Life In 19x19

I think another problem is that justification for the moves sometimes played these days is very complex - possibly too complex to apply in most ama-level games. A pro can afford to take small corner and give solid influence at the beginning, for example, because a pro knows very well how to play this kind of position from now on he probably bets he knows it better than the opponent, which makes such moves as much surprise tactics as viable strategies.

In other words - a pro has to know how to refute all the refutations to those experimental moves and strategies. Its a dangerous thing to do because unless you know it very well, refutations are easy and your position is tough. We cannot learn it from just watching games and parroting the moves. I think for us, such experiments might be slightly premature. For example - I don't care what Lee Sedol plays when he feels frisky, when somebody jumps into 3-3 on move 5 in my game - I just say "thank you" and go on cruising along to a win.

oren wrote: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.

The thing is: if you know why a move used to be played as joseki it is much easier to figure out why your opponent isn't playing it now. Knowing joseki theory can often be more valuable than knowing joseki moves.

If you look at a Shusaku game every corner is on the 3-4 and almost every approach is the one space low. If this is how you study go then when your opponent does a high approach (which is much more common nowadays) you should be able to see what he is doing: instead of challenging your claim to the corner with a low move he is trying to build up influence on the side facing away from your stone. Even if you don't know any high approach josekis a few moves should stand out if you've studied low approaches.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . b . . . |
$$ | . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . 1 , 2 . . |
$$ | . . . c e . . |
$$ | . . . d . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------[/go]

Move a used to be a common response to the low approach (it actually has started to see play again in pro games). This move, however, shouldn't look good. As white is being threatened with a shoulder hit he will extend up to challenge and now has better shape than black while still building influence on the outside without the corner being totally claimed by black. Basic reading rules this out. Move b looks like a better choice than a as it still builds toward the left side but also isn't directly touching white. An extension here would be too slow for white and white still cannot cleanly cut black. These moves, however, don't defend the corner and that might be what you want.

Move c will likely secure the corner, but the problem of shape is the same. White can extend down and get a great position on the side. Move d is on the second line and could be ignored for that reason alone, however, it also has the problem of not challenging white's claim to the outside while still only loosely grabbing the corner. In fact, for white, tenuki from here looks quite possible. How to grab the corner then? Move e should then come to mind as a way to both secure the corner and threaten white's outside influence. After all, it was the move that white should have made himself if he wanted to threaten the corner. Yes, this touches white's stone, which is generally bad because it forces white to become stronger, but if your goal is also to make yourself strong in the corner then this is acceptable.

Of these moves, only b and e are considered to be the start of joseki. Clearly a player familiar with high approach joseki wouldn't even need to spend time considering a, c, or d, but someone who knows good play from studying other joseki should still be fine - it just takes a second to figure out.

If anything, the player that doesn't memorize joseki could be stronger as they will be more likely to evaluate moves based on the overall position instead of just playing a move because it's joseki. If the left is more interesting, or if black cannot afford to let white become strong in the local area then black should play b, but most players simply play e on instinct.

moyoaji wrote: If anything, the player that doesn't memorize joseki could be stronger as they will be more likely to evaluate moves based on the overall position instead of just playing a move because it's joseki. If the left is more interesting, or if black cannot afford to let white become strong in the local area then black should play b, but most players simply play e on instinct.

You're talking about the second move of a joseki pattern. When you study joseki, you have to understand the results and possibilities of a much longer line than what you're describing.

You can be strong without knowing a single joseki, but understanding why lines have changed and what are good moves to be considering will help you out a lot.

By the way, your 'b' has fallen out of style as being a common joseki as strong players think it's good for white. Also you missed attach above the approaching stone as a joseki line... It can be tricky.

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

haha that is exactly what I feel.

If my only misfortune is never being able to surpass Shusaku's strength, I'll count myself lucky.

oren wrote:You're talking about the second move of a joseki pattern. When you study joseki, you have to understand the results and possibilities of a much longer line than what you're describing.

You can be strong without knowing a single joseki, but understanding why lines have changed and what are good moves to be considering will help you out a lot.

By the way, your 'b' has fallen out of style as being a common joseki as strong players think it's good for white.

What I am getting at is that if you at least understand what a good move used to be then you can easily transition into what is good now. These "changing lines of play" still come from the moves that used to be common. If you know why a move was played in the 70s then someone can easily tell you why it isn't played today. I don't feel that reading modern books is the only way to get strong at go because the older books don't really give bad advice, they just give old advice.

