Life In 19x19

S2W wrote: intellectually I've heard the arguments for making your opponent over-concentrated, but in the heat of the game...

Same trap. See previous, post 15.

S2W wrote:I guess I'm always a little wary of taking the fight to white to early in a handicap game. My strategy is to play defensively...

Good question...

Hi S2W,

Factoid:Catch-22:

Hi S2W,

Another view:

Hello Ed,

I understand your point about not searching for a one size fits all answer. Go is complex after all and there are always caveats to any situation. However, when I ask a fuzzy question like "When to use the double approach?" or "When to resign?", I'm really searching for a fuzzy answer with the understanding that it won't apply all the time.

Perhaps the thing that I didn't express well enough, was the depth of my own ignorance (<- bet you that gets quoted). Specifically, regarding the double approach, I don't see it used that much in my games and as I mentioned before when I do its usually as a response to a Tenuchi (fair enough that's understandable as a way to play it) or as a "whoops I chose the wrong direction - lets jump over here instead" (also understandable).

What Bill's post seems to suggest is that there is a third way to use the double approach - as a strategy in its own right without relying on the tenuchi - or possibly as a type of probe. If this is true (and again I'm still not 100% sure that this is the case - again the depths of my ignorance are great), then there must be a reason behind choosing it over the other options available, and I'm guessing there are some heuristics that can help you to know when to consider such a move.

However, I will try to ask a more specific questions in the future (and append one on the double approach shortly) - with a caveat of my own. Most of the time I only have access to my ipod for typing on the journal - which I find slow and painful compared to a keyboard - so forgive me if I take shortcuts from time to time.

S2W wrote:What Bill's post seems to suggest is that there is a third way to use the double approach - as a strategy in its own right without relying on the tenuchi - or possibly as a type of probe. If this is true (and again I'm still not 100% sure that this is the case - again the depths of my ignorance are great), then there must be a reason behind choosing it over the other options available, and I'm guessing there are some heuristics that can help you to know when to consider such a move.

"Joseki choice" is one of the harder parts of the game for novices - probably up there with the endgame, though for diametrically opposite reasons. All you have to do (!) is to be able to imagine the outcome of the standard lines, impose them on the board position, and then assess the result (i.e. make a judgement). The factors in the judgement are best learned in examples, e.g. Yang Yi-lun's type of teaching.

So to simplify that a little, people tend to look what is in the adjacent corner areas (strong and weaker groups, high and lower stones, for example). It is harder to achieve anything against strong groups and low, well-fortified stones. Then this kind of reasoning can be used in a more approximate way, such as "if I'm building a group here, I'd prefer it to be on the right side rather than on the lower side".

In that way you can get clues as to direction, and they can be valuable even if (a) your opponent doesn't know the joseki you do, or (b) it is a special context and joseki don't necessarily give a right answer, or (c) there are too many variations (e.g. the normal low approach to a 4-4 point, where there are about 10 main ways to play, but you still have to choose a side), or (d) the variations include running fights, so they don't really end, or (e) sente is very important, so tenuki is an option.

Hi S2W,

I'm on an iPhone 4S sometimes (right now), which is difficult enough.
I can't imagine typing on an iPod !!! Wow.

Your fuzzy question is OK ( I used to ask them a lot;
I've since learned. )

In this limited thread space, you'll usually see two types of replies:
- fuzzy ones (words, words, words — e.g. posts 15—19, 21);
- very short, specific ones, with only a few shallow variations.

Both are merely a start, like the first 1/2 step in a 1,000-mike journey.

tenuki.

Heuristics often are traps in Go. You want to start to learn about
the double approach ? Play it everywhere, then have the games reviewed.
You'll die many horrible deaths. You'll also get some
good results from the double approach.

Words alone don't cut it. Let's see specific variations!

S2W wrote: Perhaps the thing that I didn't express well enough, was the depth of my own ignorance (<- bet you that gets quoted). Specifically, regarding the double approach, I don't see it used that much in my games

You can be the first kid on your block to use it.

What Bill's post seems to suggest is that there is a third way to use the double approach - as a strategy in its own right

Indeed it is a strategic option in its own right. It may be best to view a double approach (there are others) as a counter-pincer. Responding to a pincer with a counter-pincer is a common option in just about every joseki.

