What is missing in my evaluation of this joseki ?

[otenki]

I have been studying the one space low-pincer to the low 3-4 approach.

Especially the variations where you get a running battle.

For example:
http://www.josekipedia.com/#path:qdocmc ... sgqcrdoike

I have a very hard time figuring out why these are joseki.

I think in pure theory the idea is that black gets some territory in corner and side and white gets a wall to attack a 'pseudo weak' group.

BUT here is my big problem. I don't find the black group in the center weak at all, it is quite resilient. It can run easily and white has to look after his not alive groups on both sides.
And this while one of black groups is totally alive on the side !

Result of that is that white is left with no compensation for the territory that black has gained.

What is missing in my evaluation of this joseki ?

Thanks,
Otenki

[amnal]

I think for these lines, the rest of the board is often particularly important. The most obvious changes are that white may be much more willing to use the pincer to attack if he already has a supporting stone in the other corner. He may also want to simply tenuki to some other very big point, which is possible if black simply defends the corner. There are several different variations for tenuki, with the choice depending on the rest of the board.

It seems perhaps quite rare that white uses the 'joseki' alone to immediately provoke a running battle. Black indeed cannot be attacked that strongly (though I think you might overestimate how important it is to get an immediate strong attack). But if white has a stone or two in other adjacent corners, he can begin to immediately pursue grander plans that are not addressed by the joseki sequence alone.

[MJK]

Just don't play that way if you think it's not even or cannot be called a 'joseki', seriously.

It is so natural to have different opinions on go positions.
The same thing happens even among pros, and when this 'different' thought one day becomes 'common', things must have changed, which always happen anywhere anywhen.

Or perhaps Jasiek (or his book) has more reasonable explanation for these joseki evaluation matters; never sure about the extent of necessity, though.

[amnal]

Just don't play that way if you think it's not even or cannot be called a 'joseki', seriously.

I would tend to offer the opposite advice. Do play that way if you don't understand why it could be called a joseki, try to find that understanding!

I think this one is pretty subtle and difficult though, I've never understood the exact orders of the common lines surrounding these sequences.

[John Fairbairn]

BUT here is my big problem. I don't find the black group in the center weak at all, it is quite resilient. It can run easily and white has to look after his not alive groups on both sides.
And this while one of black groups is totally alive on the side !

Result of that is that white is left with no compensation for the territory that black has gained.

What is missing in my evaluation of this joseki ?

Two things:

(1) You have (or Kogo has) omitted White's last move, which is usually a kosumi on the right. You can't expect a good evaluation in your terms if you give one side an extra move.

(2) A resilient group can still be a weak group. It is a weak group if it is attackable. If it is attackable, the attacking side gets free moves (and thus some sort of benefit) by attacking it. Except in certain localised situations, go is not about life and death but about attack and defence. Note that the missing White move (the kosumi) is an attacking move that makes a gain.

[ez4u]

I have been studying the one space low-pincer to the low 3-4 approach.

Especially the variations where you get a running battle.

For example:
http://www.josekipedia.com/#path:qdocmc ... sgqcrdoike

I have a very hard time figuring out why these are joseki.

I think in pure theory the idea is that black gets some territory in corner and side and white gets a wall to attack a 'pseudo weak' group.

BUT here is my big problem. I don't find the black group in the center weak at all, it is quite resilient. It can run easily and white has to look after his not alive groups on both sides.
And this while one of black groups is totally alive on the side !

Result of that is that white is left with no compensation for the territory that black has gained.

What is missing in my evaluation of this joseki ?

Thanks,
Otenki

What is missing? You are missing the rest of the board. I think it is impossible to understand the use of this joseki without seeing the rest of the board. White's compensation will come from gains mainly in the upper left. Otherwise why would White choose the K17 continuation, pincering the Black stone on N17? Good luck finding the examples that would help understand this. There are no games in GoGoD that follow this variation. In general, you need to be a little wary of the joseki traced back to the Joseki Daijiten (Encyclopedia of Joseki in Josekipedia). There are many lines in that work that are just theory, without examples from actual games (at least actual games known to the rest of us). The last game where (a professional) Black jumped to N15 in response to K17 was played in 1931. There are only two games featuring the counter pincer at K17 since the 1960's.

