Page 3 of 16

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:57 pm
by Bill Spight
"
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Not a criticism of :b4: in the game, but this is another approach. It is difficult for White to reply on the 3-3.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:06 pm
by topazg
I don't think there's anything wrong with chew's :b4: really. After all, particularly regarding the use of the tewari analysis, the 5-3 approach to a 3-3 is a perfectly reasonable joseki, albeit a much rarer one than the other two. With a 4-4 in the top top right, I think Black has nothing to be too unhappy about anywhere right now.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:53 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Having decided that there is nothing urgent on the right side, I'm going to look at the rest of the board.

There are moderately big plays at the top, but nothing urgent. There are bigger plays on the left side, but again, nothing urgent. On the bottom, there is an urgent issue: black can play N3. It ruins the shape of the corner, and deprives it of the natural extension along the lower side.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So my next move has to deal with that. The easiest and simplest way is to play there or immediately nearby myself.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Solid but unenterprising. 'A' works also.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . W a . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Another possibility is to play someplace along the bottom such that he can play N3, but the results are no good for him because he has insufficient room for an extension, like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black is heavy with no eyes. Moves 'b' through 'g' also work.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . e f g . 3 . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . b c d W . 1 2 . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I'm going to choose the second possibility because the first looks too passive. I'm 2 stones behind, so I need to push him a bit. Which one? I think that I can dismiss the high moves 'e', 'f', and 'g' because they leave an open skirt and can be undercut too easily:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc White has no easy follow up move.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . W , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

So it comes down to one of these:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . x x x x . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


The leftmost one is the most ambitious. It prevents the formation of an easy extension by black, but its follow up move still leaves an invasion:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Invasion possible at move 3 or later
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 . W . . 2 . 3 . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The next looks better:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc No invasion, but flat. Hard to develop quickly.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . W . . 2 . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The next is my favorite, because it has a good follow up

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc No invasion likely, and I get influence
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . . W . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Lastly, the rightmost is too small for my tastes:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc No invasion, and I get influence, but a tad small
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . . . W . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:57 am
by topazg
Maybe that explains it, it appears Joaz is unaware that what Chew has played is joseki. I think White is too thin here. Black can't approach from the lower left easily, but then, that's not urgent anyway. He now has weak points to aim at:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 7 c a b . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Both "a" and "b" can cause White some locally reasonably serious issues now. Joseki was "a" or "b" in much the same way that is here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . 2 , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . b a . . . 6 4 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:11 am
by Loons
@topazg
I may be a little rusty right now, but I am surprised we disagree again so soon. I think that Joaz' extension is joseki (not from any source, feels like a joseki and I'm sure I've seen it before). By way of local tactics- if Chew invades, I think Joaz lives with fair points in the corner (and is out) while Chew must look to his invading stone and Joaz has options concerning k3 (one stone is an aji!). - And if Chew doesn't invade, the further extension gives Joaz some options for efficiency. In a perfect world K3 would be independently bigger and Joaz would already have support with which to pressure R8, but for the start of a handicap game, I don't think these moves can really be faulted.

On a slight tangent; I think K3 extension is joseki in topazg's comparative position too, but modern style, I'm told, does favor tighter, thicker extensions (which can tenuki approaches easily).


@Chew
If Joaz had opened on the 3-3, would you have played for this joseki immediately?


And I am going to bed, KGS tournament in 7 hours (which effects my current grammar). Also topazg, we still need to play sometime!

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:31 am
by daniel_the_smith
@loons, topazg:

Joaz's move looks too far to me, as well. And, indeed, dailyjoseki.com says that pros usually play a line or two closer.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:36 am
by topazg
Loons wrote:@topazg
I may be a little rusty right now, but I am surprised we disagree again so soon. I think that Joaz' extension is joseki (not from any source, feels like a joseki and I'm sure I've seen it before). By way of local tactics- if Chew invades, I think Joaz lives with fair points in the corner (and is out) while Chew must look to his invading stone and Joaz has options concerning k3 (one stone is an aji!). - And if Chew doesn't invade, the further extension gives Joaz some options for efficiency. In a perfect world K3 would be independently bigger and Joaz would already have support with which to pressure R8, but for the start of a handicap game, I don't think these moves can really be faulted.

On a slight tangent; I think K3 extension is joseki in topazg's comparative position too, but modern style, I'm told, does favor tighter, thicker extensions (which can tenuki approaches easily).


