Double Invasion between two different types of frameworks.

[oso]

$$Wc White just invaded at one. Black ignored and made an invasion of his own.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . X , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc White just invaded at one. Black ignored and made an invasion of his own.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . X , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Question:

How would this situation develop from here? Which invasion was more sensible? Who has the better prospects to benefit from their respective invasions? Who has the best prospects of surviving their respective invasion?

I leave you with this rather obscure proverb: "He who is thick is often narrow, She who is thin is often wide.", which has atracted my attention as a curiousity. I don't know what it means, but it has often mystified me.

[HermanHiddema]

Your initial position has 8 black stones and 6 white stones.

[mw42]

Your initial position has 8 black stones and 6 white stones.

Possibly a two-stone game with free placement.

Anyway, has room for two-space extension on either side while has room to run in the center. If I were white, I'd attack and defend in turn. If white didn't feel her invasion would live, she shouldn't have played it so she should trust her reading and not allow black easy life in her area.

[LovroKlc]

white looks much better. what are the two stones on lower side doing on the 2nd line??

[oso]

Actually, it's research for a computer go engine I'm developing. Both frameworks were generated by fragments of code using two different algorithms. The first was, essentially, additive, territorialist, and nominalist. The second algorithm uses a unique method for calculating thickness that I am working on.

I'm still doing additional testing.

[Dusk Eagle]

The black algorithm needs some work. If there are no other stones touching the stone you are about to play, it is almost always a mistake to play stones on the second or fifth lines. Second line is too low and doesn't generate good territory; fifth line is too easy to invade. Black is also overconcentrated in the top. Despite the fact that black has a move advantage, white will probably win this game. I don't even like as an invasion - it would look much better at C14 or C12 then C13, as these are good points of invasion around fourth-line stones.

[Horibe]

Question:

How would this situation develop from here? Which invasion was more sensible? Who has the better prospects to benefit from their respective invasions? Who has the best prospects of surviving their respective invasion?

I do not disagree with any of the comments so far, but I will attempt to answer the questions...at least the the second and third ones.

"Sensible" is a tricky word. In terms of correctness, I prefer the white invasion. It is arguably the best invasion point in black's position, and it should not have much trouble living. The black invasion is not terrible, but there are many other choices that are at least as good, and perhaps better. Dealing with the white invasion, which numerically appears to be first, is more urgent than this invasion.

"Sensible" in the sense of survival prospects, or question two, is a different story. The white invasion, though correct, could probably come under a little more pressure, but not enough to die.

[oso]

Yes. If you notice, each of the black stones is on a column/row by itself with respect to the other black stones. It depends, but using both algorithms together does have its uses.

[oren]

Yes. If you notice, each of the black stones is on a column/row by itself with respect to the other black stones. It depends, but using both algorithms together does have its uses.

Why do you think that it's beneficial to have them on different rows/columns?

[Dusk Eagle]

Yes. If you notice, each of the black stones is on a column/row by itself with respect to the other black stones. It depends, but using both algorithms together does have its uses.

Could you explain what you mean?

$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . Y . . . . Y . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . Y . . . . Y . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[oso]

Got three minutes left on the computer.

Essentially, the algorithm that generated the black sequence was not meat to generate frameworks. It was actually meant for something else... urm... It's hard to explain. Essentially, however, it helps with getting territory. A by product is really thin moves. hence the second algorithm.

gotta go. My time is up.