Following John's interesting comment on my is bad thread, it was interesting to see the professional view tending against disruptive fusekis. So, watching what I would call a great example of a "fun" disruptive fuseki recently, I thought I'd post it for comment, and make some attempt at a critique:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Disruption FTW
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm9 Disruption FTW
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . 5 . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . 7 , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

So, to look to me basic, and relatively uninteresting. is the only move I'd play, because it's what I like doing. feels to me an odd choice? With the 4-4 in the top left, is a pincer not more severe? Having played it, seems fairly necessary, but feels premature to me. Surely the left side or top left is important - even when this is used as a probe, isn't it more typically to either connect or approach the top left to see where to take it? I would either have played C14 or connect on this move.

Then, feels like it has to be the wrong side. Sure, the two space extension is available, but Black can overconcentrate and attack. I would choose to approach the top right stone with O17 instead. After that, to seem a standard way to attack.

Other people's feelings on this fuseki?

is quite according to modern theory nowadays. The idea is to first probe white in the lowerleft corner, and then play the chinese opening. I can only speculate, but I think the main idea is that the bottom has already lost it's value because of white :w6; and in lowerleft.

In accordance with this judgment, Black immediateley approach at . Obviously, approaching from the other direction can most certainley not be a called a mistake either. But I think white is trying to split up the board and are aiming to approach at Q5 (more on this later).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm9 Disruption FTW
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

is the normal follow-up here, please note that black cut at is pointless being counterted by . Black should instead play at himself, if he wants to play this sequence locally.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm9 Disruption FTW
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . c . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

So I think whites plan is that he will either get to play at a or b, ie. they are miai.

If white gets to approach at A, then Black should probably respond at C but this means that black played first on the side that both players deem as unimportant.

(I might be wrong in my analysis, but this is my understanding of whites logic)

if i may, i would like to make some comment about recent intrest in fuseki discussion.
personally i dont think they are helpful to skds at all.
as you all know i am kgs 4d but i am having hard time understanding alot of professional fuseki.
i would like to participate in this discussion but i dont think i am qualified.
then is it worth sdk or low dan trying to write their thoughts on fuseki?

topazg : i apologize if i offended you. hope you understand my intension.

Fredrik: i agree with your analysis 100% and i think your variation was played recently by korean professional
(i can not remember who or even if it is exact sequence.) always enjoy your quality input.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Yes, I understand where you are coming from completely. What I hoped to do actually (and ok, this is a bit naughty of me), is pick a recent fuseki with what appear to be moves that break "rules" of fuseki priorities, in the hope some people would jump on board going "yes, {x} can't do this and should have done {y}" instead. With some of my recent threads, and Violence I suspect did his for similar reasons, I am hoping to get mid to low dans and stronger SDKs to be less authoritative with "This is bad".

It's something I've noticed has happened quite a lot in reviews I've seen recently, and I've become a big fan of rewording things to "I would prefer to do this, as this way I can aim at developing this and this..." - limited to opinion with a personal justification, as opposed to "That's bad, this is better because you can then do this" - bad/good and right/wrong can be so very complicated in Go, and an open mind is the only way to unlock new understanding.

Of course, my experiment is completely undermined by a fabulous analysis by Fredrik (serves me right!), and a clear and obvious pointer to the fact this is in fact very high standard professional play:

[sgf-full](;
KM[6.5]
SZ[19]
FF[4]
GM[1]
EV[12th Maxim Cup]
RO[3]
DT[2011-01-20]
PB[Mok Jinseok]
BR[9d]
PW[Lee Sedol]
WR[9d]
RE[B+R]
SO[weiqi.sports.tom.com]
;B[pd];W[dd];B[pq];W[dq];B[do];W[co];B[cn];W[cp];B[qk];W[qf];B[qe];W[pf];B[nd];W[qi]
;B[oj];W[nh];B[oh];W[og];B[ph];W[qh];B[pj];W[rf];B[np];W[lc];B[ld];W[kd];B[le];W[mc]
;B[nc];W[rd];B[id];W[jd];B[ie];W[jf];B[je];W[ke];B[kf];W[lf];B[kg];W[md];B[me];W[ne]
;B[mf];W[jb];B[mg];W[nb];B[ob];W[mb];B[qb];W[rb];B[re];W[se];B[rc];W[qc];B[pc];W[sc]
;B[oe];W[nf];B[ng];W[of];B[qd];W[qa];B[rc];W[mh];B[lg];W[qc];B[jc];W[kc];B[rc];W[jg]
;B[jh];W[qc];B[ig];W[pb];B[ip];W[qn];B[on];W[dn];B[qp];W[dm];B[hm];W[ir];B[iq];W[jr]
;B[gq];W[hr];B[kq];W[kr];B[lq];W[hq];B[hp];W[gp];B[go];W[fp];B[fo];W[ep];B[dl];W[el]
;B[em];W[en];B[fm];W[dk];B[cl];W[ck];B[cm];W[eo];B[bk];W[gl];B[ek];W[fl];B[dj];W[gm]
;B[hn];W[fn];B[ik];W[rj];B[rk];W[cf];B[cc];W[dc];B[cd];W[ce];B[db];W[eb];B[cb];W[bd]
;B[bc];W[be];B[fb];W[ec];B[da];W[ci];B[cj];W[ba];B[ea];W[gc];B[fc];W[fd];B[de];W[ed]
;B[gd];W[gb];B[fa];W[hd];B[ge];W[ee];B[df];W[ef];B[dg];W[eg];B[bg];W[cg];B[dh];W[ac]
;B[ab];W[ad];B[hb];W[hc];B[ic];W[ib];B[ha];W[he];B[if])[/sgf-full]

