Page 3 of 3

Re: Malkovich #26 Redundant vs Lute

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:37 am
by Chew Terr
To Shaddy:
Shaddy wrote:Even if he can't, the large knight's move enclosure should be invadable.


I get that the large knight tends to be imminently invadable. However, if you were to start an invasion here, where would you start? With a large knight's from the star, I see the 3-3. But I'm typically clueless about other sorts of corner invasions, so I'm curious what you'd recommend.

Re: Malkovich #26 Redundant vs Lute

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:57 am
by Lute
I'm very, very sorry. Apparently, I missed an April 23rd court date that I totally forgot about. This is something urgent that I'll have to fix today. I will make a move tonight or if things don't go so great and I don't get home, then tomorrow morning.

It looks like he made the keima before pushing up once more. I think I can create and use some aji dealing with this. This isn't as bad as it could be BUT he will take a good amount of profit.

Re: Malkovich #26 Redundant vs Lute

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:48 am
by Shaddy
For Terr:
I was typing something up, but then I looked at Sensei's, and they had much better sequences than I could have come up with.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?LargeKnightSMoveEnclosure

Re: Malkovich #26 Redundant vs Lute

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:56 am
by Chew Terr
Thanks, Shaddy =)

Re: Move #12

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 8:06 am
by Harleqin
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 2 X 1 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


If White wants to play :w3: anyway, he should not exchange :w1: for :b2: first, because he has eliminated the continuation of white 'a'. By the way, since the ladder is good for White, he can play :w3: at 'b'. Work out the continuation of 'a' for yourself, or look it up.

The problem with :w1: is that now :w3: has only a single purpose, running out, and only one continuation, pressing down on (or attacking) the right side black stone, which Black can now simply defend with one move.

Re: Malkovich #26 Redundant vs Lute

Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 2:18 pm
by Redundant
tumbleweed004gi3.gif
tumbleweed004gi3.gif (549.12 KiB) Viewed 10156 times
...

Re: Malkovich #26 Redundant vs Lute

Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 2:56 am
by schultz
Lute wrote:I'm very, very sorry. Apparently, I missed an April 23rd court date that I totally forgot about. This is something urgent that I'll have to fix today. I will make a move tonight or if things don't go so great and I don't get home, then tomorrow morning.

Hopefully it's not because of this that he is unable to make his move. :shock:

Look forward to the resuming of this game.