As for the lowly 'b' move, it does seem better locally for white so I can see why it is not common, but "uncommon" does not mean bad. If the left side is what is interesting then it is still the best move. Black gains amazing potential on that side. The standard joseki that appears in almost all games with a high approach is bad for building on the side (it is still open to that side, but it gives a 3rd line stone, not a 4th line stone.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 7 a . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 , 2 6 . |
$$ | . . . 5 3 4 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------[/go]

Now, to bring one of these old books into the discussion: in The Direction of Play Kajiwara Takeo shows how his poor choice of joseki (that one) lead to a critical mistake. He played at 'a' for because he wanted the potential on the left. This is an overplay and ended up giving him problems for the next 30 or so moves of the game. He actually recommends the 'b' move instead if you need potential on the left, which makes perfect sense to me.

moyoaji wrote: ...
If you know why a move was played in the 70s then someone can easily tell you why it isn't played today. I don't feel that reading modern books is the only way to get strong at go because the older books don't really give bad advice, they just give old advice.
...

IMO, it doesn't matter if you know why a move was played in the 70s. You don't have to have the same reasoning as pros from the 70s - you should simply have reasoning. Coming to some level of understanding, and some idea of how you will play when presented with any potential variation... That's valuable, and independent of time period.

The idea that you should follow the new openings used by pros to increase your chances of winning your own games seems to have a fundamental flaw. That being pros are basically strong in every aspect of the game and hence need to devote themselves to experimenting with opening ideas in order to gain an edge. It probably makes more sense for amateurs to spend time seeking to raise the base level of their total game rather than concentrate on new opening ideas which are often spoiled by the lack of skill in following up the perfect start.

Thanks for all the replies! I'm yet to grasp the "always true basics" of the opening (or of any other aspect, actually), but I was afraid my learning material was turned into obsolete rubbish because of some fundamental new insight in the last few years. Old pro strength is good for me as well and I shouldn't worry so much, I guess.

Robert, could you elaborate on the many other aspects besides (development) direction of play, please?

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.

Yes, but this caricature was taught in various Western and Asian books.

matthiasa wrote:Robert, could you elaborate on the many other aspects besides (development) direction of play, please?

Every strategic object, strategic concept, strategic choice, strategic planning, strategic line, move / stone meanings, group meanings, aims, judgements and analysis methods, reading methods and their application and ensuing use of the aforementioned concepts, principles for these aspects, opening theory, fundamentals (many of which are applicable and essential also for opening theory). If you want more details, please ask in the Go Books forum, rec.games.go or by email (where I may give suitable references).

One characteristic that seems to dominate current top level Korean play is risk, which appears to be a response to the ultra-orthodox play with its simple conventional fusekis and excruciating endgame tesuji dominating the 1990's. And phrases such as "bad for black " and "risky for black" could easily be misinterpreted, leading to confusion when seeing top level players doing things that aren't recommended in our books on fuseki fundamentals from the 1970's and 1980's.

This is a follow-up to the discussion earlier about the 'correct' direction to approach the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bm25
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . b . O . . . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # O O . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

This game is from today's Chinese League between Fan Tingyu and Park Jungwhan (the winner and runner-up of Ing Cup, full record at http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/34436). This game is very similar to the one from Chunlan Cup final (the only difference is the location of ). approached from this side (instead of invading at 'a' or 'b' to make use of the wall). As I explained earlier, the strategy of approaching from wider side is very reasonable. It was approved one more time by top pros.

macelee wrote:This is a follow-up to the discussion earlier about the 'correct' direction to approach the corner.

$$Bm25
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . b . O . . . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # O O . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bm25
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . b . O . . . O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # O O . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . O . . O . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

This game is from today's Chinese League between Fan Tingyu and Park Jungwhan (the winner and runner-up of Ing Cup, full record at http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/34436). This game is very similar to the one from Chunlan Cup final (the only difference is the location of ). approached from this side (instead of invading at 'a' or 'b' to make use of the wall). As I explained earlier, the strategy of approaching from wider side is very reasonable. It was approved one more time by top pros.

Which emphasizes the point that the pros have not "stopped following" textbook rules.

Bill Spight wrote: Which emphasizes the point that the pros have not "stopped following" textbook rules.

I cannot see the logic here.

When I first said approaching from wide side is traditional wisdom. You disagreed.

You said: "The approach from the left side invites a White extension on the top side, which helps the White formation there. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for Black to make use of his thickness in the top right. To make use of that thickness the approach cum invasion on the top side is urgent, as indicated."

Then when I gave an example counter your argument, you said that my example emphasized your point.

Edit: Ah I see you are already talking about Chen Yaoye - Lee Sedol game. I was going to say this reminded me of that