Life In 19x19
http://www.lifein19x19.com/

A particular double approach
http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11674
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Boidhre [ Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  A particular double approach

I face this kind of position fairly often in handicap games as black:

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


The issue is I'm not wholly comfortable with positions arising out of the bottom right corner. Specifically this one just makes me feel like Black has seriously messed up and has a heavy clumpy group even though a and b are options and maybe c (I dislike c):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . c 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ , . . . O 5 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . b . . a . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]


Any thoughts on this? The other attach for :b1: is something I've glanced at but it looks rather complicated.

Author:  gowan [ Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A particular double approach

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . c 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ , . . . O 5 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . b . . a . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]


The best move here is for Black to turn at c, as in

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


Black is thick and later, Black can close the right side as in

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


Black b in the original diagram is slack when Black has the pincer on the right side.

There is good discussion of this situation in volume two of the Takao joseki dictionary.

Author:  Boidhre [ Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A particular double approach

Thanks gowan, my dislike of that continuation probably comes from undervaluing thickness. I feel pushing white along the fourth line is giving white too good a result. I suspect my evaluation is quite flawed.

Edit: Also I might be expecting too much after such a soft pincer.

Author:  Bill Spight [ Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A particular double approach


Author:  EdLee [ Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:26 am ]
Post subject: 

Boidhre wrote:
my dislike of that continuation probably comes from undervaluing thickness.
I feel pushing white along the fourth line is giving white too good a result.
I suspect my evaluation is quite flawed.
There's another factor -- you mentioned you were worried about your "heavy clumpy group".

If you link up as Gowan and Bill said, then your potential weakness becomes strength.

When either of these happens --
  • Weakness becomes strength
  • Strength becomes weakness
-- it can be significant (i.e. big). ( Not always true, of course. )

Remember you tenuki'd once from the LR corner at :b2: , and you can still get a good result by linking up.

See if you recall from your previous games where your seemingly "strong" group suddenly became weak (or even died).
Conversely, when your dying group suddenly became a monster and killed your opponent.

It can be a big turning point.

Author:  Joaz Banbeck [ Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A particular double approach

I don't like the play at 1. It feels like the wrong direction.

Anytime you attach to a stone, you encourage it to become stronger. When the R6 stone becomes stronger, your pincer stone at Q10 becomes less effective.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ----------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . B . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . b a . . . . |
$$ . , . . . O . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------+[/go]


I would try 'a' or 'b', encouraging him to build strength on the bottom. Then R6 is still threatened by the pincer.

EDIT: I see that Bill has provided an example of this. Note that as white builds strengyh in the other direction, your Q10 stone becomes more relevant.

Author:  EdLee [ Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I don't like the play at 1. It feels like the wrong direction.
Anytime you attach to a stone, you encourage it to become stronger.
The situation is much more complicated than this.
As Boidhre and I discussed briefly in PM,
there is a (paid) online resource about the basic variations of the double approach.
It consists of about 13 lessons of about 30 to 45 minutes each.
I estimate that's about 1 year's worth of study (for an adult who has to support a family).
Also, this is only for the local considerations (as is the OP board),
not even looking at the whole board.
This amount of knowledge -- the immense number of variations -- cannot be abbreviated to a generic proverb.

Author:  gowan [ Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A particular double approach

Joaz Banbeck wrote:
I don't like the play at 1. It feels like the wrong direction.

Anytime you attach to a stone, you encourage it to become stronger. When the R6 stone becomes stronger, your pincer stone at Q10 becomes less effective.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ----------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . B . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . b a . . . . |
$$ . , . . . O . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------+[/go]


I would try 'a' or 'b', encouraging him to build strength on the bottom. Then R6 is still threatened by the pincer.

EDIT: I see that Bill has provided an example of this. Note that as white builds strength in the other direction, your Q10 stone becomes more relevant.


Yes, attaching makes the stone stronger but it also makes Black's stone(s) stronger. Locally Black is weaker than White, two white stones versus one black. Also, attaching can make the White stone heavier. In this case, that allows Black to make his group thick. Bill pointed out that White sliding to S3 is usual instead of pushing at R4. This sliding move gets about as much territory as R4 and helps the white O4 stone somewhat, giving some momentum to a white move at O3 later.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/