Life In 19x19

Uberdude wrote:I'm interested that you recommend Rin's book, I've seen that around but not read it; I'll take a look sometime.

Rin's 基本 布石 事典 (basic fuseki dictionary) is available as a two-volume edition in Japanese.
It has been published originally in 1978, a (maybe revised) newer edition has been published in 1996.

Like Ishida's Jôseki Dictionary, there is a new version of this book available now, published in 2008.
This is 新版 基本布石事典 (new edition - basic fuseki dictionary) by Yoda Norimoto, e.g. available with amazon.co.jp:

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/481820594X
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4818205958

2,520 Yen each.

Uberdude wrote:Do you have some examples of these weak moves?

Not ready at hand. I would need to parse the book to find them again.

Also what is your basis for saying it has weak moves?

My years of non-stop experience with and related understanding of center influence strategy.

I don't know how strong the original author was, but the translator is stronger than you so would have thought not too many howlers would be let through.

The problem is mainly related to center influence moves (when the shapes are non-standard ones, i.e. not san-ren-sei) and is rather systematic throughout the book, although only a few diagrams are affected because rather few show greatly emphasised center influence patterns.

Your san-ren-sei example shows a correct move.

Robert Jasiek said:

The problem is mainly related to center influence moves (when the shapes are non-standard ones, i.e. not san-ren-sei) and is rather systematic throughout the book, although only a few diagrams are affected because rather few show greatly emphasised center influence patterns.

I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, just raising a note of caution. The notion of a "centre-influence strategy" seems too naive for a pro and doesn't seem to me to accord with how such positions are written about in Japanese. While duly noting the proviso about non-standard positions, my sense of what is going on is that it is more likely that the pro is playing what Matthew Macfadyen brilliantly called a virtual-territory strategy. In other words, a large area is mapped out and Black (here) is saying, "I've created a space in which I can make two (or sometimes three) territories. If you play inside my large area, I don't know which portions will turn into territory for me, but one of them (the virtual territory) will for certain." This accords with commentaries on such games which accentuate the sides rather than the centre. Of course the centre is still the elephant in the room. If the opponent ignores that aspect, the centre can dominate, but at pro level I think it rarely does.

Since a virtual-territory strategy typically includes aspects such as the sides as well as the centre, which adds richness in the form of heightened-value early boundary plays, as well probes and invasions, so that there is a greater range of options for both sides than with a centre-influence strategy, which tends to be simplistic, I'd be inclined to believe that Rin's suggestions take account of all that richness, and his moves are more likely to be correct than those of a one-trick pony.

John Fairbairn wrote:the pro is playing [...] a virtual-territory strategy [...]

I considered such alternatives because I had been used to apply them.