How do ya like this fuseki idea

Uberdude · **#21**

4 was a bad move too in your tewari analysis. Tewari, like probability, is a powerful tool but used incorrectly can give you wrong answers.

moyoaji · **#22**

Tewari requires that you play reasonable moves. I could take a pro game and play it backwards and say that both of the pros are terrible because of all the first and second line moves they play. That, however, would not be a reasonable thing for the players to do.

Really this is how tewari works. First, take the real game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Real game $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 7 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Then, remove the move numbers:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Real game $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Finally, try to figure out how the position got that way. Basically, guess the order of moves.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Assumption of order $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 7 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now compare and see if there is a way that the game should have gone differently. In this example, white probably shouldn't have played :w10:

at C8 and black should probably have taken a corner with :b3:

(although I think I saw :b3:

in a pro game once - there is no reason black couldn't play that).

Now, just because your assumption isn't correct doesn't mean the players did anything wrong. On the contrary, many identical positions can arise from multiple starting points, especially in joseki, without either side making a mistake.

Tewari is subjective, but so is a system like SWOT and many businesses swear by that. When used incorrectly, a SWOT analysis can be horrible. When used properly it can be fantastic.

The reason tewari can work so well in go is that the board does not really have a memory of move order. In chess it matters because previous moves define where you can move. In go, the only thing a previous move does is prevent you from playing there with a later move.

DrStraw · **#23**

Pippen wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now, 5 suddenly looks bad (at least to me!), because 5 could've occupied a corner. So it seems that tewari is not a reliable way to test a position for it seems to matter in which row moves were played. So how relible is tewari in your opinion?

But

is also bad. The two tend to cancel out.

Pippen · **#24**

Uberdude wrote:

4 was a bad move too in your tewari analysis. Tewari, like probability, is a powerful tool but used incorrectly can give you wrong answers.

Ah, ok. Is tewari commonly accepted as an analyzing tool or are there discussions about its validity? One would need to try to find a fuseki where everybody played good moves and then find a tewari where one of those moves looks misplaced to basically disprove tewari. Don't have the time now, maybe I'll try later, just so the sake of curiousity.

hyperpape · **#25**

Tewari is commonly considered a good tool, but it is also agreed that it requires judgment to use properly. So I think your refutation will not quite work.

SmoothOper · **#26**

Move 5 isn't horrible kind of gote, but white 6 and 9? Nah.

Uberdude · **#27**

Pippen wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

4 was a bad move too in your tewari analysis. Tewari, like probability, is a powerful tool but used incorrectly can give you wrong answers.

Ah, ok. Is tewari commonly accepted as an analyzing tool or are there discussions about its validity? One would need to try to find a fuseki where everybody played good moves and then find a tewari where one of those moves looks misplaced to basically disprove tewari. Don't have the time now, maybe I'll try later, just so the sake of curiousity.

Yes tewari is an accepted analysis tool. It is sound, but easy to misuse. Dosaku developed it and he was one of the strongest players to have ever walked this earth; I don't think you'll prove him wrong. You are applying the tool incorrectly. If you stick a blowfish, some yeast, sugar and orange juice in a blender and then stick it in the oven and die when you eat the resulting horrible sludge you didn't just prove that cooking is crap, you did it wrong.

Bill Spight · **#28**

Pippen wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The positon above is a good play from both sides, wouldn't u agree? Now I show you, how I can make Black look foolish, using tewari:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now, 5 suddenly looks bad (at least to me!), because 5 could've occupied a corner. So it seems that tewari is not a reliable way to test a position for it seems to matter in which row moves were played. So how relible is tewari in your opinion?

I agree,

is bad in this diagram. I also agree that the position after :w6:

is roughly even. What conclusion can we draw from that? Well, given that :w2:

is fine,

must be bad, too. Just about as bad as :b5:

. Tewari works.

Tewari is a technique for honing your judgement. But it requires judgement to use. There is a virtuous cycle to using tewari. If your original judgement is unreliable, then your tewari will be unreliable. But it will still be better than your raw judgement. So your judgement will become more reliable. And so will your tewari. And so on.

Your example does highlight one potential problem with tewari. It does not make sense to permute plays that have substantially different values. The 6-3 extension from the 4-4 is sufficiently worse than the 4-4 in an empty corner that if you simply assume that the two positions formed by permuting the two plays are equivalent, you can go wrong.

-----
BTW, I think that there is an interesting lesson in your example.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Roughly equal $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If this position is roughly equal, then switching the colors should make another roughly equal position.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Roughly equal $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now let's number the plays.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Roughly equal $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But we have learned from your example that :w6:

is not so good. True, there is no open corner, but why approach a corner where your opponent has already made what would be a reply? So if :w6:

is not so good, then :b5:

is not so good, either.

But haven't the pros started making such enclosures?

My hidden response:

ez4u · **#29**

Needless to say this as been tried at least once...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm5 Xu Ying 3p - Jian Ying 2p; Chinese Individual Championship (Women); 1991-09-15 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 3 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Bill Spight · **#30**

Thanks, Dave.

Note the placement of :w6:

.

Pippen · **#31**

The move 1 is the next "idea" I would have in mind in this setup. It would kind of work together with 5 and threaten a big moyo anyway. Is this still as bad as the previous idea in your mind?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Bantari · **#32**

Pippen wrote:

The move 1 is the next "idea" I would have in mind in this setup. It would kind of work together with 5 and threaten a big moyo anyway. Is this still as bad as the previous idea in your mind?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Isn't it White's turn, though?

Uberdude · **#33**

Bantari wrote:

Isn't it White's turn, though?

No.

