Even after a pro explanation I don't entirely understand what's going on in the following position. Enlightenment appreciated.
The sequence 1 to 8 was played by Osawa Ginjiro and Mizutani Nuiji. It is now the earliest instance of this position known to me, but it has been played by top pros such as Rin Kaiho and Segoe Kensaku. Despite that, it looks soooooo ugly and inefficient. I can't really see why it's played. My knee-jerk reaction is to replace Black 4 with 5, then we get White 4, Black 6.
That way Black has got an eye in (a sort of) sente, and White's position doesn't look materially different. In any event, in the extant games the focus of subsequent play is not really about attacking the White group on the left side. The focus is mainly on Black's access to the centre. I have no problems with the focusing but the alternative way to play on the side seems to me to give Black just as much access to the centre - and it has that extra eye.
But maybe I have been looking in the wrong place. In a commentary on the current game, Kato Shin does not criticise the tsukiatari empty triangle at 4 but does raise a query about White 1. He says the original commentary (which I have not seen) says it ought to have been White A. Kato then goes on to explain that White 1 gives Black a play on the side if he wants it, but then the correct Black response is not Black 2 but Black B. Now I can see that this is much nicer for Black on the left side, so in that sense I can concede that Black 5 in response to White 3 must imply a mistake. But the mistake must then surely be at Black 2. However, top pros do play Black 2 willingly which seems to mean they don't think it's a mistake. It may be ugly but it's not a mistake. I suppose I can just see that White's low and thin plays on the second line are not much to worry about, and I can easily accept that ugliness can be efficient (guzumi).
But the bit I can't get might head around is still why Black 4 and not Black 5.
Unusual case of efficiency
-
John Fairbairn
- Oza
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 4672 times
-
Gomoto
- Gosei
- Posts: 1733
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:56 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Earth
- Has thanked: 621 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
Without knowledge of the the whole board. I would say it is just a mistake.
To support this statement I checked with Leela Zero:
Black moves at
a 50% winrate white
b 65% winrate white
To support this statement I checked with Leela Zero:
Black moves at
a 50% winrate white
b 65% winrate white
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
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.
-
sorin
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:14 pm
- Has thanked: 418 times
- Been thanked: 198 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
Thanks for posting this John, very interesting question!John Fairbairn wrote:Even after a pro explanation I don't entirely understand what's going on in the following position. Enlightenment appreciated.
The sequence 1 to 8 was played by Osawa Ginjiro and Mizutani Nuiji. It is now the earliest instance of this position known to me, but it has been played by top pros such as Rin Kaiho and Segoe Kensaku. Despite that, it looks soooooo ugly and inefficient. I can't really see why it's played. My knee-jerk reaction is to replace Black 4 with 5, then we get White 4, Black 6.
That way Black has got an eye in (a sort of) sente, and White's position doesn't look materially different. In any event, in the extant games the focus of subsequent play is not really about attacking the White group on the left side. The focus is mainly on Black's access to the centre. I have no problems with the focusing but the alternative way to play on the side seems to me to give Black just as much access to the centre - and it has that extra eye.
But maybe I have been looking in the wrong place. In a commentary on the current game, Kato Shin does not criticise the tsukiatari empty triangle at 4 but does raise a query about White 1. He says the original commentary (which I have not seen) says it ought to have been White A. Kato then goes on to explain that White 1 gives Black a play on the side if he wants it, but then the correct Black response is not Black 2 but Black B. Now I can see that this is much nicer for Black on the left side, so in that sense I can concede that Black 5 in response to White 3 must imply a mistake. But the mistake must then surely be at Black 2. However, top pros do play Black 2 willingly which seems to mean they don't think it's a mistake. It may be ugly but it's not a mistake. I suppose I can just see that White's low and thin plays on the second line are not much to worry about, and I can easily accept that ugliness can be efficient (guzumi).
But the bit I can't get might head around is still why Black 4 and not Black 5.
It looks very strange indeed, the choice to not make an eye in sente. Maybe it has to do with the rest of the board?
Otherwise, locally speaking the only reason I can think of for the choice shown here is the fact that if black chooses the common-sense way to play and makes an eye, the 2x2 point in the upper-left (A18) becomes very hot, it is a crucial place for both groups to play to fight for eye-space - and white has sente.
So black's "eye in sente" is not free at all as it may seem at first, since after white A18 black will feel compelled to answer (to "defend" the choice to make an eye in the first place) which in turn gives white eye-space in sente for their group in the top-left.
Compared to the sequence shown in your diagram, where the 2x2 point in the upper-left is just "meh": white playing there would not make black feel obliged to respond at all.
This is obviously an "after the fact" analysis and it may be wrong/over-simplified.
Myself I would also just play the usual way and make an eye in an actual game.
Sorin - 361points.com
-
jeromie
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:12 pm
- Rank: AGA 3k
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: jeromie
- Location: Fort Collins, CO
- Has thanked: 319 times
- Been thanked: 287 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
Gomoto, is that kind is swing in win rate normal? That’s huge!
Whether it is “correct” or not, the pros obviously had a good reason for playing the move. Is it because white can get forcing moves on the outside that force black to make a group with fewer liberties and less accesss to the center?
I could see something like this happening:
The white group on the top is in danger, but it’s still annoying. Perhaps black would jump out one space above to prevent this, but that does give less access to the center. What kind of follow up do stronger players see if move 4 is different?
Whether it is “correct” or not, the pros obviously had a good reason for playing the move. Is it because white can get forcing moves on the outside that force black to make a group with fewer liberties and less accesss to the center?
I could see something like this happening:
The white group on the top is in danger, but it’s still annoying. Perhaps black would jump out one space above to prevent this, but that does give less access to the center. What kind of follow up do stronger players see if move 4 is different?
