Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote: Still, that is not the 3-3 invasion that traditional wisdom deems problematic. With the Chinese Fuseki there is an extension to the 9-3, and, as I said in that case this particular 3-3 invasion appears to be new. If pros are reassessing it, that does not mean that they are going against the traditional wisdom against a premature invasion at the 3-3. With a closer extension the 3-3 invasion after an initial keima approach is one joseki.

OK. Let me try to find some common ground. As I said, multiple views are quite acceptable in Go. When black gets a wall after the 3-3 invasion, black does not want to have any stones too close to that wall for efficiency reason. 10-3 surely looks too close. Maybe pros thought that 9-3 is an acceptable distance in the past so they did not invade 3-3 so early in Chinese Fuseki. But their views seem to change now.

In my original post, I simply wants to say that it is generally speaking not a good idea to allow your opponent to have a wall when the board is still mostly empty. in that game is indeed against this general rule.

Polama wrote:Hence this cycle of moves going into and out of vogue.

I think there is more to it, komi has changed, and now certain lines of play are deemed too slack, and calm development is more prominent. One thing I suspect is that the shin fuseki era was a consequence of the introduction of komi, and that after the shin fuseki was over the post-shin fuseki is actually more caudified than it was prior. IE people played 3-4, 3-5, and 3-3 more often before, which pro players seldom play and now everyone plays hoshi.

I believe that komi was being experimented with, but was not nearly universal (and maybe not even used for most games) in the Shin Fuseki period.

SmoothOper wrote:

Polama wrote:Hence this cycle of moves going into and out of vogue.

I think there is more to it, komi has changed, and now certain lines of play are deemed too slack, and calm development is more prominent. One thing I suspect is that the shin fuseki era was a consequence of the introduction of komi, and that after the shin fuseki was over the post-shin fuseki is actually more caudified than it was prior. IE people played 3-4, 3-5, and 3-3 more often before, which pro players seldom play and now everyone plays hoshi.

Certainly, I don't disagree that Go theory improves over time and that particular refutations are discovered that invalidate a one accepted line. But my ill informed opinion is that that's the fate of a minority of once common moves. Especially when we're talking about moves no longer being played in the interim of their achieving popularity and their appearance in Go literature: I think that's a lot more about 'most pro's know how to navigate this branch well now' then 'we've since learned that's not a good a way to play'.

Also, the 3-3 was fairly popular in the mid twentieth century, several decades after the shinfuseki era.

Bantari wrote:And two more important points:
1. The fact that pros try other ideas now does not mean that the 'old' ideas are bad, by no means!
2. It is yet to be seen if any of the 'new' ideas are actually viable instead of just being a quick experimental side-step soon to be discarded.

So I personally would be *very* suspicious of people saying stuff like 'old fuseki books are obsolete'.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first two points. However, I see no reason to be suspicious of people saying that old fuseki books are obsolete. When people say this, they may simply want to say that professional opinions on fuseki in books may disagree with current professional opinions on fuseki. That's not the same thing as obsolescence, but many people consider them equivalent. It just so happens that professional opinion, justly or unjustly, changes over time (and sometimes back to an older opinion!). People may have the wrong notion of obsolescence in mind rather than any nefarious motive to stand out.

I do think that some old fuseki books are obsolete in one sense: The same content may be available now with better writing/explanations.

skydyr wrote:Also, the 3-3 was fairly popular in the mid twentieth century, several decades after the shinfuseki era.

Indeed! The latest Ing Cup winner Fan Tingyu has also played around with 3-3 openings in recent years.

lemmata wrote:

Bantari wrote:And two more important points:
1. The fact that pros try other ideas now does not mean that the 'old' ideas are bad, by no means!
2. It is yet to be seen if any of the 'new' ideas are actually viable instead of just being a quick experimental side-step soon to be discarded.

So I personally would be *very* suspicious of people saying stuff like 'old fuseki books are obsolete'.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first two points. However, I see no reason to be suspicious of people saying that old fuseki books are obsolete. When people say this, they may simply want to say that professional opinions on fuseki in books may disagree with current professional opinions on fuseki.

Good point, but I think I disagree.

I mean - is there are reason to consider that just because pros are experimenting with new ideas they think old ideas are bad? I see no reason for that at all. And if the old ideas are still good, in spite of pros' experimentation, you cannot really call these books 'obsolete'.

Just like you cannot call 'obsolete' a book on basic L&D just because such shapes (almost) never happen in pro games anymore.

I assure you - to play the new stuff as pros do, they simply *must* understand the basic principles from the 'old' books very well before they can even think of any new experiments. You must learn to walk before you can run. Or they would not have played the new stuff. And this, if nothing else, in itself, makes the 'old' books still valuable.

So I still stand by what I said: I am *very* suspicious of people calling old fuseki books obsolete. At best, I'd say they did not think this through very well. And also, I think such attitudes convey a very bad advice to the players who can still learn a lot from such books. This is ,mostly, why I am coming down on them so hard.

macelee wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Still, that is not the 3-3 invasion that traditional wisdom deems problematic. With the Chinese Fuseki there is an extension to the 9-3, and, as I said in that case this particular 3-3 invasion appears to be new. If pros are reassessing it, that does not mean that they are going against the traditional wisdom against a premature invasion at the 3-3. With a closer extension the 3-3 invasion after an initial keima approach is one joseki.

OK. Let me try to find some common ground. As I said, multiple views are quite acceptable in Go. When black gets a wall after the 3-3 invasion, black does not want to have any stones too close to that wall for efficiency reason. 10-3 surely looks too close. Maybe pros thought that 9-3 is an acceptable distance in the past so they did not invade 3-3 so early in Chinese Fuseki. But their views seem to change now.

In my original post, I simply wants to say that it is generally speaking not a good idea to allow your opponent to have a wall when the board is still mostly empty. in that game is indeed against this general rule.

I think that we do have a good bit of common ground. I'll be traveling for a while, so I'm not sure when I'll be back online.

The usual opening books do not give a complete overview on opening theory. Part of the old opening books suggest principles that are outdated in today's broader theories. It would be an exaggeration to call the old books obsolete, because it is still important to understand WHY some of their theory is outdated.

Old: Corners - side - center.
New: Everything is possible, but corners - side - center remains possible and popular.

Old: Early 3-3 under 4-4 is bad.
New: Exceptionally, early 3-3 under 4-4 is possible if the global judgement (territory / influence etc. ) of the current position permits it.

Old (simplified): 4-4 double kakari must lean to develop the wider side.
New: Many aspects must be taken into account for a good decision.

Old: Opposing komokus are bad.
New: Usually, the guideline holds, but exceptional aspects can lead to a different decision.

Kajiwara: [Development] direction of play determines the opening.
Strong Korean amateurs (AFA I have been told): Ridiculous theory.
New: Development direction is just one of many aspects to be considered.

Old fashion.
New fashion.

Old: Particular (joseki) sequences were not know yet.
New: New knowledge refutes a few old openings related to particular sequences.

Old: smaller komi.
New: greater komi.

Old: less flexibility.
New: more flexibility.


Summary: modern opening involves more go theory, allows more flexibility and is more tolerant towards explaining rather than dismissing a greater variety of strategies.

For the amateur, understanding strong players' opening has become more difficult, because more go theory and tenukis are involved. Strong players understand the standards and so can frequently deviate from them, relying on non-obvious theory, strategy and planning.

The opening has become like the middle game: complex exchanges and sacrifices (of unplayed standard good opening moves) are possible.

Bill, I disagree that textbooks merely describe already existing pro play.

Bill Spight wrote:
Approaching from the open side in this case looks like what pros used to ridicule as playing where the stone makes the loudest sound. (They still do, BTW.

'cept the ones who play on KGS.

I think one of the confusing things, is that there are styles to the play, so taking an example from a game with a corner invasion, and saying it doesn't make any sense based on books on moyos and influence, it will seem wrong. Invading the corner early works, if you can get and maintain sente. Of course even one invasion like that would ruin an O-moyo strategy.

Robert, you paint a caricature of "old" professional play that is entirely inaccurate. Professional play is, was, and always has been, far more flexible than slavishly following a few proverbs.

HermanHiddema wrote:Robert, you paint a caricature of "old" professional play that is entirely inaccurate. Professional play is, was, and always has been, far more flexible than slavishly following a few proverbs.

Very true. Look at Go Seigan and Fujisawa Hosai. Their styles were quite different but both were considered to be the strongest players of their day. Go Seigan was noted for his "modern" 4-4 openings. Fujisawa Hosai often opened on the 3-3 and played a more territorial game. Almost opposite approaches to go and yet both were played by high level pros.

My opinion is that if a move was good enough for Shusaku, it certainly is good enough for me.

It doesn't matter how much theory has progressed. At my level I'm not going to lose games because I'm not playing according to modern principles, I'm going to lose because I suck and I'll make many awful blunders in the game.

The problem is that old books won't be resources for joseki/fuseki that are in use today.

You can play all the same joseki that Shusaku used, but the modern responses are completely different.

Personally I prefer using databases, but the pro and con is that you're responsible for figuring out why moves are now played.