if you dont like that variation..white should have play as below.
one reason why i am sure it is somewhat even is that if it was good for black then professionals would play that move. since they dont, it must not be that effective. and i dont see any other variation that is possible. but i am sure that topazg's play is wrong by looking at the shape.
The reason being, before Black 7, Black has 2 weak groups and white has 2 weak groups (by my count), but after this black 7, Black has 1 weak group and one strong group on the side. I'd expect White to descend, and then when I attack from the other side it'll have more meaning. As is, my corner group is now severely weakened, and White has several ways to exploit this.
Aphelion: if I attacked with a non-contact keima, White could just make a one-point jump out, and if we both ran out, I thought White would be getting more than I would.
There were a couple of responses that I was expecting, like a hane to try to cut immediately, and I thought I read a refutation to that hane, but I wasn't reading carefully at all. Anyway, I wanted to expand my own group while pressuring White's, and ideally keep White's hemmed in. I'd be happy if I lived small, but I'd be happier if White lived small. I completely forget what follow-ups I had in mind to that end.
is pretty well forced. If he pulls back I stand with . Then yields the familiar tsuke-nobi shape. I can't stand a clamp against , so I make shape with and . repairs his wall, but Black is overconcentrated. I don't think that this is as good for White on the left side as simply pulling back, but White does get the time to extend on the top side.
_________________ The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on? — Winona Adkins
Posts: 8859 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Liked others: 349 Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
@Mark356:
Mark356 wrote:
Aphelion: if I attacked with a non-contact keima, White could just make a one-point jump out, and if we both ran out, I thought White would be getting more than I would.
SmartGo returns 14 pro games for this local search:
The result is about equal-- perhaps slightly better for white, since now my lower left shimari is looking more and more vulnerable, and because White is running across a larger area of the board. Furthermore, now that both groups are alive and settled, nothing else I do is a severe attack anymore.
That said, I can't believe I didn't think of searching a database! Part of my handicap is that I get to use whatever tools I need, including database searching. And it makes sense that this would be in many pro games, since the pattern that leads to it is fairly standard and straightforward-- in fact, it's in Yilun Yang's book too. I just looked at a couple of games where Black (or the color analogous to black in this position) plays this keima. It's so simple! Both groups do get to settle easily, and Black gets to run out and then just not worry about the group. Like so:
I can't believe I was so stupid! Even if I wasn't going to play the normal keima, why didn't I just take another minute and just read it out? Better yet, why did I have to play so impulsively and get myself into this mess? Now I'll have to work hard to get myself out of it.
I tried this a couple of times, and I think the black stones on the outside can be caught in ladders. I also have to be careful not to capture any of the white stones underneath too soon, because capturing is no good if I get trapped.
Not sure how this would continue, but I don't think I like it. I think if White played 2 here, since this doesn't look pretty, I'd be best trying to connect the hane and trade.
This is what automatically sprang to mind. I'm not sure about it. On the one hand, it's absolutely and completely gote, and White can now do whatever he wants. On the other hand, it's a positive answer, seeking to protect my stones rather than damage White's. (The famous checklist starts with "Do I have a weak point? If so, protect it.") It cedes any bottom territory but seeks to expand out and turn into a running battle. Here's a possible continuation:
Posts: 4511 Location: Chatteris, UK Liked others: 1589 Was liked: 656
Rank: Nebulous
GD Posts: 918
KGS: topazg
To all our happy lovely commentators:
I'm still unconvinced. I'm reasonably convinced that my choice was poor, at least unreasonable, but maybe just bad. However, whilst the initial tewari was convincing by Bill, on further thought, I'm still not convinced. I wonder if perhaps this is hard to do without falling into "That Tewari Trap" (link) - something I may be equally guilty of below:
This is the tewari I would apply based on the hane / atari - It's accuracy I guess depends on the suitability of over as a response to the pull back. To me is just bad, pushing Black from behind for little gain. Of course, is nonsense, but having played that nonsense, seems to help Black make a good move with a cut at "a". The alternative is to connect on the other side, which feels like a very large concession to Black at this stage.
