I was inputting some games from the 1920s this morning. One in particular crystallised out a thought I've long kept bubbling below the surface.

In those days there were no titles and so no title games. As a result the games chosen for published commentaries were rather more eclectic than now. Also, the pro system was new but still based on the old teacher-pupil paradigm. It was very common, therefore, to see games between young pros commented by a senior figure. Unlike today, the senior figure could allow himself to be quite forthright in his comments without resorting to jokiness. Nowadays, we rarely see this level of play or commentary, yet I think it probably contains more valuable oxygen for the average amateur than games in the rarified air of title summits.

A further, quite different, point: I notice quite a lot of amateurs, especially the weaker ones who talk about playing in such-and-such a style, rather fancy themselves at the fuseki stage. I always assume they feel lost in the deep forest of tactics but relieved when they reach a clear grassy knoll with a bit of a view. The fact that they still have to cross that forest to get home seems to concern them far less than making a move that looks like Takemiya, or whoever.

But in the games I am talking about, it is precisely the fuseki that gets nearly all the attention from the senior scrutineer. In the game below, for example, two 4-dans played 139 moves (I give the first 50), so you can tell it was ultimately a tactical affair and one player boobed tactically somewhere. But three-quarters of the commentary related to the first 23 moves. The next comment did not come till move 54. Once the fighting started the commentator just assumed the players knew what they were doing - as I say, a common pattern in these commentaries.

In those first 23 moves, six attracted comment.

I thought some of you may wish to play the senior pro for the day (it was Iwasa Kei 6-dan, much respected for his theoretical knowledge). Share your thoughts on a half dozen or so moves. Unless you've seen something Iwasa missed, you won't need any tactical (or joseki) sequences. I'll publish Iwasa's comments later.



The narrative for the rest of this game is that Black messed around for a bit on the right side to create some thickness, which he used to attack White's lower centre group, which lived minimally but gave Black more centre thickness. White then felt obliged to invade on the upper side but Black's thickness told and White died.

If I may be so bold to chime in Alan Davies style with some general ignorance, I'd say the way black enters the corner with 5 feels a bit suspect as white gets to extend on the right side which is where black's shimari wants to extend. If black took the open corner instead and white played q3 himself then black r10 looks nice (and then white could make a nice move himself on the lower side, or if shimari top left the black plays top side for a double wing) and if white played r10 then black would probably prefer to enter the corner at 3-3 not 3-4 so if we get the normal p3 r5 counter-hane joseki black gets to poke out at s7 and make r10 a bit sad.

Extending this a little, I was a little surprised about black 7. I would have thought R10 was a better direction.

I think there's also the point to be made that you can fix someone's strategic mistakes, but if the mistake is merely a matter of reading, either they read it or they didn't/weren't capable of it. I suspect most of the commentary comes at big decision points that change the course of the game, as the tactical sequences are finite and can be compared clearly, but strategic decisions are not, in that they can't be read to their conclusion. As the game goes on, the space for infinite choices decreases, and the finite ones are left as an exercise for the student.

I know that I have no business commenting in this thread.

But two things perplexed me in the opening. First, the exchange in the bottom right gave White sente to play between the primary direction of both Black groups on the right. I think this was part of Uberdude's observation, right? Second, shouldn't White have continued the contact fight at move 18 by playing at O4, and only afterward consider another move on the right side? That is, wasn't White 18 at R13 a mistake?

I found 6 moves among the first 23 which I want to criticize

5: It would be better to occupy the empty corner, because if White makes a shimari next, 7 can take the mutual extension at the bottom
12: the urgent point is the two space extension at the top right
16: although this move strengthens White's main group, the mentioned move at 12 would still be better; the black group at the bottom is resilient
17: which is why black should not answer here but take the initiative
19: yet another move in this area; white's stone is light, white will take territory; better pincer the lower left or approach the top left
22: too mild; better attach to Black's stone at c5, to lean and jump next, so that Black's framework cannot develop; this 22 invites the natural 23.

I'm curious how ridiculous this commentary will turn out to be

At first, I was hesitant to make comments, since the players are so much stronger than me and the opening is a bit if a mystery to me... But then I decided to wade in regardless.