I have no idea, you may be right, it just feels a bit open and thin somehow. Interestingly, josekipedia agrees with me, and doesn't feature Joaz' move, brugo agrees with you, and doesn't feature either of mine, dailyjoseki features the position 95 times, and displays only my options (total of 22 plays), with tenuki winning at 25 times, but also seems to typically display some stones on the bottom edge at K3, so it's hard to know if it affects it or not. Kogo's only displays L3, but not K3 or M3, however M3 is cited as joseki in Shin Hayawakari Shojiten - other than that I don't know.

Certainly, I don't think it's outright bad, but it has a bad flavour to me - something I'd want to go back and patch up sometime, and that makes me uncomfortable I guess. It's unlikely to make much difference here I think though.

Your question to chew is very pertinent though. That maybe hints that the timing was off for this approach. I think both sides have nothing to complain about yet :)

PS Yeah, we should play soon

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:47 am
by topazg
@Loons

PS Second disagreement? Did I miss one?

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:23 am
by Bill Spight
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 8 . . 7 . a . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


My sealed move. :) Aiming at "a".

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:33 am
by Joaz Banbeck
For beginners:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:...
Another possibility is to play someplace along the bottom such that he can play N3, but the results are no good for him because he has insufficient room for an extension, like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black is heavy with no eyes. Moves 'b' through 'g' also work.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . e f g . 3 . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . b c d W . 1 2 . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
...


The idea behind this is that stones along the side like extensions for eye space.

The usual rule of thumb for doing this is to extend one more than the length of your wall, like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B With one stone, extend two spaces
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . 1 . . X . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$-----------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B With two stones, extend three spaces
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . X . .
$$. . . . . 1 . . . X . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$-----------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B With three stones, extend four spaces
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . X . . .
$$. . . 1 . . . . X . . .
$$. . . . . . . . X . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$. . . . . . . . . . . .
$$-----------------------[/go]



You have probably seen this formation in some of your games:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W You kick white, but he builds a comfortable place for eyes.
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . 5 . . . 3 . X . . . |
$$. . . . . . 1 2 . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$-----------------------[/go]


So, given that rule of thumb about extensions, let's go back to the game and its possible continuation, and look at comfortable extensions or lack of comfortable extensions. Black would like to wreck my shape with N3:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black would like to have this. \nMove 5 could be at 'a' also.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . a . . . 3 . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 5 . . . 1 2 . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black is cramped and inefficient if I have something like the circled stone.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . 3 . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . W . 5 . 1 2 . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black has no room for an extension if I have the circled stone here.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . 3 . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . W . . 1 2 . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


In summary, I'm willing to let black invade. I'm just trying to structure things so that he won't be happy after he does.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:24 am
by Chew Terr
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Loons:
No, I wouldn't have approached so near the 3-3 if it was played first. However, if I'm not mistaken, from a 3-3, I think Joaz would have wanted P4 to be one further left. As a result, I don't really think it's ideal from either side, from a tewari standpoint. Maybe a BIT better for white, but I wasn't sure how else to play it. I played there second and ended up with sente, so I feel content enough.


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b . . . a . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 8 . . O . c . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was originally going to play at this point. This is kind of aiming at several things. 'a' will expand and threaten the bottom middle, 'b' will fairly solidly claim the corner and prepare for a northward extension, and the move does eye an invasion at 'c' for later. The reason I almost played here in specific is, it prevents too much silliness in the corner, works well with the left side, and denies the approach. Next, I would have expected W to wedge the left side or approach one of the top stars from the top. Thinking about it, i eventually decided that the wedge there was just really big, and that I wanted that 'largest area on the board' for myself. So yeah... last second change of plans.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:39 am
by cyclops
@ observing beginners
The above discussion about how far to extend from the lowerright shimari reminds me of problem #5 in "In the Beginning". I was just trying this problem.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:42 am
by topazg
@chew:

Why low with :b8: ?

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:48 am
by Chew Terr
Topazg:
I'm comfortable with it, for one. Also, I'm kind of hoping for side territory more than just thickness. It seems like playing high in this sort of situation yields more thickness but less territory.

Re: Malkovich 104 - Joaz vs Chew Terr

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:22 am
by Joaz Banbeck
What is this????
Chew Terr wrote: ...violent...die in a fire...bloodbath...


I play a 5-4 on the first move, and he plays the least agressive invasion, one which allows him to slide down the side rather than really contest the corner.
I make a stretched out extension, inviting the invasion, and he doesn't invade.
He makes a big, but slow play on the side.

I feel cheated. WHERE'S MY BLOODBATH??? :)