Simply pulling back ( above) is sente, as the cut now works for White. I'm still feeling this is better than the hane solution, which smells of "Going Back to Patch Up" (link) to me.
This is bugging me now. I may even pay for this game to be reviewed just so I can get a really high level player's answer to see how that compares
Thanks to everyone for all the comments though, it's making this fascinating for me too.
@Fredrik: If you are there, what's your feeling on this one?
@Mark356:
In my honest opinion, you're in danger of losing the psychological game already. Whatever mistake you have made here is small, and relatively insignificant. Fighting too hard to make up for what you think is a blunder can force your hand to make a bigger mistake. Rely on your reading: if you can read a positive result for you, play it, if you can't or it is too complicated, consolidate and look for further opportunities to make up the deficit. Don't turn the game into a winner takes all struggle just because you are annoyed with one move that looks rather aji-keshi
I'm still unconvinced. I'm reasonably convinced that my choice was poor, at least unreasonable, but maybe just bad. However, whilst the initial tewari was convincing by Bill, on further thought, I'm still not convinced. I wonder if perhaps this is hard to do without falling into "That Tewari Trap" (link) - something I may be equally guilty of below:
This is the tewari I would apply based on the hane / atari - It's accuracy I guess depends on the suitability of over as a response to the pull back. To me is just bad, pushing Black from behind for little gain. Of course, is nonsense, but having played that nonsense, seems to help Black make a good move with a cut at "a". The alternative is to connect on the other side, which feels like a very large concession to Black at this stage.
Simply pulling back ( above) is sente, as the cut now works for White. I'm still feeling this is better than the hane solution, which smells of "Going Back to Patch Up" (link) to me.
This is not really a good position for tewari, because the cut at "a" is so big. I should not have done it. Mea culpa.
I did not want to get into the question of how to continue. Should White play "a", "b", or "c"? (I lean towards "a", MagicWand likes "b".) I think that "c" is a mistake here, but it does make a base.
I would not use this to decide whether to pull back ( ) or to hane ( ). For one thing, after the pull back is a good play, but after the hane it is horrible. Also, in this diagram White gets both plays. It is a little hard to compare two plays when you get both. As you indicate, is bad in this diagram.
In this position I think that would be a mistake. For instance, after White is hardly unhappy with , since White can Make two, then throw away. Black clearly has lost a move as a result ( ).
I am not above attempting tewari where both players have made suboptimal moves, but this is ridiculous.
I agree that the problem with the hane is the question of patching up. I do not like leaving the clamp against the hane stone.
@Mark356:
To second what topazg says, maybe the knight's move was a better attack than the attachment, but that is water under the bridge. Besides, in return he gave you a hane at the head of two stones. How bad can that be?
_________________ The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on? — Winona Adkins
This stone is for stability and liberties. I need life as soon as possible regardless of whether I'm going for territory or influence.
So there's essentially 2 options here.
If White decides to strengthen his group on the side, then I expand my group, albeit at a loss compared to what it would have been if I'd just played the different keima. Diagram is same as previous:
And at this point, both me and White would be weak and cut off on the outside, so I'd be a weak group chasing a weaker group, and I'd be happy with that.
If he cuts high and presses to the side, I stretch up:
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Magicwand
is pretty well forced. If he pulls back I stand with 
. Then 
yields the familiar tsuke-nobi shape. I can't stand a clamp against 
, so I make shape with 
. 
repairs his wall, but Black is overconcentrated. I don't think that this is as good for White on the left side as simply pulling back, but White does get the time to extend on the top side.
, are you kidding? And now I get to repair my cutting point. 
@ 
?
and 
. 
as a response to the pull back. To me 
would be a mistake. For instance, after 
White is hardly unhappy with 
, since White can Make two, then throw away. Black clearly has lost a move as a result ( 
).