Can one be more (not exclusively of course!) territory oriented and still open with nirensei or does that counter the strategy of nirensei?

Are there any high dans on KGS (IGS, Tygem) who play nirensei regularly, also with black? I know a guy "mpepe16", 6d, who plays nirensei always, both with back and white, but mostly with an heavy influence-style, so maybe there are others I could follow.

I play Nirensei occasionally. It's a flexible opening that just jumps right into the middle-game.

Basically, you want to use it if you're confident in your fighting.

That doesn't mean that you forgo territory, but you're not wedded to a territorial game.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Ni ren sei, two star point opening on same side of the board is very common opening, which is oriented towards influence and center. I played it very often with white. I've heard that there's a 9d player on Tygem who plays two 3x3 points with every opening. You might want to try that to learn more about territorial style.

That is what I mean, you can play basically both styles. I for myself like a 60/40 style of territory and influence, so I am a bit more territory oriented, but not as much.

The problem with nirensei is that you have to play really aggressive and patient because those two hoshi stones stay attackable for a long time, so you can't rely on territory there. Therefore I think many pro's don't play nirensei with black anymore.

The accounts of KGS high dans change a lot, so I'll try to be as recent as possible.

In March 2012, the following KGS high dans played at least 5 games each with nirensei as black. Source: http://www.u-go.net/gamerecords/

mpepe16 45
RoyalCrown 41
Zen19 15
powerpeder 15
AyaMC5 11
banana5d 10
Hedopom 9
idontcare 7
JohF 6
KENEDI 6
grolapin 6
fun66 6
aguilar1 5
Musketeer 5

You can look at the archives and do database searches of your own for older games (if you download the SGFs).

Edit: some of those players aren't themselves high dans but were in there because white is a high dan.

This is the list going down to 3 or more nirensei games if you only include black players 6d KGS and stronger:

mpepe16 45
RoyalCrown 41
powerpeder 15
banana5d 10
idontcare 7
aguilar1 5
cheater 4
JohF 4
gaopo 4
BUM 4
Zen19D 3
axeBOT36 3
flashback 3
suechan 3
macelee 3
RiverSheep 3
okao 3
zyoda 3
dakkon 3
bmw 3
nidza 3

Thx A LOT, snorri. Cool stuff.

The ni-ren-sei is basically an influence-oriented opening at the start, at least. After all, one of the fundamentals is that the 4-4 point is weak for corner territory. However, you can create a territorial aspect to a ni-ren-sei opening for Black by how you treat White's corners. For example:

"]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 . . 5 . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black's low, strong formation in the upper left means that it will be hard for either side to play a totally moyo-oriented game because Black's play there is not consistent with an influence-oriented game and it limits White's possible moyo development. Of course, White did not play for influence with W6 either. You might like the balance to be found in the "orthodox fuseki": http://senseis.xmp.net/?OrthodoxFuseki where Black has territory in one corener and influence-orientation in the other. This opening has been very popular in recent times.

It's not directly related to nirensei specifically, but recently (past decade?) pros have started to use the 4-4 more territorially, making an early shimari rather than big extension. When I started learning Go (only 7 years ago, but there is a lag of pro thinking filtering through to amateurs in the West) it was based on the conventional Japanese theory that dominates the classic English-language Go books (i.e. Ishi press). The standard opening theory is that a 3-4 point makes a shimari first, and then a big extension, whilst a 4-4 makes the big extension first, and then a shimari. However, this seem idea seems to have disappeared in recent pro games (particularly Koreans?) and you see the small knight's shimari from a 4-4 very early these days.

Also another titbit I have picked up is that playing 4-4 points (i.e. nirensei) is far more popular for white these days, whereas black tends to play at least one 3-4 point so he can get more territory to make up for the big komi, compared to white's fast-paced opening with the 4-4s.

@gowan: I like nirensei because 4-4 aims for more than 3-4. If your opponent makes a mistake (and u can get a 4-4 enclosure with good timing) then the territory you get by a corner enclosure with 4-4 is more than with a 3-4 shimari. I don't wanna spoil this option.

@überdude: I agree with your evaluation. Black seems to be unable to use 2x 4-4 stones with the nowadays skills of pro's and white's komi. It's sad to see almost always the same fusekis and I wonder if it's just a fashion or if that's a longterm thing.

I love playing (against) the ni-ren-sei, I feel I am much stronger against this opening than others. Maybe we should make a rule that all of my opponents play ni-ren-sei.

Did anybody see a pro game with nirensei lately? I follow the pro scene via go4go.net and it's like these kind of fusekis died out lately....

Why the need to study recent pro games with nirensei? You could easily find dozens of Lee Changho games from the 90's which I'm sure are ideal for learning the opening.