[SmoothOper]

I have been studying the one space low-pincer to the low 3-4 approach.

Especially the variations where you get a running battle.

For example:
http://www.josekipedia.com/#path:qdocmc ... sgqcrdoike

I have a very hard time figuring out why these are joseki.

I think in pure theory the idea is that black gets some territory in corner and side and white gets a wall to attack a 'pseudo weak' group.

BUT here is my big problem. I don't find the black group in the center weak at all, it is quite resilient. It can run easily and white has to look after his not alive groups on both sides.
And this while one of black groups is totally alive on the side !

Result of that is that white is left with no compensation for the territory that black has gained.

What is missing in my evaluation of this joseki ?

Thanks,
Otenki

What is missing? You are missing the rest of the board. I think it is impossible to understand the use of this joseki without seeing the rest of the board. White's compensation will come from gains mainly in the upper left. Otherwise why would White choose the K17 continuation, pincering the Black stone on N17? Good luck finding the examples that would help understand this. There are no games in GoGoD that follow this variation. In general, you need to be a little wary of the joseki traced back to the Joseki Daijiten (Encyclopedia of Joseki in Josekipedia). There are many lines in that work that are just theory, without examples from actual games (at least actual games known to the rest of us). The last game where (a professional) Black jumped to N15 in response to K17 was played in 1931. There are only two games featuring the counter pincer at K17 since the 1960's.

It would be nice to know what context the low approach and running groups are Joseki. Maybe in a mini-chinese Fuseki, white 6 could be the low approach to the black 3-4.

[John Fairbairn]

It would be nice to know what context the low approach and running groups are Joseki. Maybe in a mini-chinese Fuseki, white 6 could be the low approach to the black 3-4.

There are no contexts because the line given is not actually a joseki. In all the many lines given in the original Japanese dictionary, very, very few are marked 'joseki' and when they are so marked it is in the specific and correct sense of having become standard plays in practice. Other lines are what might be called 'plausible' lines, which may or may not have occurred in practice (see ez4u's post above). There are lines which are marked 'even' but which are not joseki. There are lines marked 'for special cases' which may or may not be even. The line shown here is marked 'a typical shape' (or, if you are into biology, the Japanese term is used there for a homotype). Again, this may or may not ever have occurred in practice, but either way it is to be taken merely as a professional view of the sort of thing that might happen if this sequence did occur in a game.

Of 122 lines given in one small dictionary for the variation here (where White 4 presses) only 11 are marked joseki. Even in Japan people often use 'joseki' loosely to mean any corner opening, but in a dictionary such looseness is scrupulously avoided. And, as you can, see the text is actually rather important in other ways.

If you want to understand the background to all this, you can try "Are the Joseki Books Wrong?" in The Go Companion.

[SmoothOper]

It would be nice to know what context the low approach and running groups are Joseki. Maybe in a mini-chinese Fuseki, white 6 could be the low approach to the black 3-4.

There are no contexts because the line given is not actually a joseki. In all the many lines given in the original Japanese dictionary, very, very few are marked 'joseki' and when they are so marked it is in the specific and correct sense of having become standard plays in practice. Other lines are what might be called 'plausible' lines, which may or may not have occurred in practice (see ez4u's post above). There are lines which are marked 'even' but which are not joseki.

This clarifies some things. I have noticed when poking around on Kogo's joseki tutor, that some joseki returned no professional games, even if they didn't have any explicit mistakes, which was confusing, though it seems some were labeled "Good variations", and those "Good variations" tended to have games associated with them.

[otenki]

Thanks guys !!!

Seems I got more than just my question answered

Cheers,
Otenki