Pippen, I prefer that jump to f17, but still I would rather not make the :b5:

exchange

Pippen · **#34**

Uberdude wrote:

Pippen, I prefer that jump to f17, but still I would rather not make the :b5:

exchange

Can u try to explain why? Because the more I look at it the more I like the jump to F5. It more or less forces White to enclose the corner and thus keeps sente while the split stone gets some distant help.

Mef · **#35**

Pippen wrote:

Ah, ok. Is tewari commonly accepted as an analyzing tool or are there discussions about its validity?

Both! It's reasonable that anything you are going to accept as a common tool has a discussion about its validity. In this case, I think one discussion you may find interesting is "How to lie with Tewari".

Bill Spight · **#36**

The jump to F-05 is interesting.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Small attack $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . B , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White could go after the :bc:

stone like this, but now it is very easy for Black to sacrifice.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Large scale attack $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , 5 . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Or White could go with a large scale attack. Which ought to be fine if Black runs, as here, but Black has a lot of play.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Safety first $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Or White could secure the corner and leave Black on the bottom with an open skirt. Now the left side is not very exciting.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Counter wedge $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . B , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Or White could counter with his own wedge, which is more effective than :bc:

Pippen · **#37**

I think your first two examples leave Black ahead, so I'll jump to the rest which seems better for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Safety first $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Counter wedge $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . B , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . 4 . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In both cases I see Black at least even with White. I begin to think that move 1 (F5) is better than the previous idea of jumping at the upper shimari, because F17 leaves three singled + isolated black stones back while 1 (F5) works better together with 5 and the lower hoshi. Let's see if moyoaji destroys this idea with tewari as well^^.

moyoaji · **#38**

Pippen wrote:

Let's see if moyoaji destroys this idea with tewari as well^^.

I don't really find any fault in your jump itself.

I still dislike the approach because it seems to force white to damage the splitting stone.

To look at this another way, let's say that, following the wedge, black does just make a framework or enclosure, would white play this way?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c White Looks Over-concentrated $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . B , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black now has ideal moves in the 'a' or 'b' region to expand his own framework and limit white's shimaris. White would like to get in the move at :w2:

, but there is not time. This result looks bad for white. Instead, white will approach one of black's corners.

I also don't see what you have against your own stones. In your second diagram :b3:

forces white to remove your group's base. You are actively pushing your opponent into hurting your stones. Why?

Why not play this? Why not help your weak group? White pincered very loosely, so make the base he offered. Then, after white approaches, he forces you to take profit in the corner. Isn't this the kind of result you should want?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Black helps his own group $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . B , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . 6 . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . 3 . 2 . . 4 5 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

With your variation I only see one move for white after :b5:

, and it looks bad for black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c White helps his group, splitting black $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . B , . . . . . , . . . . . c . . . | $$ | . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . a . . . d . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 1 . 5 . . 6 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . 4 . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Does black now continue to run with a move around 'a'? Giving white the possibility of a splitting attack at 'b'?

Does black tenuki to attempt to build the right? Only to be put behind enemy lines when white continues to advance outward while preparing to reduce the very framework black just tried to build?

Your large enclosure is not that solid, and because of the position of :w2:

it can be invaded. If white gets another move on the right your own corner could become a weak group since it cannot expand more on the bottom. Instead, if approached on the right, it must make it's base in the corner. White's corner, on the other hand, can still expand to either 'e' or 'f' to make it more secure.

Looking at this board, I see white has one weak group, with a base, which he just helped. Black, on the other hand, has a baseless weak group and a weak stone. And can black claim to have more on this board than white? White has two enclosures to black's one and while black may have more potential he also has the only thing on the board that can be attacked.

Perhaps this is even on the board, but considering white has komi I'm not so sure.

EDIT: I decided to look for some splitting fuseki where the player ignores the splitting stone in professional games. I looked at every 2014 game on Go4Go and found exactly 3 games with an early splitting stone that was ignored. All were Orthodox fuseki games. In no case did the professional pressure their opponent into harming the stone. Here are the examples:

Qiu Jun 9p (Black) vs. Zhong Wenjing 5p (White) - Jan. 15, 2014

Tan Xiao 7p (Black) vs. Zhong Wenjing 5p (White) - Jan. 17, 2014

Guo Yuzheng 3p (Black) vs. Wang Lei (b) 8p (White) - April 1, 2014

This last game is an example of a late split, and one that is on the fourth line, but white does ignore black threatening to remove the possibility of a base.
Ishida Yoshio 9p (Black) vs. Ko Iso 8p (White) - Jan. 16, 2014

Responding to a threat of removing the base is far more common in professional games. And also more common than a player ignoring their own splitting stone when threatened was both players ignoring the splitting stone. So in your game, going back to the very start, white could play like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc White ignores $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Knotwilg · **#39**

If you have certain emotions when playing big moyo games, work on that instead of trying to find openings that strive to avoid moyos. We are not strong enough to claim any kind of style except 'amateurish'. We should play as the situation demands and not according to our illusional go-personality. In this example, the situation demands to build the right side as Black, not to split the left side, especially not if we're going to build the top and bottom sides afterwards. It's inconsistent and negative in a misguided way. I would describe Black's play as 'thin' rather than 'light'.

Pippen · **#40**

Here is a sequence in the beginning of a pro game that shows that a split stone can be treated as a bait trap and left alone. (http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/41956)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 7 . , 2 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . 6 . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . 8 . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Also, I'd be interested to see if this is an example where tewari doesn't work, because it seems if you reorder moves black and white play decent moves and the white's split move ends up being very bad which he wasn't in the original game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 5 . , 8 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . 4 . . . . . , X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . 6 . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

p.s. Sorry for messing up the starting thread with this very same post. That's what happens sometimes with copy & paste^^.

How do ya like this fuseki idea

Who is online