-
Kirby
- Honinbo
- Posts: 9553
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Kirby
- Tygem: 커비라고해
- Has thanked: 1583 times
- Been thanked: 1707 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
I don't know why 'b' vs. 'a', but my guess is to prevent White from getting good shape(?):
That being said, black doesn't have great shape either in the other variation.
That being said, black doesn't have great shape either in the other variation.
be immersed
-
Gomoto
- Gosei
- Posts: 1733
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:56 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Earth
- Has thanked: 621 times
- Been thanked: 310 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
I checked with Bill's game position. Zen and Leela Zero agree that the disputed move is a mistake.
Why play pros moves like this?
For the same reason they did not play early 3-3 invasions.
Sometimes a beginners intuition (Do you remember your first thoughts about the 3-3 invasion) beats the established expert opinion. But the beginner will never be able to show he is right.
(Until 20 years later and the advent of strong AI 
)
Why play pros moves like this?
For the same reason they did not play early 3-3 invasions.
Sometimes a beginners intuition (Do you remember your first thoughts about the 3-3 invasion) beats the established expert opinion. But the beginner will never be able to show he is right.
(Until 20 years later and the advent of strong AI )
Last edited by Gomoto on Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
Thanks.Gomoto wrote:I checked with Bill's game position. Zen and Leela Zero agree that the disputed move is a mistake.
Similar difference of 15% or so?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.
-
jeromie
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:12 pm
- Rank: AGA 3k
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: jeromie
- Location: Fort Collins, CO
- Has thanked: 319 times
- Been thanked: 287 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
I think there are two interesting questions here: was the move a mistake (Leela may help with this) and why did they play the move (Leela is useless here). We can learn from both answers, so even if we decide the move was a mistake it’s still worth trying to understand the rationale for the choice.Gomoto wrote:I checked with Bill's game position. Zen and Leela Zero agree that the disputed move is a mistake.
Why play pros moves like this?
For the same reason they did not play early 3-3 invasions.
Sometimes a beginners intuition (Do you remember your first thoughts about the 3-3 invasion) beats the established expert opinion. But the beginner will never be able to show he is right.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
For reference, here is the Iwamoto vs. Takagawa game.
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.
-
dfan
- Gosei
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:49 am
- Rank: AGA 2k Fox 3d
- GD Posts: 61
- KGS: dfan
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 534 times
- Contact:
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
Is there any possibility that either of these cases was a recording error and the moves actually occurred in a different order that makes more sense?
-
ez4u
- Oza
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:15 pm
- Rank: Jp 6 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: ez4u
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
- Has thanked: 2351 times
- Been thanked: 1332 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
Look back at the recommendation from Kato Shin that White should jump and Black should jump down.
Now compare this to the normal answer to the slide by White below. White has gotten in a forcing move, preventing Black's preferred reply. In the game White does not want to jump out because of the weak point left behind below. Black 8 threatens to cut White's jump. Instead of jumping, White settled for the slower diagonal play.
What the programs are telling us is that perhaps the pros are over-thinking here and that being forced would be better than the bad shape.
Now compare this to the normal answer to the slide by White below. White has gotten in a forcing move, preventing Black's preferred reply. In the game White does not want to jump out because of the weak point left behind below. Black 8 threatens to cut White's jump. Instead of jumping, White settled for the slower diagonal play.
What the programs are telling us is that perhaps the pros are over-thinking here and that being forced would be better than the bad shape.
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
-
John Fairbairn
- Oza
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 4672 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
I think your answer (and ditto Kirby's) is probably on the right lines, though the devil may be in detail, but first I need, apparently, to correct a misapprehension that I certainly also had until a day ago. The "normal" answer turn out not to be so. At least out of 18 cases in the GoGoD database the split between tsukiatari and kosumitsuke is 9:9. Furthermore, in his commentary on what was the first instance of this pattern until this new game (Shuei vs Sanei), Shusai made no comment on the tsukiatari, so there's another big name that wasn't troubled by it.Now compare this to the normal answer to the slide by White below. White has gotten in a forcing move, preventing Black's preferred reply.
But I've finished transcribing the game now, and there was a significant clue in the later commentary. It seems that if Black plays the kosumitsuke he would allow White to jump to E11. Because he didn't want that he chose the tsukiatari because then if White jumps to E11 Black has an ideal peep at D10. This seems game-specific (and that is probably true of all the examples - we amateurs perhaps do tend to play josekis in a vacuum). In other words, the tsukiatari here is a way of making White play 42 instead of E11.
Anyway here is the full game now. It would be interesting to hear how Leela/Zen change their assessments in the game-specific position. I found it interesting to see how much Black 43 influences the rest of the play. On the one hand a foretaste of such jumps and L shapes in the centre that Shuei perfected, and on the other hand a hint at the centre style exemplified by the AIs. To put that in quite a different way, the Black group in the upper left doesn't really need a base - its main (sole?) function is to support Black 43 in the centre. We can perhaps see it as a very deep shoulder hit
-
jeromie
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:12 pm
- Rank: AGA 3k
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: jeromie
- Location: Fort Collins, CO
- Has thanked: 319 times
- Been thanked: 287 times
Re: Unusual case of efficiency
That makes perfect sense, Dave.
This whole thread has been very instructive. “Being forced is better than bad shape” almost has the sound of a modern Go proverb, and Leela’s analysis emphasizes the true cost of a large group without eye shape.
This whole thread has been very instructive. “Being forced is better than bad shape” almost has the sound of a modern Go proverb, and Leela’s analysis emphasizes the true cost of a large group without eye shape.