Re: Cele's try to create controlled complexity
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:47 am
Err, I don't actually believe that giving more and more variations is the best I have to offer in the way of teaching. Now, with a pro teacher, they probably are happy to generate variations. I try to target what I say.Celebrir wrote:Nope, I would have no problems with sacrificing that stone, but making a strong for me to escape with the least possible advantage to W(like the peep/closing-in-attempt atin your second diagram). If that was wrong, please always tell me the better variations, even if you were right that I just wanted to save the stone. Never going to improve if nobody tells me my wrongs
I remember my friend Kim talking about British players, and how they would request more and more variations. He clearly thought that they were missing opportunities to improve faulty perceptions.
To pull back a bit: positions with five groups struggling on one side are a bit unusual.
(A) The player with three groups should try to settle one group, and get down to one weak group quickly. This is a kind of common sense of the game.
(B) Strengthening the future weak group a bit is part of the knack of fighting.
(C) One weak group between two is advantageous. This is a heuristic. (You could call it a proto-proverb, since generating new proverbs here leads to linguistic sidetracks.)
(D) Heavy play is a kyu-level player's standard mistake. DDK players, for example, get cut when they aren't expecting in; SDK players connect more solidly, but make themselves heavy, which is over-correction.
Where C applies, worry about D. This is roughly what I'm saying.
I'm very intrested in this variation and I think at least the players in my local club would be as wellCharles Matthews wrote: I think a dan player would look sadly at the exchange of the black and white marked stones, and wonder why we were discussing light-heavy here, at all.
This is a sort of fantasy variation.
But hereis supposed to induce White: White at a, Black at b would be OK. The question with the diagonal jump is always about the answer
for
, but after
(say) has some options.
That said the big difference in the two variations seems to be sente, right? So
is more or less a sacrifice to force W into playing along in a way that make him waste stones? ( and 
seem suboptimal if wouldn't be there)[/quote]Here Black is also leaning in the other direction, first (as preparation). Theoretically, once White has strengthened the right-hand corner, Black ought not to worry about White making small extra profits on the right. The logic here is overconcentration.
Otake, a purist, once commented that it was "bad taste" to add territory to a strong group; which is a relatively deep thought about balance.
In any case, nice talking to you.
was never played against me, but I see that it is a good move. The biggest difference in this game seems to be that here the fighting will start in W's lower left corner while in my game the big fights were mostly in B's area of influence. The reason for this might be that I would have played 
at 