The following is from a game I played today. I was white, and it was my turn to play.
A side question on W1: would it be better to split at around B4 instead?
Anyway... my main question is that I am not sure what my next move should be.
(i) A move around a or b, since black owes a move there when compared with joseki. p may also be a possibility.
(ii) An enclosure of one of my corners -- c seems to be the best enclosure, given that black is developing the top side,
(iii) A sanrensei, either at d or e. (d should be better, am I right?)
(iv) Invasion at the left side, when the opportunity is still there -- so I can play at f
(v) A reducing move for the left side moyo, since black now has a double-wing formation and it could be huge. g, h, i are the possibilities.
In the actual game, I've played the cap h. I got some thickness at the center because of that, but black also got a lot of points surrounding the top left corner. I was unable to use the thickness effectively, though, because black managed to play at D before I do.
What should I have played, and what would be my best plan?
Thanks!
An opening question
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: An opening question
RE 
your approach is fine, though split right at 4 or approach at a are far more common.
Your 5 is a mistake though, you lose a golden opportunity to crush black into a pathetic small shape. You noticed that black's 4 wasn't joseki (in fact his kick at 2 is bad on this board). p is the shape point to build thickness and is a good point. Your 5 would be good (though I prefer 4th line to work with your left side shape) if black had defended the p weakness with 4 at b, but as he didn't your 5 is not needed. In fact after you play p and build a massive wall of thickness your move 5 will become too close and a wasted move. Here is what could happen:
Look at the powerful thickness white builds that also isolates black 4 from the corner. Black has no moyo you even need to worry about reducing now.
As for your main question, I like d. You don't need to reduce black's moyo as yours is bigger.
your approach is fine, though split right at 4 or approach at a are far more common.Your 5 is a mistake though, you lose a golden opportunity to crush black into a pathetic small shape. You noticed that black's 4 wasn't joseki (in fact his kick at 2 is bad on this board). p is the shape point to build thickness and is a good point. Your 5 would be good (though I prefer 4th line to work with your left side shape) if black had defended the p weakness with 4 at b, but as he didn't your 5 is not needed. In fact after you play p and build a massive wall of thickness your move 5 will become too close and a wasted move. Here is what could happen:
Look at the powerful thickness white builds that also isolates black 4 from the corner. Black has no moyo you even need to worry about reducing now.
As for your main question, I like d. You don't need to reduce black's moyo as yours is bigger.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: An opening question
I agree with Uberdude. 
Edit: Except for the part about 'd'. You should keep the game from being easy for Black.
That said,
is probably better than the capping play, as it reduces the large Black moyo.
The invasion also looks playable, as you have room for a two space extension.
If
pincers, 
invades further down, threatening both the bottom right corner and the 
stone. If 
protects the corner, the position is in flux. That is generally good for the invader. At the same time, it is not all that clear where to play. My thought with 
is to strengthen the stone for the fight, probably sacrificing the stone. This position could also be reached by starting at 9.
I still like the attachment. If Black plays as in the diagram, I will either connect at "a" or invade a 11, utilizing the aji of and .
It is more important to have a plan than to have a good plan. If your plan is not so good, you will probably learn something.
Edit: Except for the part about 'd'. You should keep the game from being easy for Black.
That said,
is probably better than the capping play, as it reduces the large Black moyo.The invasion also looks playable, as you have room for a two space extension.
If
pincers, invades further down, threatening both the bottom right corner and the stone. If protects the corner, the position is in flux. That is generally good for the invader. At the same time, it is not all that clear where to play. My thought with is to strengthen the stone for the fight, probably sacrificing the stone. This position could also be reached by starting at 9.I still like the attachment. If Black plays as in the diagram, I will either connect at "a" or invade a 11, utilizing the aji of
and .It is more important to have a plan than to have a good plan.
If your plan is not so good, you will probably learn something.The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
gostudent
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:43 pm
- Rank: IGS 9k
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: An opening question
Thank you for the sequence you suggested! It is very enlightening. W5 can be another example for the thread http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 11&t=10343 on why learning a joseki without understanding it well is bad.Uberdude wrote:RE
Your 5 is a mistake though, you lose a golden opportunity to crush black into a pathetic small shape. You noticed that black's 4 wasn't joseki (in fact his kick at 2 is bad on this board). p is the shape point to build thickness and is a good point. Your 5 would be good (though I prefer 4th line to work with your left side shape) if black had defended the p weakness with 4 at b, but as he didn't your 5 is not needed. In fact after you play p and build a massive wall of thickness your move 5 will become too close and a wasted move. Here is what could happen:
One reason I play W5 is that I am worried about the pincher The pincher is regularly mentioned to explain why the 3 space extension is important in the normal joseki variation. I am tempted to play at "a" to connect to W5 and fight, but then this lead to a traingle shape, which may not be good. Would better moves be possible?