In the actual game the result after the 3-3 response was predictable. It is then obvious that Black has to do something about the huge White framework, and what do to about it is not obvious. It is like the old joke where the patient tells the doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I do this," and the doctor replies, "Then don't do that." Why make problems for yourself?

The double approach avoids that problem and besides, there is plenty of room for the double approach stone to make a base.

As Charles Matthews indicates, this is a question of judgement. You develop judgement by exercising it. Experience is your teacher. There is an unavoidable aspect of go of jumping into the river to learn how to swim. One reason, IMO, for not studying joseki too early on in your go career is that if you merely follow joseki you are not exercising your judgement. (There is judgement, too, in the choice of joseki, as Charles indicates.) In any event, sooner or later in every game you will have to rely upon yourself. The sooner the better, IMO.

Thanks for clearing that up Bill.

Ed/Bill/Charles I've taken your advice about trying it out and played two double approaches on dgs - in 30 days or so we should see how they work out .

I also did a search of some pro games to see if I could find when the double approach was played in a similar context and the likely continuation. For my own edification here's what I found/worked out as a possible continuation:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Moves 10 to 14
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . O . , . . . 4 . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Admittedly I didn't find any pro games with a stone quite so close on the rhs - but there were a few with weak groups on the equivalent of the upper rhs and the response was still to attach to the stone (then again maybe there is a stronger response here). This allows black the opportunity to approach the upper right group and settle their stones with something like (this last move may be wrong - I'm winging it a bit).

It seems the advantage here over just playing straight out is that white has to respond twice to giving black the extra time to attack. White gets a large potential but there is still aji in the first black stone and the territory is perhaps not that big/solid anyway because black can still come back to the corner or play the monkey jump from the other side.

How did I do?

Ps. For next time: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" - loads of blood, lots of terrible play, will I emerge victorious? Pps. I also played the infamous center shimari on wbaduk - and won! That was a weird game. Unfortunately no kifu as usual.

Bill Spight wrote:You develop judgement by exercising it. Experience is your teacher. There is an unavoidable aspect of go of jumping into the river to learn how to swim. One reason, IMO, for not studying joseki too early on in your go career is that if you merely follow joseki you are not exercising your judgement.

It's an interesting topic: one of the remaining areas where "good amateur go" probably still has plenty to learn from "pro tacit knowledge". Just looking round this site, there seem plenty of examples.

You can learn the technique, but the application of the technique brings up issues. (I understood more about this matter when bothered by the "middlegame joseki" concept that was quite prominent in early go literature in English.)

There are actually two approaches, and it is as well to be aware of the difference.

The first is pragmatic: don't sweat the small stuff, and realise that joseki choice decisions often only make a difference of a couple of points. Middlegame decisions are often worth ten times that much. Endgame decisions may also only be worth a point or so, but there are many more of them.

The second is perfectionist. Is there a simple play that seems "perfect"? It should make your stones appear as well-organised as possible, while casting doubt on the organisation of your opponent's stones. Are you being minimalist (playing a vital point in a vital area), rather than fooling around? If you are giving up sente, are you getting enough for it? If these criteria are not met, then you really need to try harder, going for a more complex variation, but not for its own sake. I think this is the way to get stronger, in fact.

There is a great deal to be said for approaching on the open side, transferring your weight to the other foot, tenuki variations, and generally for forward momentum in the opening. These lead not into the shape-fixing style of joseki, which are quite restricting in some ways, but to positions where you get tested on understanding of frameworks, and sabaki in the broad sense.

S2W wrote:(...)Pps. I also played the infamous center shimari on wbaduk - and won! That was a weird game. Unfortunately no kifu as usual.

In http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic. ... uk#p141736 I posted a method, which is a bit cumbersome but at least worked well for me to extract some wbaduk games from iphone (not sure, if it also works with an ipad, though).

Thanks schawipp - I've got a Mac at home but it's good to know there's a way - if I work out an equivalent method for osx I'll let you know.

Another two games - the first is a hot mess which I can only assume my opponent lost after being lulled into a false sense of security by repeated terrible play.

The second was a similar game but (I felt) much better handled by myself.

I'm on a bit of a winning streak at the moment. Despite game 3 I feel that I'm almost at that tipping point where 9k is comfortable and 8k inevitable (it may still take a while to get it though).

Game 3


Game 4


Ps. There's comments throughout the first file but no so many vatiations. I'll fix that with the next game.

S2W wrote:How did I do?

I say bravo! You did some research and then followed that up with your own thinking.