10) The wide extension suprosed me a little.
11) This also surprised me a bit. I would have been temepted to play somewhere in the lower right.
16) I like this move! B could consider playing P5 in reply.
For 13 and 15 there are a large number of possible moves. (e.g. pincer at F3 for either; 15 played one to the left etc.) The best move is exceedingly difficult.
18) I don't understand this move. I would play O4 to make thickness. Presumably B would reply at R12. If this is bad, could W consider attaching at R15 to keep sente?
22) Again, there are alternatives (e.g. D5, C4, F4, or tenuki is coneviable.)

I am not one of those players who feel at home on that clear grassy knoll. Here are four moves that I have an inclination towards. I have only a drop or two of convoluted theory to explain them.

3: How about r4 or r5 on the 3rd line. I dont like the influence stone in a diagonal game.
10: Too wide of an extension that leaves black plenty of options in the middle game. I like r8 or r9.
13: Approach upper left. It seems hard to take advantage of white on the lower side at this point.
16: Jump in at c7! To me, this is the biggest mistake. White is doubling back to reinforce his thin position on the right but initiative in this corner looks urgent.

I'm familiar with so many more options for each move but I have no foundation of theory to differentiate them. Look forward to the discussion.

My 2 d.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

A few comments on the first few moves gleaned from GoGoD (btw the subject game is not in my copy, so a new addition)...

The immediate shimari at 3 was of course a well-known course of action for Black historically. The game order of 2 in the bottom right was unusual, however, when White played 4 in the upper left we arrive at a better known position with normally White reversing the order of 2 and 4. If we limit ourselves to games played through the 20's (i.e. up to the time the subject game was played) we have 14 examples. The the most popular play was the immediate 3-4 in the lower right (6 cases). the next most popular was the play at 'a' below (4 cases).

The first six games found in GoGoD present an interesting picture. Only four players were involved, all of them greats of the Go world:
Yasui Chitoku - Honinbo Genjo, 1803-12-05,
Yasui Chitoku - Honinbo Genjo, 1809-12-23, 'a'
Kadono Jowa - Hattori Rittetsu, 1812-09-06, 'a'
Honinbo Genjo - Kadono Jowa, 1812-12-00,
Kadono Jowa - Hattori Rittetsu, 1815-03-24, 'a'
Honinbo Genjo - Honinbo Jowa, 1819-10-24,

From this it seems Honinbo Genjo was flexible on the next play, Hattori Rittetsu (later and better known as Inoue Genan Inseki) was firmly on the side of taking the empty corner, and Jowa was just as firmly set on an immediate confrontation in the lower right. (BTW, the normal follow up to 'a' was an approach in the lower left corner to which Black responded by tenuki to enter in the lower right corner, yielding a similar situation to the game. See the last diagram below for an example position.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 3 , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . a , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The right side position featured in a number of games where White varied in the upper left corner. A search gives us 25 examples. The overwhelming choice was the more restrained play at 'a' (23 cases). Who first played our ? Jowa, this time as White, in a game against Genan played 1818-09-19. However the left side of that game had already been played out to a considerable degree.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm Extending up the side
$$- - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . , . . . . . , 9 . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$. . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$- - - - - - - - - - - - - - +[/go]

Meanwhile there are six games with Jowa as White which are close variants of the one shown below. In all six, Jowa extended only as far as .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Honinbo Jowa (White) - Akaboshi Intetsu; 1834-08-05
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Here are Iwasa's comments, hidden.





The point about the high enclosure on move 14 seems to have eluded everyone here, and I mused that this is perhaps because it is no longer very fashionable. To use an old phrase in a new way: what you see is what you get.

I have questions about the high enclosure. To be sure, as Iwasa indicates, it makes a White play at C-11 bigger than after the low enclosure, at least before Black solidifies his position in the fight. But it also makes a Black play at C-12 or C-13 bigger. Why is that advantageous for White? It also makes a play at K-17 bigger for either player, and Black gets that point, as expected. Surely that is a negative for White.

Edit:

Ah! Unless Iwasa was anticipating this sequence of play:

D-15
K-17
C-11

Or at least White playing C-11 after Black plays K-17. The two are not miai, but K-17 is a good point, anyway, while the high enclosure makes C-11 a good point for White.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

This was my assessment as well. Any enclosure invites K17, so D15 leaves the better follow-up.

Perhaps it is partly due to lack of fashion but also fundamentally we (amateurs) do not see the full meaning of even such fundamental shapes as the basic shimari, especially the more dynamic possibilities that arise from them (as JF has so often attempted to bring to our attention ). Of course 4p's are also not immune to this problem obviously!

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21