| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Handling approach on both side http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11499 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | oca [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Handling approach on both side |
Hi, I'm really not confortable when there is an approach on both side. Let's say for example : What to do if white play  here instead of 'a' or 'b' ?- Doing a pincer at 'c' doesn't appeal me much because the top/left corner is white (:w2:) but maybe that's the right move ? - or should I play near 'd' ? looks difficult  doesn't look that weak to me  Any help very welcome... |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi oca, |
|
| Author: | Boidhre [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
From a quick pattern search: The most common pro responses for black, a 15 games, b 8 games, c 6 games. Not a big sample. (Naive weak reading) a seems to say you're happy to fight on either side, b seems to say white has a presence on the bottom and you want to get into the centre, c says you want to start a fight on the bottom. My interpretation is undoubtedly wrong but the moves might be of interest to you. |
|
| Author: | Unusedname [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
I remember having that discomfort, but it's hard to learn without trying and failing. Your reason for not liking the counterpincer at c is good. But consider this other reason. Can you imagine what white will play after c? So knowing this you can start to consider Boidhre's diagram. At least that's what I think I know. |
|
| Author: | oca [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
Thank you all for your replies, my problem with 'a' is that I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups... So my problem is maybe that I don't make sever enough moves. I Will try to play more that kind of move, and see what happend... That's the best way to learn... |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
oca wrote: I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups... Hi oca,Locally, you have spent 4 moves on 1 group; W has also spent 4 moves, but split between 2 groups. Neither of W's groups is settled. To begin to understand the meaning of  kosumi takes a lot of study and experience.And many horrible deaths, that goes without saying.  |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
There are actually quite a few reasonable local choices (of course global position can affect how good or bad they are), but I would recommend coming out with the kosumi for your level as it is simple and clear. It keeps your group safe and not surrounded, and white can only help one or other of his side groups so you can hurt the other one next. This is a very common idea in double approach situations, come out and you make miai to either side. Of course what follow-up you then do on the sides can be tricky, and you do have to be wary of playing softly and not severely enough and getting a bit of a duff snake not doing much through the middle, but if you aren't surrounded at least you aren't going to die. |
|
| Author: | Boidhre [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
oca wrote: Thank you all for your replies, my problem with 'a' is that I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups... Consider the difference to this diagram: |
|
| Author: | oca [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
Boidhre wrote: oca wrote: Thank you all for your replies, my problem with 'a' is that I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups... Consider the difference to this diagram: Sure this is really different, and in the same time only one more stone... well but it will be black's turn now and that also change things a bit... If that was white turn, that would be more difficult... |
|
| Author: | oca [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
Here is another position that occured in a 6 stones handicap I played last week in my go club (no sgf...) : I failed to handle that situation and my top/right group died... The annoying move was  but I think I did the mistake later...When I just look at the position now, that looks easy for black, but in the game, white surrounded me... and I noticed too late... not that much too late, maybe only one move, but that still make a group live or die... I played  at 'a' which I think is correct and then I don't exactly remember what I did...something like that I think, but I'm not sure this was the exact  . I remember I played  |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
oca wrote: Sure this is really different, and in the same time only one more stone Hi oca, W has two more local stones, one for each of his two groups.( W 6 local stones vs. B 4 local stones; W has 2 more. ) That's one thing Boidhre's diagram illustrates: W needs two more moves to settle both his groups. |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
oca wrote: The annoying move was Hi oca, is a not annoying at all.It's a big thank-you move. You are happy to connect with .W gets a broken shape. is a bad move.If your UR corner died, it's your mistakes later, not .
|
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
oca wrote: Hi oca, |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
oca wrote: Hi oca, |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
Some ideas about the 6 stone position.  |
|
| Author: | oca [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
Thank you Bill and Ed for all this material ! so... before I saw all this, I started to think about that first question : EdLee wrote: and the first answer that went into my mind for white was to cut (maybe I'm traumatised  ):but when placing a few real stone on the goban, I saw that  isn't that greatwhite  at 'a' doesn't work that well either... so I think my first fear to be cut by isn't justified.Now to the quality of  here :We talked a bit about this move at the end of the game with a stronger player (~3k) and he also told us that this was no a so good idea. but... that was at least a move I was not used to... I think I would have played better if white played this one for example : This a move a better know how to answer, especialy with a san-ren-sei, because I used to read pattern of the san-ren-sei and this move is taled in detail in this book. I'm also quite confortable with at 'b', but a bit less with 'a'.To summarize : So what I learned here is that this "snake" to the center is not "always" a bad idea, especially if both opponent groups on sides are weak. Then, looking at Bill's variations, the key seems to be in fighting  instead of just trying to live like I did in the game (where I also misreaded a false eye)Finally to come back to that 'a', I'm working on a Joseki I saw in a french book by fan-hui which is called "Cinq Proverbes" and that goes like this : but I still don't understand each of the move... especially  ... joseki and problems in this book are not that commented, some concept are presented, and then you have to work them by your own (which I like  ...)
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
There is a heuristic that Bruce Wilcox proposed called Five Alive. What it means is that in a tactical fight -- not necessarily a life and death situation or a semeai --, a solid group with 5 or more dame is very probably safe. That thought might embolden you to play  . Not that your play is bad.
|
|
| Author: | oca [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
Thanks, that's good to know... I will try to integrate this in my playing |
|
| Author: | Boidhre [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
EdLee wrote: oca wrote: Sure this is really different, and in the same time only one more stone Hi oca, W has two more local stones, one for each of his two groups.( W 6 local stones vs. B 4 local stones; W has 2 more. ) That's one thing Boidhre's diagram illustrates: W needs two more moves to settle both his groups. The other thing I was aiming at was threatens little and is merely running, whereas in the original diagram it is much more active.
|
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Handling approach on both side |
oca wrote: and the first answer that went into my mind for white was to cut (maybe I'm traumatised ):but when placing a few real stone on the goban, I saw that isn't that greatIf your thought against black 1 was because white 2 cut looked scary for your corner group, then tenuki should be even scarier: If the previous diagram was scary for the black corner, then logically this one is even worse for black as black doesn't have that cutting stone to help the corner. (Now of course it's not quite so simple in that the cutting stone could be a liability you want to save and therefore white can threaten it for some moves to gain strength to then attack the corner.) Btw, if I was white I would jump, aiming at a next to surround the corner (can you see the L group incoming again?). |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
with 
connects at (a), you kill all with 
(b) )
descent in the game feel heavy for White.