Favorite Fuseki?

[wineandgolover]

Thanks, Bill and Shapenaji for taking my question seriously. It was meant that way.

Interesting stuff. Counterintuitive to one raised in the corner, sides, middle school.

[Uberdude]

I agree the centre shimari is an interesting idea and harder to play against than Tengen. Whether that's because it is better, or just I've played against it less I don't know. Dave Ward, a UK 4 dan, played it against me in a club game and said he had played it a few times after reading some Japanese professional's thoughts on it, maybe in a Go World? I won that game by outreading him in a fight. I also played against the centre shimari on OGS so put some thought into it. I also got some comments on the game in Korea from On Sojin 7p. Tragically my opponent died before it finished but it was a tough close game.

http://ggs.nova.gs/napi/sgf/382066

That game made me wonder if playing 4-4 as white was a mistake as black can approach from the side he wants (the lower side to form a box shape with the centre shimari) and then easily tenuki and white can't profitably attack the lone stone. Playing 5-3 at e3 would maybe be better.

[SoDesuNe]

Counterintuitive to one raised in the corner, sides, middle school.

A bit off-topic but I think this is also one of the many "proverbs" which often gets confused.
When I teach beginners the reason why players often spend the first four moves in the corners, I show them how efficient the corner is to make territory (you need less stones for the same amount of territory compared to the side and the center). This is all, I don't tell them they have to play in the corner, quite the opposite, I mostly tell how some pros played Tengen as first move.
The corner is just more territorily and thus easier to play, since the one with more territory at the end wins the game. If you start with the center you need to make these stones work which is - in my opinion - more difficult but of course an equally good strategy.

[Bill Spight]

Counterintuitive to one raised in the corner, sides, middle school.

A bit off-topic but I think this is also one of the many "proverbs" which often gets confused.
When I teach beginners the reason why players often spend the first four moves in the corners, I show them how efficient the corner is to make territory (you need less stones for the same amount of territory compared to the side and the center).

Takagawa makes the point that a more important reason to start in the corner than making territory is making a base. At the time it was thought that early plays gained around 10 pts., which we now know is a underestimate. So spending two moves just to make 11 pts. or so in the corner would not be worth it. OC, more is going on with a shimari than that. The strength of the stones is very important, which is why a base is important. I just transposed that idea to the center shimari. Not that the second stone actually forms a base, but it does strengthen the initial center stone. Significantly, IMO.

[tomukaze]

Is the center shimari really a stone better than a single stone on Tengen? Why?

Thanks.

I agree with everything Bill said (especially white using their first move to approach)

But my 2 cents is that the biggest weakness of the tengen stone is that it can be isolated. A two stone center position really doesn't have that weakness.

It is slower. However, consider the following:

1) Tengen

Black takes Tengen and 2 corners, white takes two corners but then gets to choose the direction of the game by getting the first approach or reinforcement.

2) Center Shimari

White takes an additional corner, BUT is not in a position to follow up well against approaches. Since black gets the first approach, and can leave it, he also gets a second and third approach. It snowballs.

Would a viable approach for white be:

2) Centre Shimari for black.
White takes two corner stones and then one shimari in one of their corners. Black take two corner moves but white gets the first approach. Wouldn't this give white the initiative rather than black as you suggest above?

[ez4u]

In his 2005 book 戦いのベクトル (Tatakai no Bekutoru, The Vector/direction of Attack [roughly]) Yamashita Keigo looked at his use of tengen in chapter 1. At the end of the chapter he wrote that he did not expect to use first play on tengen again. He explained using the diagram below, which was from one of his games analyzed in the book. Black 3 and 5 were typical of his games, attempting to make best use of the attacking potential in the Tengen stone.

$$B Yamashita example of a Tengen fuseki
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . 3 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Yamashita example of a Tengen fuseki
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . 3 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Consider the alternative of 1-4 below. This is a more normal approach to the fuseki with both sides taking control of the corners in turn. Now "a" does not feel like the natural continuation for Black. And if Black plays elsewhere, there is no expectation that White will seize the opportunity to play "a" immediately either. If White went ahead and played there, Black would not be troubled by such a move.

$$Bc "a" not a vital point?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . 1 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . a . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc "a" not a vital point?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . 1 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . a . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Yamashita considers playing on tengen an excellent way to study the fundamentals of attacking and the direction of play. It is also a way to move your opponent out of the normal comfort zones. He himself began to play it because when he was moving up and first encountered the really top competitors among the pros, they all seemed to play the fuseki better than he did. He ended up at a disadvantage entering the middle game too often, so he needed to try something different. Although he did quite well with his experiments with tengen, 5-5, and so on, in the end (i.e. once he got better at more 'normal' fuseki) he thought they were a little bit weaker than the usual strategies.

[hyperpape]

I'm now at least trying the center shimari. It's a million degrees outside my comfort zone, even with shapenaji's game plan ready to hand.

[Pippen]

I like split fusekis, i.e. where black plays its 3rd move as a split or white his 2nd.

You mean or , right? And you mean a wedge, right?

Emphasis on the side in top level play faded a few centuries ago. More recently, in the past several years, pros have played the wedge even less in early play, as it is not dynamic. IMO, this recent avoidance of the wedge is a bit unfair.

The power of a right away split (with black's 3rd move after conquering his two corners; with white its 2nd move leaving one corner open) is (in theory) that it denies your opponent to create big frameworks. Chinese, Kobayashi, Sanrensei, Mini-chinese...all these are impossible if you split early. So the calculation of a split fuseki goes like this:

Advantage: Destroying your opponents ability to build bigger frameworks
Disadvantage: Less points with playing a wedge instead of playing in a corner or play a shimari instead
Neutral 1: your opponent can attack the wedge by basically playing a free shimari move, but usually if you extend your wedge you'll hold sente or the other stone will get under serious attack
Neutral 2: Game will get smallish and complex with a lot of chances to win (even from behind) but also to lose.

I think the split fuseki should be a good way to play go-programs since it gets so complicated that maybe even MC gets on his borders. Split fuseki (esp. as black) were played in the early 30's, but then never again since. With white we see a lot of pro's who approach with the 2nd move immediately, leaving one corner open which is very related to what a split intends. I was a 1k for about 6 years, but when I changed my fuseki style to split fusekis I jumped up to a strong 1d. Therefore I am curious about this fuseki, maybe it has something, maybe it's just a surprise for players and they underachive because of this.