I have another question about an extension at 3rd line versus 4th line. Often, when I played an extension at 4th line, my opponent would find a way to invade, e.g., and it is kind of difficult to kill the invasion. In this kind of scenario, should I aim at enclosing the opponent and develop the left side instead?
Thanks!
-
gostudent
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:43 pm
- Rank: IGS 9k
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: An opening question
Thank you for the examples of reduction and invasion!
As a beginner, I often struggle on when to invade or when to reduce. I have lost many games due to weak groups that are not properly taken care of.... So now whenever I play, I tend to be very cautious when I may create a weak group, and be careful about cutting points. However, that would mean that I easily lose the timing of such opportunities. A big part of that is, of course, due to my inaccurate reading -- it is not easy for me to tell if (i) can my group live, and (ii) would I be living too small and giving my opponent an overly strong wall?
What could be good ways to improve on that? Thanks.
As a beginner, I often struggle on when to invade or when to reduce. I have lost many games due to weak groups that are not properly taken care of.... So now whenever I play, I tend to be very cautious when I may create a weak group, and be careful about cutting points. However, that would mean that I easily lose the timing of such opportunities. A big part of that is, of course, due to my inaccurate reading -- it is not easy for me to tell if (i) can my group live, and (ii) would I be living too small and giving my opponent an overly strong wall?
What could be good ways to improve on that? Thanks.
-
DrStraw
- Oza
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:09 am
- Rank: AGA 5d
- GD Posts: 4312
- Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
- Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
- Has thanked: 237 times
- Been thanked: 662 times
- Contact:
Re: An opening question
Look up the concept of sector lines. Only play behind sector lines if you are sure you are losing.gostudent wrote:Thank you for the examples of reduction and invasion!
As a beginner, I often struggle on when to invade or when to reduce. I have lost many games due to weak groups that are not properly taken care of.... So now whenever I play, I tend to be very cautious when I may create a weak group, and be careful about cutting points. However, that would mean that I easily lose the timing of such opportunities. A big part of that is, of course, due to my inaccurate reading -- it is not easy for me to tell if (i) can my group live, and (ii) would I be living too small and giving my opponent an overly strong wall?
What could be good ways to improve on that? Thanks.
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).
-
EdLee
- Honinbo
- Posts: 8859
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
- GD Posts: 312
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Has thanked: 349 times
- Been thanked: 2070 times
Hi GoStudent, are you referring togostudent wrote: I am tempted to play at "a" to connect to W5 and fight, but then this lead to a triangle shape, which may not be good.
in this local situation ?
This is perfectly playable here.Perhaps you are confusing the following two shapes: The left one is an "empty triangle"; notice that (z) is empty. It is often, but not always, a bad shape.
The right one is not an empty triangle because of the
stone. It is very different from an empty triangle.Go is extremely particular and specific. If someone showed you an example of an empty triangle,
I hope they showed you a correct example, with (z) empty.
It's also possible they showed you a correct example of an empty triangle,
and you only noticed the configuration of the three
stones,without noticing the very important empty (z);
so you didn't appreciate the big difference between the left and right shapes.
The important thing is not a "triangle shape"; it is an empty triangle, with (z) empty.
-
Hushfield
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:17 pm
- GD Posts: 11
- KGS: Hushfield
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 72 times
- Been thanked: 199 times
Re: An opening question
When approaching at 1 as white, almost everybody on WBaduk or Tygem I meet plays 2 here, but isn't black 2 a mistake without a pincer stone already in place at A or B?
I always thought that it was, and the sequence suggested by uberdude definitely shows one way to punish, but often black will just play a closer extension like the standard 9 handicap joseki at a, or also at b or c
Somehow, I can't really manage to punish this all that much. Any more thoughts on this? Or is black 2 not really a "mistake" even when there's no pincer stone?
I always thought that it was, and the sequence suggested by uberdude definitely shows one way to punish, but often black will just play a closer extension like the standard 9 handicap joseki at a, or also at b or c
Somehow, I can't really manage to punish this all that much. Any more thoughts on this? Or is black 2 not really a "mistake" even when there's no pincer stone?
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: An opening question
The kick is usually a mistake without a pincer stone already in place as it makes white stronger and means she can extend further without fearing an invasion. But it does somewhat protect the corner and prevent white sliding. If the lower side is an uninteresting area it can be a good move and is occasionally played professionally. I am now around the level at which I feel I can make a reasonable go at identify such situations. Probably your tygem opponents play it when it is bad, but it's not a huge mistake you punish immediately.
-
Aidoneus
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:37 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Indiana
- Has thanked: 114 times
- Been thanked: 176 times
Re: An opening question
If a patzer like me can chime in...I was thinking the same thing about lack of a Black pincer at a or b in the first diagram. In the following diagram, after Black plays at a, b, or c, isn't the White extension to e ideal? A rather questionable move if Black had a pincer already in place at f, and impossible if Black pincer is at e, I read somewhere a general rule about extending as far away on the third line as a string extends from the edge. I don't know if this general rule requires that the string start from the second line, though. Nor do I know if this general rule, even if I am interpreting it correctly, would be applicable in this specific position. Perhaps someone would be willing to give me a bit more guidance on this?Hushfield wrote:When approaching at 1 as white, almost everybody on WBaduk or Tygem I meet plays 2 here, but isn't black 2 a mistake without a pincer stone already in place at A or B?
