Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
#172 - opex vs blindgod http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=6204 |
Page 2 of 3 |
Author: | blindgod [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
joseki |
Author: | opex [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
Safely
|
Author: | blindgod [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
|
Author: | opex [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
I don't like any other move
|
Author: | emeraldemon [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
As white, I think I would have played H3. sente against the left group, seals it in, threatens to make good territory on the bottom. |
Author: | blindgod [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
It was either this or L17. I feel strongly that I'm one move behind where I'd be comfortable. |
Author: | opex [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
Keep the corner
|
Author: | blindgod [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
For me, it was a decision between this and K17. Thought about C9 or R11 but decided this is bigger than the former and more urgent than the latter. |
Author: | jts [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
No love for J17? |
Author: | EdLee [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
emeraldemon, emeraldemon wrote: As white, I think I would have played H3. sente against the left group, seals it in... Did you mean G3 ( ), not H3 (x)? What's your variation to end in sente for W?
|
Author: | opex [ Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
I can't find the good move. Let's play to the point where black should have played according to the joseki. Some variations I considered:
|
Author: | blindgod [ Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
Sorry for being gone so long. I'm back to a normal schedule now so I shouldn't be gone again.
|
Author: | opex [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
Hm, I didn't expect that move. It seems low.. Well, if he wants to crawl on the second line, I'm fine with it, I'll have a wall. If he doesn't want me to make the wall, I'll try to cut the group and make him run.
|
Author: | blindgod [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
Feel so uninspired. |
Author: | EdLee [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Not for players until the upper top left is completely settled, which may take forever. ( For beginners. ) and are both bad basics. ( ) is bad because after , B makes W stronger and B makes a kind of Broken Shape for himself:
|
Author: | EdLee [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
blindgod wrote: Feel so uninspired. ( For beginners. ) With , B failed to notice W's shape problems. B should try to read , to see if B can push out and split W.B can always connect later if necessary with (a):
|
Author: | opex [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
It should be sente. So should be san-san invasion. But if he ignores san-san and goes , I'll have a weak group facing his growing influence on the right. If he ignores this move, he will be cut and suffer
|
Author: | blindgod [ Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: #172 - opex vs blindgod |
|
Author: | emeraldemon [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
EdLee: Yes, I meant G3, that was a typo. Of course white has to defend the hane, but can black tennuki afterwards?
|
Author: | EdLee [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:28 am ] |
Post subject: | |
emeraldemon, Variation, instead of :
Also, if the situation changes later, B still has the push (b) and cut (c), and the - exchange may turn out to be not good for W (the group may become heavy?). I'm not sure. |
Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |