Life In 19x19

@Edlee:

Samura wrote: As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones

Honinbo Shuei makes me feel like a beginner too: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 41#p116641

I love Honinbo Shuei, his style is so... "natural". I know it's a fuzzy word, but every time I watch his games I got the feel that I understand what his is doing.

Cho Chikun, on the contrary....

mitsun wrote:Sometimes it is good to be skeptical

Here is a common technique to reduce a large B framework.
After this sequence, where does W play to make shape?

After this move, it B cuts, W can just sacrifice some stones, maintaining a good outside position.

$$W Continuation
$$ -------------------------
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . . X X O 2 3 . . . .
$$ | . . X , O 4 . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . O 5 . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Continuation
$$ -------------------------
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . . X X O 2 3 . . . .
$$ | . . X , O 4 . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . O 5 . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

My problem with this kind of plays is that I have no faith in the evils of vulgarity.

I read that as:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Continuation
$$ -------------------------
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . . X X 5 X O 7 . . .
$$ | . . X , O X 3 1 2 X . .
$$ | . . . . O O 4 O 6 . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Which I don't see as magnificently better than:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , . . . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . O . . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I'm not doubting it is much better. It's just that my eyes are not ready to see giving the entire side in exchange for a wall as good, because I don't know how to use walls good enough.

I basically agree with you, but there is that ladder for w to take the top side.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc B2 Bomber
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 5 X X . .
$$ | . . 2 3 X O O . .
$$ | . . . X O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

For my 2 pence worth, I don`t think Black is doing badly here. Yes, the peeps are irritating, but White can only live small in the corner with 6 at the 3-3, and then her stones on the outside are wasted. For instance,

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc B2 Bomber - can still fly
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 6 . . . . 8 a .
$$ | . 5 2 4 O . . . .
$$ | . 7 3 X X X X . .
$$ | . . O X X O O . .
$$ | . . . X O . . . .
$$ | . . . . 9 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

From my POV, White has lived small with bad aji and her stones on the outside have become useless. Locally, I`d prefer Black, but a lot would depend on the position as a whole. And, as jts pointed out, Black also had the option of resisting instead of making the B2 Bomber.

I think this situation, while the same shape, is different from the reduction joseki (when misplayed) that mitsun mentioned. In that case, permitting yourself to be peeped at would be to become heavy, but in this one Black simply suffers a little irritation while gaining a compensation (the wastage of White`s outside stones).

Instead of 9, Black can also block White in with a. Whether that would be better than 9 would depend on the overall position.

Anyway...don't make bad shape carefree (as Takemiya says!), but don't be dogmatic either. It all depends.

Tami,

well, I was thinking about the shape in an abstract way and the fact that it doesn't look right in any place of the board.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Dubious shape
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . X . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

As an example, in this situation for instance, the peeps help white solidify the bottom right area and don't have any cost for white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Good exchanges for white
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X 4 X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X 2 1 . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . O X X . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O O . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But forget it, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking about shapes without context is almost meaningless!

As you say, an abstract example has little meaning, so in your example, resist the peep by making a ponnuki!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Awful exchanges for white
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 6 O X 2 1 . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . 4 O X X . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 5 O O . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Samura wrote:But forget it, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking about shapes without context is almost meaningless

It could be you`re about to make a step forward in your understanding, Samura...

As far as I grasp it, shape is something that results from an exchange, not something you usually make in isolation. In other words, if you get a ponnuki as a result of capturing a stone, it is usually a blessed and lovely thing, but if you were to make one simply by adding a stone to a tiger`s mouth, it probably won`t have the same effect. So, to make shape you have to read carefully. Often it`s better to sacrifice to get a good shape than it is to hold on to stones in bad shape. Good shape helps you to fight effectively - as in the example Alguien gives.

Go is very, very, very, difficult. Sometimes good shape is good, and sometimes it isn`t. Sometimes bad shape is bad, and sometimes it isn`t.

The way I use "good shape" is to consider them first when making a move (prioritize in order to cut down the amount of reading I have to do). I also have a mental database with some of the key points (e.g. liberty shortage problem with bamboo joints, peeps for tiger mouths, cutting points, influence outside, endgame potential) that I use to evaluate (also to cut down the amount of reading required). I suspect that all players have such a database.

For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.

cyclops wrote:For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.

Maybe I`ll make a complete nurk of myself by attempting to explain, but here we go:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Ponnuki and ponnuki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . X . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The top left is a common joseki. Black could play at a to make a ponnuki, but I can`t imagine there would be many players who would. It`s more efficient to play away from the strong tiger`s mouth shape than to add to it.

In the lower right, Black needs to capture the White stone, before it runs away and causes trouble. Since Black needs to capture the stone, it is not a wasted move to make the ponnuki shape - far from it, in fact. After capturing, Black`s shape is extremely strong, and he has gained this only by doing what was necessary.

So, just making a ponnuki in isolation is adding strength to strength - inefficient and slow. But capturing a stone to make a ponnuki is to create something powerful by completing a necessary task - that is very efficient.

cyclops wrote:For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.

Just a random thought, after seeing Tami's Post #27 (maybe it's redundant, not sure):

For the lower right corner, W only needs to add 1 move to get this result (huge difference if captures here instead)...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B :b1: tenuki
$$. . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$, . . . . X O X . . |
$$. . . . . . X . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . |
$$---------------------[/go]

...but for the upper left corner (yes, stones removed), W needs 2 moves (much less urgent for at here):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ :b1: tenuki, :b3: tenuki
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . , X 4 X . . ,
$$ | . . . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

PS. Is "efficiënt" more ëfficiënt than mere "efficient" ?

Tami wrote:Go is very, very, very, difficult.

Certainly.

Tami wrote:Sometimes good shape is good, and sometimes it isn`t. Sometimes bad shape is bad, and sometimes it isn`t.

I seem to recall multiple other instances of this discussion,
and I seem to remember some people disagree with this, but here's my take on it:
We always look at the results. We don't look at any shapes in isolation, but always in context.

If a shape merely looks "ugly" or "bad" (e.g. empty triangle, dumpling, broken shape, etc.) but works, it WORKS!!
Conversely, even if a shape looks "pretty" or "good," if it does not work, it DOES NOT WORK!!

So:
Sometimes, a good-looking or pretty shape works. (Do you call it a "good shape"? If and only if it works?)
Sometimes, a good-looking or pretty shape fails. (Problem: do you say it's a "good" shape that fails, or simply a "bad" shape?)
Sometimes, a bad-looking or ugly shape fails. (Do you call it a "bad shape"? If and only if it fails?)
Sometimes, a bad-looking or ugly shape works. (Problem: do you say it's a "bad" shape that works, or simply a "good" shape?)

EdLee wrote: PS. Is "efficiënt" more ëfficiënt than mere "efficient" ?

If he has a Dutch auto spell, I'm sure it is.