I think Uberdude sums it up pretty well.
Nirensei for white is great... not so sure for black according to modern go tendencies.

Looking at the 16 first games of this year's NHK cup, I only found 2 games where black played nirensei:

http://cgi2.nhk.or.jp/goshogi/kifu/igs.cgi?d=20120408 (black win)
http://cgi2.nhk.or.jp/goshogi/kifu/igs.cgi?d=20120701 (white win)

So even the Japanese, who traditionally play more balanced games (than primarily territorial), do not appear to play nirensei as black very often anymore.

It's definitely a long term thing but I don't think it's sad. What we're seeing is a slow, inefficient, but persistent and purposeful search for the kami no itte. It makes sense that most opening lines are suboptimal and should eventually be discarded. A 30k player can play pretty much anywhere in the opening and not see a difference. A 1d player sees only a few possibilities - and most of those would be rejected by a 9d. It makes sense that as level of play improves, more and more possibilities should get discarded until play crystallizes into just a few possible lines.

I think I disagree with you palapiku. I think it is more a question of style/popularity than it being that research has established that for the first few stones, there is optimal and sub-optimal play. It's not about where you play the first few stones, it's about how you use them afterwards.

For example, the chinese opening was very popular at one point, and then lost its popularity among pros, and now it has resurfaced as the most popular opening.

As research continues to evolve in different directions, and new go prodigies appear, I think (and hope) we will see different fusekis become popular with the changing times.

There is no "optimal" way for an artist to lay his brush on a blank canvas...

This is because of the necessarily imperfect manner in which the search for perfect play works. A line is developed, refuted and abandoned as inferior - until someone finds a refutation to the refutation. Some backtracking is necessary, but this doesn't mean there's no progress.

But there is an optimal way to play Go. And the motivations of the professionals developing new openings are based exclusively on the perceived success rate of a line, not on any artistic value.

I guess this is the philosophical question that is at the heart of our disagreement-- whether or not we are approaching an "optimal line of play"

How can there possibly be an optimal way to play go? In the first few moves, there are many options (openings) that are reasonable for black, though of course it depends on what white plays. Then the course of the game is dictated by how black can make use of those moves, relative to white's moves. Every move becomes good or not in an increasingly complex relationship with all of the other moves on the board. Since there are more possible game combinations in go than there are protons in the universe, it is for all intents and purposes and truly infinite game... since it is infinite, there is necessarily an artistic aspect because it can't be solved. Top players play with a combination of knowledge and feeling.

Of course the collective understanding of the game progresses, and some extreme openings can be ruled out as too 1-dimensional, but I don't think top professionals will ever agree that for example playing a 3-4 and 4-4 is more powerful than playing two 4-4's. The chinese/mini-chinese/micro-chinese/kobayashi openings are very popular and powerful indeed because professionals have been studying them very deeply. They try to get an edge by using the research they have dedicated countless hours to. Once playing nirensei regains popularity with rise of some young star who has done his own research on some deep variations ensuing from that opening, I expect it will regain popularity.

Yes there is progress, but progress is almost insignificant when the path is infinite...

anyways we might just have to agree to disagree. But be sure to post it on here in 100 trillion years when you find the perfect opening hehe jk

There is indeed at least one optimal line of play in go. This is a mathematical fact that cannot be disputed. See: Zermelo's Theorem Unfortunately, there is no practical way of computing that optimal line of play.

However, there are very few lines of play in the opening that can be proven to be suboptimal. Lines of play that were considered terrible often become acceptable as the innovators show how to use them effectively. Even pros admit that what is considered "best" often changes with the style of the strongest player. Heck, sometimes trends may change because the top player got tired of playing a particular opening. To say that the nirensei opening for black has been refuted seems like an exaggeration. It is far more accurate to say that it is currently out of style.

There are many moves that were universally considered unthinkably bad by pros in the past, but became acceptable once the innovators showed how they could be used. This tells us that pros update their knowledge. However, it also tells us that an opinion that is strongly believed by 99% of pros can be overturned by a single innovator. Also, because pro's constantly update their knowledge, the refutation of an opening may be refuted itself in the future. This is because there is no practical way to refute ALL continuations from an opening. What is refuted is the currently popular way to continue from that opening.

I wonder, do you know what prevents Zermelo's theorem from being extended from finite games to infinite games?

It seems like, if you add an additional condition that the moves must eventually exhaust the space (Which can be done in infinite games, you just have to allow for the occasional "half/quarter-infinite" move), then the theorem should still be true.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

If the game is guaranteed to finish, then it's not infinite, and if it's not guaranteed to finish then of course Zermelo doesn't hold.
I suspect that "an infinite game where moves must eventually exhaust the space" is a contradiction in terms?