Double hane is good in the race to get ahead. If the opponent tries to peep just extend with the outside stone like this:
Of course it won't work the same everytime, read it out
.
| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Skepticism about a certain "good shape" http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7120 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Samura [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
When I started studying Go, I remember I saw, don't know where, about this protection of three stones in a diagonal, like after a double hane. The result was referenced as "good shape". Well, not long after I played this shape in a game, and something like this happened locally: I ended with a terrible overconcentrated B2 Bomber shape. Today I was thinking a lot about good shapes with 3-5 stones and remebered about this incident. The matter is, there is no way that this is a good defense for a double-hane. Or maybe a should not have to connect after the peeps... I don't know. So, what is the opinion of the more experienced player. Is this a good shape? There is a something better to do after a double hane? And let me use the opportunity: Is the double hane a good move? More and more a prefer the single hane + extension, like this: I admit that I am afraid of the extra cut point of the double hane, but maybe is the case that I just don't see the trade-offs (like the bigger territory)... what are the forum's opinions? |
|
| Author: | illluck [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
I would play as below in your first diagram. The tiger's mouth is good for protecting against cuts, but must consider the possibility of the peeps. I think the double hane is better than the extension, but not completely sure. Edit: Actually, the below might be better than the atari: |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
As well as connecting with the tiger's mouth shape you show, solid connect (and there are 2 of them) is another option. This only gives your opponent one peep instead of 2. On the other hand it only locally defends one of the 2 cuts, the other cut may rely on a ladder or net to be captured. Which one is better is a tricky question which will depend on the whole board situation. However, you are right that a downside of the tiger's mouth connection is it gives peeps which, if you can only submissively connect (which is usually the case), lead to an ugly shape. Your example is too general to make any definite conclusions (and even hane at h15 is another good possibility to consider), but basically if you can get away with the double hane, it is usually better than just extending as it presses the battle further around your opponent. |
|
| Author: | Samura [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
illluck & Uberdude Thank you, I liked your sugestions, and they convinced me that the original "double tiger's mouth" shape is just bad when compared with the alternatives. Now I see that the solid conection is good enough and if the opponent cuts, a lot of things can be done, like: PS: This example has a shape that I grew fond of and have seen half a dozen times in every game. A shape that I call "the scorpion tail". Anyone know if it has an official name? A think "the hook" would be a fair name too. |
|
| Author: | Solomon [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
Sometimes I'll peep and waste the aji just to force my opponent's stones to look bad and try to gain the psychological advantage. |
|
| Author: | emeraldemon [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
It depends on the situation. Sometimes the double tiger's mouth is better. One obvious example is when one of the peeps doesn't work, like in this joseki: |
|
| Author: | jts [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
This is a bit of a mistake: You're right that the peeps are a bit of a weakness in this double-hanging connection, but in general W should only get one peep in full force. The first peep threatens to cut and give atari at the same time, but the second one is just a cut, so if necessary you can resist more strongly. For example. (Whether resistance makes sense or not depends on the situation.) As to your other question - you can analyze the efficiency of the shape by looking at the following shapes. Where would you add at extra move to make the group maximally efficient? It obviously depends a great deal on the situation and the position of nearby enemy and friendly stones, but I certainly wouldn't say that as a general rule, the marked space is best. |
|
| Author: | NoSkill [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
Double hane is good in the race to get ahead. If the opponent tries to peep just extend with the outside stone like this: Of course it won't work the same everytime, read it out .
|
|
| Author: | Samura [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
Thank you all! With all this examples you just destroyed my fear of the double hane!  Thank you very much! |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
Your opponent should fear the double hane! |
|
| Author: | mitsun [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
Sometimes it is good to be skeptical Here is a common technique to reduce a large B framework. After this sequence, where does W play to make shape? |
|
| Author: | Samura [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
mitsun, I must admit that I would not cogitate your suggested move. As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones  . In your example, the stone played just looks too far to help the group. But seeing your examples I understood the function played by that stone, especially the protection of the eye-space.I liked it! |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Samura, Samura wrote: As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones It's indeed very tricky; not just you, but many of us still struggle with it. |
|
| Author: | illluck [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
@Edlee: |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
illluck, |
|
| Author: | illluck [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
@Edlee: |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
Samura wrote: As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones Honinbo Shuei makes me feel like a beginner too: viewtopic.php?p=116641#p116641 |
|
| Author: | Samura [ Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
I love Honinbo Shuei, his style is so... "natural". I know it's a fuzzy word, but every time I watch his games I got the feel that I understand what his is doing. Cho Chikun, on the contrary.... 
|
|
| Author: | Alguien [ Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
mitsun wrote: Sometimes it is good to be skeptical Here is a common technique to reduce a large B framework. After this sequence, where does W play to make shape? After this move, it B cuts, W can just sacrifice some stones, maintaining a good outside position. My problem with this kind of plays is that I have no faith in the evils of vulgarity. I read that as: Which I don't see as magnificently better than: I'm not doubting it is much better. It's just that my eyes are not ready to see giving the entire side in exchange for a wall as good, because I don't know how to use walls good enough. |
|
| Author: | jts [ Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape" |
I basically agree with you, but there is that ladder for w to take the top side. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
is a good light move. 