I always thought that it was, and the sequence suggested by uberdude definitely shows one way to punish, but often black will just play a closer extension like the standard 9 handicap joseki at a, or also at b or c
Somehow, I can't really manage to punish this all that much. Any more thoughts on this? Or is black 2 not really a "mistake" even when there's no pincer stone?
Last edited by Aidoneus on Fri May 30, 2014 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
DrStraw
- Oza
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:09 am
- Rank: AGA 5d
- GD Posts: 4312
- Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
- Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
- Has thanked: 237 times
- Been thanked: 662 times
- Contact:
Re: An opening question
The kick? I have never heard that term before. What is its origin? I assume you are referring to the kosumitsuke? What not just refer to it as a diagonal attachment?
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).
-
HermanHiddema
- Gosei
- Posts: 2011
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 am
- Rank: Dutch 4D
- GD Posts: 645
- Universal go server handle: herminator
- Location: Groningen, NL
- Has thanked: 202 times
- Been thanked: 1086 times
Re: An opening question
The same reason we use "shoulder hit" instead of "diagonal 4th line approach to a stone on the 3rd line".DrStraw wrote:The kick? I have never heard that term before. What is its origin? I assume you are referring to the kosumitsuke? What not just refer to it as a diagonal attachment?
It seems to me that "kick" has entered the vocubulary in the last decade. It was not a term I ever heard when I first learned to play, but is now a term I see regularly and which I myself use when teaching beginners (or rather, I use the Dutch equivalent, of course).
-
DrStraw
- Oza
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:09 am
- Rank: AGA 5d
- GD Posts: 4312
- Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
- Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
- Has thanked: 237 times
- Been thanked: 662 times
- Contact:
Re: An opening question
But we use shoulder hit, not punch. I have always called this one a diagonal attachment. It seems more intuitive than kick, just as shoulder hit seems more intuitive than punch. I only used the term kosumitsuke to make it clear - I find Japanese terms to usually be more exact in case of possible ambiguity.HermanHiddema wrote:The same reason we use "shoulder hit" instead of "diagonal 4th line approach to a stone on the 3rd line".DrStraw wrote:The kick? I have never heard that term before. What is its origin? I assume you are referring to the kosumitsuke? What not just refer to it as a diagonal attachment?
It seems to me that "kick" has entered the vocubulary in the last decade. It was not a term I ever heard when I first learned to play, but is now a term I see regularly and which I myself use when teaching beginners (or rather, I use the Dutch equivalent, of course).
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).
-
HermanHiddema
- Gosei
- Posts: 2011
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 am
- Rank: Dutch 4D
- GD Posts: 645
- Universal go server handle: herminator
- Location: Groningen, NL
- Has thanked: 202 times
- Been thanked: 1086 times
Re: An opening question
I think this is just a matter of what you are used to. I would also consider kick more specific than kosumitsuke (or diagonal attachment), as it specifically refers to a kosumi attaching downwards. This is not a kick in my book:DrStraw wrote:But we use shoulder hit, not punch. I have always called this one a diagonal attachment. It seems more intuitive than kick, just as shoulder hit seems more intuitive than punch. I only used the term kosumitsuke to make it clear - I find Japanese terms to usually be more exact in case of possible ambiguity.
As such, I think it is in fact as intuitive as "shoulder hit". A kick is generally a movement which is lower than your centre of gravity which touches an object (e.g. a football). That perfectly describes this move. It also fits nicely with the footsweep, one move lower, which is (in martial arts) a kick aimed at the feet of the opponent.
-
DrStraw
- Oza
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:09 am
- Rank: AGA 5d
- GD Posts: 4312
- Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
- Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
- Has thanked: 237 times
- Been thanked: 662 times
- Contact:
Re: An opening question
Interesting. I have no interest in soccer. I was raised in to watch rugby in Britain and now watch football in the USA. So to me a kick involves an upward motion and the diagram you show is more intuitively a kick than the one on the third line.HermanHiddema wrote: I think this is just a matter of what you are used to. I would also consider kick more specific than kosumitsuke (or diagonal attachment), as it specifically refers to a kosumi attaching downwards. This is not a kick in my book:
As such, I think it is in fact as intuitive as "shoulder hit". A kick is generally a movement which is lower than your centre of gravity which touches an object (e.g. a football). That perfectly describes this move. It also fits nicely with the footsweep, one move lower, which is (in martial arts) a kick aimed at the feet of the opponent.
These ambiguities are one reason I have always preferred the Japanese term unless there is a very well established and clear English equivalent.
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).