I quite like playing this stone high here because of my hoshi stone in the top left. I read that generally when you have the adjacent hoshi stone like this, a high stone is better than a low one after the approach on move 13. Black's position seems very low on the bottom. Black playing around J4 would be good so he's not so low, and I don't see quite how to prevent that here. Black could either do that on his next move, or first exchange D2 for C3. I don't really like him getting this - it looks too good for black. So, I'll pincer instead. This allows me to invade the bottom directly.
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:48 pm
by EdLee
Simba,
Simba wrote:I considered the option below, but it looked too good for black
Why do you think it's too good for B? Could you quantify it based on counting or some arguments, or was it just a feeling that you cannot explain?
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:08 pm
by 1986
for obs
that last move was i dont know if this is good for white
i think i yangs book on fundamentals he says something like when the enemy has stones nearby you pincer loose and when you have stones nearby you pincer tight maybe a 2 or 3 space pincer would have worked better or a different joseki
its just a thought
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:29 pm
by Aphelion
I would happily dive into the corner as Black. The bottom is small, and blocking the other way ends in gote, so either way its a great situation.
Simba wrote:I considered the option below, but it looked too good for black
Why do you think it's too good for B? Could you quantify it based on counting or some arguments, or was it just a feeling that you cannot explain?
Well, if I did that, black gets a ton of space at the bottom that already looks fairly secure and I have very little to show for it in return (a little bit on the right and a small bit in the bottom left). Maybe I messed up on the right hand side... But that is joseki as far as I'm aware... Hmm... It looks like I'm quite far behind already though if I let black get all that at the bottom. The pincer allows me to get some of the bottom rather than awarding it all to black in exchange for a much less secure and smaller area on the left. I suck so badly at fuseki ...
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:29 pm
by Aphelion
Simba:
A few stones on the bottom doesn't mean "secure bottom". Black needs to do far more in order to secure an entire side as definite territory.
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:22 pm
by Simba
Aphelion wrote:Simba:
A few stones on the bottom doesn't mean "secure bottom". Black needs to do far more in order to secure an entire side as definite territory.
Hmm, but where would I invade? Around L4? It just seems a bit cramped. I don't have much room and would have to run out into the middle whilst black could chase and make points whilst doing so.
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:25 pm
by Jordus
I feel very tempted to take the corner with (a)... that will give me control of 3 corners... making my main mode of play as now reducing whites chances of large moyos... hmmmm....
A few stones on the bottom doesn't mean "secure bottom". Black needs to do far more in order to secure an entire side as definite territory.
Hmm, but where would I invade? Around L4? It just seems a bit cramped. I don't have much room and would have to run out into the middle whilst black could chase and make points whilst doing so.
Simba:
What exactly are you afraid of? I see nothing to fear buy giving Black 2 moves on the bottom. Depending on what Black does, there are loads of ways to reduce /invade.
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:20 pm
by Aphelion
Simba:
At Move 12, why high and not low?
Re: Malkovich 113- Jordus v. Simba
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:23 am
by Simba
Aphelion wrote:Simba:
At Move 12, why high and not low?
If I were to extend on D6? I read in a book that if you have the adjacent hoshi point in that direction (which I do at D16), you should favour the high extension over the low one. As for what I'm afraid of, well, it doesn't look trivial for me to erode much of his territory at the bottom after he gets in J4 especially. I could aim at L4 as I said, but that stone wouldn't have much room and would just get chased with black making profit while doing so. I'm probably missing something - like I said, my fuseki skills are terrible, but all I can go by is my logic .
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:43 am
by EdLee
Simba,
Simba wrote:if I did that, black gets a ton of space at the bottom
Could you rank the relative sizes of the gaps: (a)(between and ); (b)(between and ); (c)( ... ); (d)( ... ) from the biggest to the smallest...
...and how does this relate to your feeling of the urgency of (d)?
I'm not really sure I'm afraid - I'm not sure how to evaluate concretely how big a move is. I mean, c looks really big for example at first glance, but then I realise "Oh, that's not even the tiniest bit secure, my opponent could invade if I played c so easily." If I had to play on one of those four points, I'd choose a. This quite securely gets me some more space, and it also prevents black from going here. Maybe I should've tenukied black's approach on F3 and played a instead? Mmm, didn't even consider that...
EdLee wrote:Simba,
Aphelion wrote:Simba: At Move 12, why high and not low?
Simba wrote:If I were to extend on D6?
No, I think Aph meant how did you decide between (4th line) versus (a) 3rd line:
Ahhh, okay, I see. Well, because black has strength in the top right, so I'd rather take a more secure, low move than a high move. It's kind of the other side of the reason as to why I was going to play high in response to black's approach at F3 .
...
and 
and 
... 
... 
(4th line) versus (a) 3rd line: