Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=2825 |
Page 1 of 8 |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:15 am ] |
Post subject: | 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Emerus and I will be playing a two stone game, with .5 komi. Have a good game! I'm aiming at a mini chinese or kobayashi, but if he plays a 3-4 in the top left, I will approach it. If he approaches, I will start a fight with this joseki. Black can settle with a or b, but those are compromises, compared with c, which starts a giant fight.
|
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Move 2 |
Good luck, have a great game. =] In even games, I open with dual 3-4 because I prefer the balance and options that they provide. In this game, I only get one so I better use it well. As white, I would play this way. It is also the most common pattern that I see in 2-3 stone games. A possible variation - both sides have frameworks.
I prefer to break the board up and deny frameworks when I can. For B6, my plan would be to try to take sente in order to play at k3. I expect white to attempt to complicate at this point(by initiating the avalanche at X) - if not sooner.
|
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:13 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
I'm gonna prevent him from getting an easy framework here. There are so many moves for black here. Let's see how he wants to play it. |
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Move 4 |
I have some decisions to punish you with(jk jk). I'm posting my contemplation then I'll read it over and reconsider before I post my final move. As mentioned, I didn't exactly expect this. White doesn't want to make his own framework. The very first thing that I see is a transposition of my last diagram: The combination of the top left joseki and the approach probe at 4 is a modern invention by Fujisawa(?) it seems like it's now common even in 5k games.
However, since white re-ordered his approaches. I wonder if a black kakari isn't a favorable exchange: As I contemplate - I wonder if settling the top left with B3 is worth it.
Thirdly, and the most complicated one(tempting^^):
Black sacrifices the corner to work well with his 4-4 stones to the right and bottom. |
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Move 4 |
While I believe that all the diagrams I posted are proper joseki and even results, I have determined what I want my gameplan to focus around and am going to go with that. I want to preserve the integrity of my hoshi stones. Basically I want to allow distant, high extensions(in order to take a fighting stance) as opposed to taking corner and side territory with them. This is slightly opposed to my normal strategy since I usually always use 3-4 stones. In this handicapped game, I feel like I need not worry about preventing my opponent from developing. Instead, I have to put pressure on him to stop me from developing.
White stones 4 and 8 are low and nearby q16 while black stones 7 and X are focused on territory off of d4. The prospects of expanding are slim.
I feel that white B cannot be tolerated in relation to my 4-4 points on either side. Black would get even compensation in the lower part of the board but this would go against my stated game plan. |
Author: | EdLee [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I was under the impression pros usually play the lower-right komoku at R4, and not at (a):
But I'm curious. And no easy to way to search pro databases, since this probably happens in pro-amateur games? |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Tenuki here is an option, but this pincer is pretty severe. I'm gonna play this joseki, because it has some complicated variations, and I have the ladder. For those who don't know it, look at the cut at a. It's a major concern for white, but I have the ladder (fun fact, there are actually two different ladders, and both of them work for me).
|
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Move 6 |
Sorry, I'm failing so hard at diagrams:
Only move. Trigger? |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
I accept your trigger. Exactly what I wanted. I wasn't going to offer the trigger, because I wanted to leave open the possibility that he'd make a mistake ![]() |
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Let's do it. We're aiming at taking our influence with a ladder breaker at a.
|
Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Fixed the diagram for you two. You have to leave a line before the line of "------". In this line, you can put who is playing move 1 (B for ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Trigger? This is basically forced. There is a trick play with 5 at 6, but I don't really remember what it is. |
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
A standard sequence, there are two ladders - one headed to d10 area and one straight to whites q3 stone. This would be a large sacrifice if just for the ladder breaker but, these dead stones leave bad aji for white. I plan to use that to develop thickness in some area of the board. |
Author: | Shaddy [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Quote: A standard sequence, there are two ladders - one headed to d10 area and one straight to whites q3 stone. This would be a large sacrifice if just for the ladder breaker but, these dead stones leave bad aji for white. I plan to use that to develop thickness in some area of the board. Obs: I believe there is only one ladder, the one which goes to the opposite corner. |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Forced. I need to add liberties to these three stones |
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Joseki move |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
I wonder what he's going to play as a ladder breaker ... Q4 is probably the best. |
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
Reducing liberties, this can be traded for an outside forcing move later. |
Author: | Redundant [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
|
Author: | emerus [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 92: Emerus (4k) vs. Redundant (1k) |
|
Page 1 of 8 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |