ship.
The correct sentence is:
ië in dutch is pronounced as a diphthong as in siesta. ie as a digraph as in belief.

I'm not sure what you mean by this... everyone I know pronounces the vowels in siege and sieve the same. Perhaps they're pronounced differently in the UK?

Huh. I pronounce "siege" as "seedge" and "sieve" as "civ" and had always assumed that was standard (sorry, I can't do proper phonetic spelling, I hope that's clear). I'm native to North Carolina.

I guess that means I'm treating "ie" as a digraph in sieve, but I've never understood diphthongs.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You know, now that you mention it I have heard that pronunciation for sieve. Now I'm starting to wonder if I have the weird pronunciation . I suppose it's not a word that comes up often.