Do you play the low approach to a 3-4 point?

tapir · Post by **tapir** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:58 am

I would like to know, whether you play the low approach to 3-4 points. As I know EGF dan players, who never play it, this should be a legitimate question. If I am right in supposing many players don't even consider playing low approaches, we should discuss why this is the case.

Fear of complications, not enough knowledge, lack of available teaching materials, distrust in your own reading, bad experience with trick play nerds... Whatever.

Dusk Eagle · Post by **Dusk Eagle** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:59 am

I play it, but I find it hard to know when to approach high and when to approach low. I find I tend to approach high rather than low more often because I can figure out how the high approache variations will factor into the whole board better than the low approaches. But locally, I like them both. I should probably approach low more often - it might help me get a better feel for what I can expect whole-board-wise from it.

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:04 am

Yes, sometimes, and I am comfortable with it should have been an option

ez4u · Post by **ez4u** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:06 am

The poll may be a little too abstract to promote a good discussion. As a more concrete example, consider the following...

Based on the Summer 2011 GoGoD database's 2,000+ games since 2002 (i.e. roughly the 6.5 point komi era) with the following side position, professional White plays the low approach at "a" about six times more often than the high approach at "b" (1752 versus 279). Which do you prefer and why?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Search Pattern $$ ---------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . a b . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ ----------------------[/go]

flOvermind · Post by **flOvermind** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:05 am

It depends on the top right corner.

When the top side has potential to become big, I like to approach high, because that helps limiting the development of the top side. E.g., the most common joseki ends with a black low position that deemphasises the top side, while white builds a framework on the left side, working well with the bottom left hoshi.

For example, with a black shimari or wall facing the top side, I almost always approach high.

On the other hand, when the top side is already uninteresting (e.g. solid/low white position in the top right corner), I like to approach low. The reason is more or less the opposite of the above: When the opponent presses me low, and takes the top, I'm content with me getting the more interesting side.

In both situations, there is of course the possibility that the opponent could pincer instead. But I like being pincered, it makes the game more interesting

lovely · Post by **lovely** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:09 am

Yeah, it's always dependent on the position for me as well, but if I can get away with high I always go high.

gowan · Post by **gowan** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:06 am

Of course there can be no simple rule regarding when to play high and when low, but in ez4u's position often the high move is played when there is potential for a White moyo, and the low move is played when white is playing a more territorial game. With just these stones on the left side, not considering any on the rest of the board, I'd play the low approach myself. I don't think there is much difference between the two approaches as far as possible difficult joseki variations is concerned.

tapir · Post by **tapir** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:49 am

ez4u wrote:The poll may be a little too abstract to promote a good discussion. As a more concrete example, consider the following...

I always feel bad when I approach high, because I give away so much territory in the standard, attach, hane etc. line. I try to do this only when there is a stone of the opponents colour in my back. If you look at my games, especially the rapid ones, you may find that I am inconsistent.

Post by **Solomon** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:35 pm

snorri · Post by **snorri** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:34 pm

This is probably one of those cases where limited repetoire is possible. If you never play the 3-4 point yourself and never play the low approach, then something like 1/2 of all josekis can't occur in your game, so you don't have to learn as much. But then you're always trying to play for moyo or fighting. If that's the only kind of game you are interested in and you're fine living in that universe, it may be okay.

However, this analysis may be too simplistic. In Yilun Yang's Workshop lectures Vol. 4., there is a chapter titled "Playing a Fighting Opening." Mr. Yang looks at this position and works out a number of variations for both a black play at 'a' and at 'b'. He then makes the argument that if black really wants to fight in this situation, the low approach at 'a' is a better option. With the high approach at 'b', white can always go for territory by playing at 'a', seeking a territorial game. Even if black tries to start the avalanche at 'c', white can choose a territorial variation.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . c . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . a b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

So if you like fights, maybe the low approach can be handy, too.

To be honest, I'm not wholly convinced by that chapter, though. The reason is that :w2:

and 'a' are playable for white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . a 2 . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In the end, I think it's important to learn a few styles. You can't just say "I want a fight" or "I want a moyo" because 2 people play this game.

hyperpape · Post by **hyperpape** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:18 pm

I play it, but a minority of the time. When I learned the game, I learned a small set of joseki from other players, to simplify the game. Now I think that was a mistake, and I wish I would have just been told to play and try things out (with more experienced players giving me a suggestion from time to time). So I learned those most basic responses to the high approach, and kept playing it.

Occasionally, I can see that the high approach is bad, sometimes I play the low approach because I don't want to always play the same things. It sounds like I should be playing low even more often.

Dante31 · Post by **Dante31** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:29 pm

Depending how the game goes, I play it. I see it played often enough to be honest.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:55 pm

3rd line for territory, 4th line for influence. That's about as deep as I think about the matter.

Fedya · Post by **Fedya** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:49 pm

When I play the high approach, I worry that I'll get pincered and have difficulty getting an eye on the side.

When I play the low approach, I worry about getting stuck with a badly shaped group if my opponent plays the pincer. It's not as though you can jump into the corner the way you can against a 4-4 stone.

Life In 19x19