Finally A Win In An Even Game

Post your games here for other members to critique your play.
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Finally A Win In An Even Game

Post by hyperpape »

Tapir, I found both approaches using the original four moves. I assume Ed found the same, but used the more common formation to get bigger, more significant numbers.
User avatar
daniel_the_smith
Gosei
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:51 am
Rank: 2d AGA
GD Posts: 1193
KGS: lavalamp
Tygem: imapenguin
IGS: lavalamp
OGS: daniel_the_smith
Location: Silicon Valley
Has thanked: 152 times
Been thanked: 330 times
Contact:

Re: Finally A Win In An Even Game

Post by daniel_the_smith »

The high approach definitely feels good to me in this position, but I think Joaz is explaining too much with it. I would be shocked to find that at pro level, the high approach was worth 5 points more than the low approach (2 would be believable). In games where groups needlessly die, this is NOT the low-hanging fruit.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com
User avatar
EdLee
Honinbo
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
GD Posts: 312
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 2070 times

Post by EdLee »

hyperpape, interesting suggestions. :) Here are the results:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Code: Select all

                   (a) Low approach            (b) High approach
1952 - 2002:         6 pro games                14 pro games
Since 1960:          4 pro games                 4 pro games
Since 1990:          2 pro games                 2 pro games
Post Reply