topazg wrote:Bill Spight wrote:Anyway, big in the proverb does not refer to the size of play, but to the type of play. (Technically, it refers to a region of the board where you make a play.) Big plays sketch out large positions or prevent the opponent from doing so. Their primary point is influence, that is, their effect upon empty points. Urgent plays are fighting plays. Their primary point is their effect upon stones.
Would you describe a move that is territorially big (perhaps on the 3rd line, approaching an enemy group) and tactically urgent (destabilises the enemy group) as both "big" and "urgent" not because of it being _really_ big, but because it has both of the above properties separately? Does the fact it's urgent (and therefore the sort of move you're both desperate to play) increase it's "bigness" to you?
As I was writing my post I considered the approach to a corner. Is it big or urgent? My own sense is that there is a fuzziness to the classification, but I would consider an approach more urgent than big. At the same time, I doubt if the proverb really applies, or if it does, that the approach would be considered big by comparison. I do not know what pro opinion is on that question.
OTOH, if the approach is combined with, say, a 4-4 stone in the adjacent corner, to my mind its "bigness" increases, and it is also a very good play. More generally, dual purpose plays are good.
, Ishida says that