| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2956 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | HermanHiddema [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
So I came accross this trick play: What are your thoughts? How to respond? Some ideas: White ends up very low White's wall feels thin, black gets a large corner and sente to neutralize the wall.  at a, b, c or tenuki, depending on the position?The stone at  makes d sente for black as well, but when do you play it?Still plenty of aji in the  stone.  and  are bad style/shape
|
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
Isn't 'd' double sente, or at the very least, will turn into sente very early for white? I would probably play it straight away as black. If white ignores, he has a much weaker group on his hands. It does sacrifice a bit of aji though, but not a lot. I wish I had time to post more thoughts, but I have to run to class now. |
|
| Author: | Tommie [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
HermanHiddema wrote: So I came accross this trick play: What are your thoughts? How to respond? Some ideas: White ends up very low (...) Very interesting position A Just above looked submissive to me, hence I would try to induce it by cutting first,to make it look like a good move. However ... if B then also exchanges  to this here,then I am back to square one in this 'fight for shape'. Here I would like to ponder further on (which I cannot do right now (work    ))Very difficult (because evaluation of shapes) and I just gave my initial thoughts. All other diagrams I evaluate prima facie inferior anyway. Going back to the starting position, we see that you offered options A to D until now. D Many dan players would (appeal to authority) - agree with me that option D appears to be one of the worst shapes in general. In vicinity of the edge, the corner and in need for sente, there might be exceptions (which might 'proof the rule'  - still, I am not convinced.B Your diagram for B has some appeal to me. However, B could reduce immediately a W wall to nothing. Only possible if there would be already a W stone in a decent distance. C In contrast, option C looks so good for B, as you could imagine another B stone at one of the options you gave (B11 = C). For full-board evaluation I had to discount the tally then, i.e. that B would have played twice more in this position (the 'hamete' + the last gote). This is a difficult mental operation, as I do not know WHAT could have been played elsewhere. If I assume two corner stones or 1 shimari for White, then I still might prefer this option for White. |
|
| Author: | Magicwand [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
let's compare one of your diag and compare with simple well known joseky. in my opinion they are not much different. you must remember that black played one more stone on the corner to get that advantage. in my opinion they yield similar result. personally i like below diag the most |
|
| Author: | topazg [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
This is my first instinct |
|
| Author: | HermanHiddema [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
Magicwand wrote: let's compare one of your diag and compare with simple well known joseky. in my opinion they are not much different. you must remember that black played one more stone on the corner to get that advantage. in my opinion they yield similar result. Yes, I agree these are similar. But the 3-3 invasion under 4-4 is not really a general purpose joseki, but mostly played in specific circumstances where the resulting outside black wall is not totally effective. White gets completely locked into the corner. If we compare with another simple and reasonable joseki: Here, black also plays one more stone, and white also gets territory in exchange for influence, But now the  stone is outside and influences the rest of the game. Normally, this is just better for white than the above two diagrams.This is why white normally approaches on the outside (at  in the diagram) instead of invading 3-3 directly.
|
|
| Author: | HermanHiddema [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
topazg wrote: Now black will cut, of course.  @  And white collapses. |
|
| Author: | gaius [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
So let's complicate things then: There are so many possibilies for black now; a-d all look interesting. Will white be OK? |
|
| Author: | topazg [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
HermanHiddema wrote: topazg wrote: Now black will cut, of course. @ And white collapses. Second one smells bad though  I think one of your variations is better without the ladder, though I've seen worse. That single captured stone has some useful aji still.
|
|
| Author: | HermanHiddema [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
topazg wrote: But I like the exchange for black, sacrificing  to get  and  Quote: Second one smells bad though I think one of your variations is better without the ladder, though I've seen worse. That single captured stone has some useful aji still.I would want to look at this instead
|
|
| Author: | Shaddy [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
This move, maybe? If black tries to connect underneath, he'll get screwed by the cuts. So he needs another move, but I can't see another good move. |
|
| Author: | HermanHiddema [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
Shaddy wrote: This move, maybe? If black tries to connect underneath, he'll get screwed by the cuts. So he needs another move, but I can't see another good move. My instinct would be to push up, like this: If white jumps out, the connection under works again. So white should try to cut? Now there is still some aji in the corner And this is really a complete disaster. |
|
| Author: | HermanHiddema [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
gaius wrote: So let's complicate things then: There are so many possibilies for black now; a-d all look interesting. Will white be OK? Black a looks devastating, e.g: |
|
| Author: | Fredrik [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
Interesting! Sorry that i'm too lazy to look into how to create diagrams  , but I would like to say that your first post is a great result for White in my opinion. (where you say White ended up too low)If someone gets my following sentences, please illustrate a diagram for me (if they think it's worthwile )Lets imagine Black 1 at 5, White in response slide with 8 (which is a dubious move, but we can't say it's a bad one). Black then proceeds to exchange 3 with 6, which is clearly damaging. He then exchanges 1 for 2!!! He then proceeds to jump with 7, and White in return play the thick move of 4 removing all the aji in the corner. Black then takes gote with a protecting jump. There is two important factors here: Like Magicwand said in his post: 1. It was Blacks corner from the beginning, he should get the better result locally. 2. White gets sente. So in this local corner, Black plays 2! more moves than White, and locally I think the position is even (White after all has 10 points of points, and Black still has some defect in his shape like White's peep at 5-5. (Is my point understandable? I do know how to create an sgf file, I can do that otherwise =) ) |
