Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Bored of this.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . a 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I've played so many games in which black makes a shimari and white splits the side as in the above that I am now awfully bored of this opening (or the high variant) I'm looking for alternatives to white 6 (or a) that might lead to a game that's semi-comprehensible to an SDK player like myself. (4 kyu, KGS, when I'm not totalling my rank by playing a dozen games, back to back, with reckless abandon.)

Have you any suggestions, perhaps with a vague idea of how things might proceed or the direction things might take, afterwards?

In such a position the usual move for me (and indeed pros with 415 out of 514 games) is the high approach to the corner, not the split. But then the following standard continuation is also fairly boring for me now, though I daresay your opponents will deviate:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Common sequence
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 0 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 9 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm11 I'm bored of this...
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 9 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 1 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm21 Final position, how boring...
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

There are other ways for black to answer the top right probe (it's a good lesson in efficiency, though recently it seems pros have changed their judgement and do now answer with extension to the outside, one reason is s18 as an answer to r17 if white tries to live there later), 21 could be at 22 if you want to fight (I recall it's an overplay but not easy to answer, Andrew Kay got it wrong against some German guy at the London tournament next to me a few years ago). I recall Park Junghwan tricked some Japanese pro with the hanging instead of solid connection (it was on gogameguru). So there's plenty for you to explore here.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Seems common at mid SDK level
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

threatens a, thus I think is why is not here in Uberdude's examples but at SDK level I've rarely seen people play the attachment so it's good to know the above I think.

Good point Boidhre, I should show that as the basic sequence, upon which white is trying to improve with his fancy probe attachment against the shimari (if white can exchange s16 for r15 earlier in that diagram, then black's 9 becomes an inefficient move as white can live in the corner later (if black answers r17 at q17, the s18 answer complicates things)). Does Charlie know that sequence already? As I said the approach rather than split is more common and follows the classic opening theory of not allowing your opponent 2 shimaris, though with the big komi these days that theory is not so rigidly followed.

I thought of this thread when I was looking at the recent Ke Jie - Wang Yuanjun match from the Ing cup.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Ke Jie 9p (Black) vs. Wang Yuanjun 7p (White)
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , 9 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Is this just an alternative to the probe Uberdude showed, or does the position of 2 make a difference?

I'm not sure and haven't done lots of pattern searching or had An Younggil or someone report on the latest pro thinking, but my impression from watching games is the solid extension outwards as an answer to the 2-4 probe regained popularity in 2014, probably because of the discovery of the s18 answer to white r17 which means you don't get the easy life with a tripod group, and so white has started doing this outside attachment more often. Something to note is white doesn't want to play this against the big shimari, I talk about this a few minutes into my lecture on the 3rd game of the British Championship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI8Sdsie2QQ).

Can't offer comment but I spotted this game a few days ago, the attachment stood out like above:



Black is missing a move in your diagram jeromie

Fixed it (though I didn't add a number.) I copied from above and forgot to add the move.

Go is a game with thousands of possibilities and you shouldn't let yourself be restricted by current pro fashions. There are many, many valid ways of playing in this position and I've posted some ideas for you to try out in the SGF. I hope you find it useful!