Invasion or approach?

[Knotwilg]

$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

When BB is on the 5-4 point, do we consider an invasion or an approach?

$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . . B . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Same question

$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . B . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . B . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Same question

$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . B . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Invasion or approach
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . .
$$ | . . B . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Same question

[Harleqin]

What's the difference? What decision does the choice of words affect?

[ez4u]

It seems that you revised all the page names at SL before asking this question. So why don't you go ahead and explain your reasoning?

[skydyr]

In the absence of other local stones, I would call them approaches. From a strictly taxonomic perspective I'm reluctant to call playing 3-3 under a lone 4-4 stone early on an invasion, but I realize it's accepted usage. I think in that case, the word invasion comes from the fact that until recently it was generally played quite late.

Perhaps, in my mind at least, an invasion is a middle-game phenomenon to be contrasted with a reduction, rather than an approach. Some of the confusion probably comes from the overloaded meaning of approach as both 'get close to a position' and 'make the second move in a corner area'.

[Kirby]

If the examples here aren't approaches, I don't know what moves would be. Maybe the argument is that we don't need the term. Not sure if that's true or not.

[Knotwilg]

It seems that you revised all the page names at SL before asking this question. So why don't you go ahead and explain your reasoning?

I did on request by user bugcat and then had second thoughts. So it's "work in progress". I'm relatively indifferent.

[Knotwilg]

What's the difference? What decision does the choice of words affect?

Well, some of us do care about the choice of words.

In some cases the discussion is pointless, in many cases the chosen word reflects a thought.

In this case, thinking about it as an "invasion" means you expect some pressure from the one "invaded" where the "invader" can expect to live, at the expense of major thickness and probably sente. An "approach" would mean both sides can expect a fair share of both territory, influence/thickness and sente, and the share depends on choices along the way. An "invasion" can't really expect to come out with all or the bigger part of the outward thickness.

And this probably answers my own question. I'd like to have your opinion too.

-- BTW I didn't expect the sarcasm or even hostility with which the question was met.

[John Fairbairn]

Well, some of us do care about the choice of words.

Pause for irony...

-- BTW I didn't expect the sarcasm or even hostility with which the question was met.

As a native speaker, I see absolutely no sarcasm or hostility or other forms of contumely in any of the replies. Not a hint, not touch, not a sausage, not a whisper, not a fig.

But given previous discussions on uchikomi/invasion, I can well see why some readers seek clarifications.

The 3-3 play in the corner is usually called uchikomi in Japanese. The other moves never are. They are kakari. Some of us think of what you call 'approach' as kakari, the Japanese term, which doesn't mean approach, at least in the meaning we probably first associate with that word. The Japanese sense is seeking a handhold, tegakari ('te' punning on hand and move, of course), and it has connotations of looking for clues. That is, it is a kind of probe. It therefore implies a range of possible replies by the opponent. In contrast a 3-3 play has very limited possibilities, and it is more of precisely directed hammer blow (i.e. uchikomi).

As you say, the words each reflect a different thought, and it is useful to acknowledge that fact. However, invasion reflects a different thought from uchikomi, and kakari reflects a different thought from approach (and yose reflects a different thought from endgame, etc etc etc). Given these two parallel universes, it seems natural for readers to find out which universe you want us to be in. No?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic either. Semiology is too important a topic in go to take lightly.

[Harleqin]

No sarcasm nor hostility intended, honestly.

In this case, thinking about it as an "invasion" means you expect some pressure from the one "invaded" where the "invader" can expect to live, at the expense of major thickness and probably sente. An "approach" would mean both sides can expect a fair share of both territory, influence/thickness and sente, and the share depends on choices along the way. An "invasion" can't really expect to come out with all or the bigger part of the outward thickness.

I don't know. Approaches such as the common keima kakari against hoshi often enough jump in immediately afterwards and trade influence for territory. Invasions such as in the middle of a three-space high/low extension often enough lead to taking the outside influence while letting the invaded party connect. At least those are for me prototypical examples for these words.

Come to think of it, many moves don't insist on getting what they initially seem to aim for. And these corner moves are, at least for my eyes, both an invasion and an approach (if you define an approach as »second move in the corner«).

I think what is most unclear to me is what »approach« means.

[dhu163]

I think it approaches from inside the corner, aiming towards escaping/undercutting in two directions.

Perhaps invasion is less appropriate than usual because there are several almost even lines where W gets sente. So W is just going for life and B for solidly blocking off on the left and/or upper sides from the corner.

[kyulearner]

I would say they are approaches.
1. Consideration for follow-up moves falls under the category of Joseki. There are no surrounding stones, so the value of sides, corner, influence has not shifted.
2. Calling them invasion gives a false impression that 5-4 or 3-5 gives them a corner/a stake in the corner (a stake that by attacking such "invasion", you get superior outcome) in addition to influence/side.