|
| Author: | Mnemonic [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
FWIW, I looked into my database and came up with very few results (which is understandable if it's a trick play). But every time Black played white had another stone in the vicinity.I then consulted sensais library and kogo's, but they had neither the trick play nor this response to a 34 point low pincer. Would have been too easy
|
|
| Author: | yoyoma [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
Fredrik wrote: So in this local corner, Black plays 2! more moves than White, and locally I think the position is even (White after all has 10 points of points, and Black still has some defect in his shape like White's peep at 5-5. (Is my point understandable? I do know how to create an sgf file, I can do that otherwise =) ) I think Fredrik is talking about this position? I think black only played 1 extra move here. So that makes it comparable to invading 3-3 under a 4-4 stone. I agree with others that said usually invading 3-3 is not good early in the game. So one solution would be to call B1 here premature, and simply tenuki. Where is black's severe follow up? If he plays the 3-3 point then it's similar to black opening 3-3, and doing a 1 point extension from it. And then white makes a forcing exchange. No big deal. Later if black doesn't add another move, the above diagram is fine. But also the knight's move cut that ends up with sharing the corner is ok too, and to me feels more appropriate to play in normal early opening situations. |
|
| Author: | jts [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
yoyoma wrote: I think black only played 1 extra move here. So that makes it comparable to invading 3-3 under a 4-4 stone. I agree with others that said usually invading 3-3 is not good early in the game. I may be misunderstanding Fredrik, but I think his point was: (i) If I play first in a corner, I expect to get a better result there, (ii) if I take gote in a corner sequence, I expect to get a better result there, so (iii) if I play first and take gote, I should get a much better result. -i- and -ii- each allow my opponent to play elsewhere, so the strong local position is deceptive. That's also true of the standard 3-3 invasion, but the wall B gets in the position we're discussing isn't as thick. No? |
|
| Author: | Fredrik [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
yoyoma wrote: Fredrik wrote: So in this local corner, Black plays 2! more moves than White, and locally I think the position is even (White after all has 10 points of points, and Black still has some defect in his shape like White's peep at 5-5. (Is my point understandable? I do know how to create an sgf file, I can do that otherwise =) ) I think Fredrik is talking about this position? I think black only played 1 extra move here. So that makes it comparable to invading 3-3 under a 4-4 stone. I agree with others that said usually invading 3-3 is not good early in the game. So one solution would be to call B1 here premature, and simply tenuki. Where is black's severe follow up? If he plays the 3-3 point then it's similar to black opening 3-3, and doing a 1 point extension from it. And then white makes a forcing exchange. No big deal. Later if black doesn't add another move, the above diagram is fine. But also the knight's move cut that ends up with sharing the corner is ok too, and to me feels more appropriate to play in normal early opening situations. Tenuki is a viable and interesting idea. It would certainly avoid a bad result locally, as I agree with your logic that black would not have a very severe move locally. However, at the same time it would not produce a good result, which white should be able to make because of blacks obscure move. Additionally, I will try to explain my meaning in my previous post: I think that you possibly misunderstand what I mean with "two" moves. Black had already invested one move when white invaded, thus black should get a better result locally. White ending up with sente, while playing 5 stones to blacks six, means that black spent "two" moves on this result. Do you understand what I'm trying to emphasize? Edit: jts posted while I was writing this. He explains my reasoning well. Further, I think this result is much better than a normal 3-3. Mainly because: 1: Black has played several damaging moves (see my previous post) 2: I think it's an understatement to say "Black is less thick than from a normal 3-3 invasion". I think the difference in thickness is huge. 3: White's corner is bigger than it would be from a 3-3 invasion. |
|
| Author: | yoyoma [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
Fredrik wrote: I think that you possibly misunderstand what I mean with "two" moves. Black had already invested one move when white invaded, thus black should get a better result locally. White ending up with sente, while playing 5 stones to blacks six, means that black spent "two" moves on this result. Do you understand what I'm trying to emphasize? I would rather emphasize your point by saying black spent one more move and lost sente. Simplified example: Take an empty corner. Black invests one move by playing in the empty corner, thus black should get a better result locally. White ends up with sente (in this simplified example he achieves this by tenuki! )Can we say black invested two moves? No. Instead it's better to say black has played 1 more move and lost sente. Another way of emphasizing it is to use the wording "a whole extra move", implying he played a whole move and lost sente completely (ie not even having a large follow up etc). |
|
| Author: | Fredrik [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts? |
yoyoma wrote: Fredrik wrote: I think that you possibly misunderstand what I mean with "two" moves. Black had already invested one move when white invaded, thus black should get a better result locally. White ending up with sente, while playing 5 stones to blacks six, means that black spent "two" moves on this result. Do you understand what I'm trying to emphasize? I would rather emphasize your point by saying black spent one more move and lost sente. Simplified example: Take an empty corner. Black invests one move by playing in the empty corner, thus black should get a better result locally. White ends up with sente (in this simplified example he achieves this by tenuki! )Can we say black invested two moves? No. Instead it's better to say black has played 1 more move and lost sente. Another way of emphasizing it is to use the wording "a whole extra move", implying he played a whole move and lost sente completely (ie not even having a large follow up etc). Hehe, seems we are getting a bit off-topic now but: We do agree that black playing in the empty corner is investing one move, right? And then black gets gote, by playing 9 in the variation we discussed, investing another move. For me, this adds up to two moves, perhaps I'm the one being illogical . Anyway, let's not discuss this and kill the thread. I do not mind if we have different opinions, at least it seems that my point could be understood from my posts; If black has the corner stone, and also gets gote he should get a much better local result than white. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|