Alguien wrote:
Earlier.
| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Invading the high side. http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7267 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Alguien [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Invading the high side. |
How would you invade the side in a situation like this? |
|
| Author: | SoDesuNe [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
A) Don't let this happen in the first place. B) a - and hoping to make good sabaki. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
White should have played moves instead of passing. |
|
| Author: | Bonobo [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
Perhaps this was free handicap positioning? |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
Alguien wrote: Earlier.
|
|
| Author: | Phoenix [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
By resigning. |
|
| Author: | ez4u [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
Alguien wrote: You mean here? I'd have to think about it but "a" is looking big to me.  But seriously, the original question has no meaning without knowing the rest of the board. If the partial position is from a high handicap game, Black is going to be outfought to some degree anyway so where to start has to take that into consideration. If it is an even game then White has a lot of stones elsewhere and we need to be able to figure out how much White needs to reduce the right side in order to maintain balance in the game. |
|
| Author: | Alguien [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
Thank you. I'll interpret the replies as: "Your problem isn't not knowing how to invade that position, it's not knowing that it shouldn't be possible." Which tells me I should add a caveat to my concepts: - "fourth line is for influence." - "three space jumps aren't secure." to: "...unless you've got outside influence that makes a cut and escape unable to connect to safety." Is that closer to being right? I think my main problem is interpreting all those times a dan player says "there are weaknesses at a, b, c, d, ..." as "I could invade there". Instead I might have to interpret those as "there is aji at those positions that I might be able to use in some way, with adequate support." |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
Alguien wrote: Thank you. I'll interpret the replies as: "Your problem isn't not knowing how to invade that position, it's not knowing that it shouldn't be possible." Which tells me I should add a caveat to my concepts: - "fourth line is for influence." - "three space jumps aren't secure." to: "...unless you've got outside influence that makes a cut and escape unable to connect to safety." Is that closer to being right? Speaking for myself, the problem is not that an invasion is impossible, nor is it that White cannot live inside -- you do not always invade to live, but sometimes to sacrifice --, it is evaluating the tradeoffs of different plays. For White to invade and live on the right side is not difficult, but I would be reluctant to do so at the cost of strengthening Black's center. OTOH, does an initial play in the center make it too easy for Black on the side? There is a lot to be said for making things easy for yourself and preventing Black from making this formation in the first place.  Quote: I think my main problem is interpreting all those times a dan player says "there are weaknesses at a, b, c, d, ..." as "I could invade there". Instead I might have to interpret those as "there is aji at those positions that I might be able to use in some way, with adequate support." Right.
|
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Alguien wrote: Which tells me I should add a caveat to my concepts: I found, after some point, it's better (for me anyway) to just unlearn these all together, and look at the board.- "fourth line is X..." - "three space jumps are Y..." to: "...unless Z" Is that closer to being right? So (again, for me anyway) no, that is not closer to being right; I think it's getting more and more off course. |
|
| Author: | Alguien [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
EdLee wrote: So (again, for me anyway) no, that is not closer to being right; I think it's getting more and more off course. Eventually, I need general concepts to build my interpretation of the board. I can't just read everything. I need to know that, unless massive nearby influence, I can live inside a 4-4 stone. That a two space jump on the side is safe for a while but has to be taken care of as the surroundings get occupied. That I'll get a better result moving my stones in a way that creates two dimensional areas instead of one dimensional lines. I need those concepts even is they aren't absolute truths, because otherwise I'd need hours for each move. I understand it's important to remember that those "rules" are just guidelines, and that when the situation thickens I'll have to read to check whether they apply or not. However I don't agree with just discarding that way of understanding go altogether. That's why, every time one of my concepts fails, I ask for help to check whether it failed because I misread or because the concept itself was wrong. In this case (the real case of which this was an idealization) I really thought that those five stones in a fourth line could be comfortably lived under. Probably because of having allowed it while being black in high handicap games. With the answers I've now reviewed my concept. Next time I find myself in the same situation I won't believe I can simply live under and thus I won't allow the situation to reach that point. For reference, the real position is this: This is what I want to learn to never repeat.
|
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
Alguien wrote: For reference, the real position is this: Well that's totally different! For starters white has some points on the rest of the board. My first answer was not just facetious, invasion decisions are not local, they are global. Most importantly they depend on the count: do I even need to invade? They depend on the strength of your nearby positions, possibilities for connecting to them and what damage can be done to them from thickness your opponent builds when you invade: in that position the nearby white groups are much stronger than the question diagram. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
A couple of brief comments. |
|
| Author: | cyclops [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
I am hardly qualified, that is why I jump in. In this position B would play b rather than a. That is why your 6 ( at a ) is wrong (IMHO). After b black drives w to his stones in the center where he has the forcing move at d and the wedge at c to exploit for a nice attack. |
|
| Author: | Alguien [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Invading the high side. |
cyclops wrote: In this position B would play b rather than a. That is why your 6 ( at a ) is wrong (IMHO). After b black drives w to his stones in the center where he has the forcing move at d and the wedge at c to exploit for a nice attack. I was w in that game and b played that. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|