replying to your answer:

example 1. i remember when i was weak sdk i read some fuseki that say it is bad.
i really didnt understand why it was bad and kept playing that move.
10 years later there were many professionals who changed the bad concept and played that move that were said to be bad.

example 2: there was one insei in korea who played a move and corrected by his master. he didnt say anything during the mentorship but master realized that he kept playing that same move again and again. someone asked him why and he replied "i think my move is good" then why didnt you say anything whe he corrected you? "i didnt want to disrespect him."

conclusion: doctrin is only a suggestion because doctrins changes. feel free to experiment new ideas. if you are comfortable with that move then it is your move. i personally feel that go is complicated enough that small gray area of good and bad will not decide the the outcome of winning.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

This is really lucid and well-stated. I do, however, enjoy discussing openings a lot, particularly because they're interesting. For example, it's really interesting to look at how constructive versus disruptive openings cause games to develop, as well as how certain styles tend to clash. I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that discussing openings, while often fruitless, can be fun. =)

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

Now that I see that white is Lee Sedol, it makes perfect sense.

It's fun to speak of trends, I suppose, but it's good to see that there are players who still seek to get their own game.

You're right. There is a danger in getting too didactic, especially with openings. While we muse about whether white 8 is bad, etc., Gan Siyang is now 4p and is still opening on the 8-8 point as black. These are all real games of his from 2010, for example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . 3 . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , 3 . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 8 7 5 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 9 6 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 8 . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 7 . . . , . 3 . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

These of course are not disrputive openings, so I apologize for taking a tangent of the thread, but the point is that when such things are possible at a professional level, maybe it is arrogant to be too prescriptive.

In my observation most "disruptive" openings usually consist of not finishing a joseki in order to play a move of equal value elsewhere. There are no illogical moves made. This approach is disconcerting for weaker players (including most of us ) because we are thrown off our stride and made to play according to our understanding of go logic, such as it is, rather than imitating what we've seen stronger players do. Playing and responding to these disruptive moves requires accurate positional judgement.

In addition to aborted joseki, I can think of another disruptive versus constructive option for opening moves.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Disruption etc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . d , . . . . . , . . . . . c . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In this overly simplistic game, 'a' would be constructive (building your own framework) and 'b' would be disruptive (disrupting one your opponent would make). Similarly, playing 'c' is constructive while 'd' is disruptive. All options listed seem viable, they're just different in style. 'a' is my favorite/probably most normal.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

Snorri, do you have an SGF for game #2? I've been musing about a different style of go, perhaps you could call it non-fuseki go, where both players start from the middle, and it looks like they did precisely that here. Pro games like this are relatively rare-- I've only seen the Sixteen Soldiers game and a couple that Yamashita Keigo did a little while ago-- so it would be really cool to see this one.

Chew: "a" seems the most normal to me, too, because it's early enough that Black has several good follow-ups if White pincers, but Black can connect it to his other stone if White doesn't pincer. (In fact, you could probably see a White pincer response to "a" as disruptive and a white response to "a" at "b" as constructive.) Recently I've been experimenting with "b", though, on the thought of "push towards your strength" and "play away from thickness". (Also on the thought of trying to play whatever makes you uncomfortable.) I usually end up playing at "a" anyway if White pincers and turn it into a double approach.

I started another thread so we don't need to hijack this one.

I feel like in the pre-komi days, White usually favored an extremely disruptive style. Here's the first 10 moves of a Shusaku game from 1847:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 1 to 10
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 7 . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

2: Prevents Black from forming a sub-Orthadox formation.
4: Again prevents Black from forming a sub-Orthadox formation, by playing in the middle of it, although it does give Black the option of a very good pincer/extension.
6: Not quite sure how to interpret this 5-point jump, but I think it makes more sense to read it as disruptive rather than constructive, i.e. as preventing Black from making a perfect pincer-extension unharassed, rather than as trying to claim territory.
8: Multi-purpose: prevents Black from making an ideal extension from 3 and 7 as well as claiming territory.

So it looks like White (Yasui Sanchi here) waits all the way until the 8th move before he starts playing territorial moves.

I feel like that was true even 50 years later, in 1898:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 1 to 10
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . |
$$ | . . . , 9 . . . . , . . . . . , 7 . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 , 5 . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I still think that white 2 is a threat to play near 5 soon, and white 6 is still more to prevent Black from making a perfect extension than it is a territorial move. (In this game White did connect 4 and 6 and use them for territory, but not until much later.) I'd also interpret 10, the double approach, as disruptive, since it prevents Black from getting a nice shimari even at the expense of having two smaller and weaker groups now.