It's never owa till it's owa
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:53 am
Advice to count at the end of the fuseki is often given here. I've always been chary about that.
The problem is that counting usually relates to territory. Leaving aside the question of counting eggs before they're hatched, it seems to me that there are too many other elements that have to be assessed at that stage of the game in order to find a good way forward. After all, how many famous battles have been fought and won by a side that had a huge deficit of men or materiel yet its general had a better grasp of other factors?
I found the following example from a book by Shirae Haruhiko on two-space extenions useful in this regard.
Black had just played the triangled stone and Kajiwara Takeo, giving a commentary at the Nihon Ki-in (it was a Meijin title match) looked aghast, declared the game "owa" (finished: a Kajiwara-ism for owaru) and promptly lost interest. When he was told later that the game went on for 217 moves (said Shirae - the published version gives 214), Black winning by a whopping 8 points, Kajiwara just snorted that they'd wasted their time on 200 moves.
What if you count prospective territory in the usual way here?. I'd suggest counting the two black corner enclosures and his group on the left side, but ignore for the purposes of this count the square-marked stone on the lower side (apart from being a rather wide extension, Black has made one more move, so White's next move can be regarded as cancelling out that stone). Allowing for 5 points komi, I think you'll get a figure that suggests the balance of prospective territory is very close. But Kajiwara saw instantly that there was a huge imbalance.
Homework for tonight (after the World Cup, of course) is: what was he seeing beyond the usual (amateurish?) count?
A couple of clues. One is that the triangled stone was the tedomari in this fuseki, (i.e. the fuseki is finished), and Black got it. How? And what difference does it make? Second, according to the Kido commentary, the next move by White (which was not criticised per se - White's strategies are limited here, after all) led, after Black 29, to Black getting a solid and substantial territory.
Here is the full game. It is useful to try to visualise how it might go from the position above, and then to map these fuseki stones in the final position. But maybe more useful is to see how powerful a flimsy looking extension (the square) can be when it acts as a Venus fly-trap.
The problem is that counting usually relates to territory. Leaving aside the question of counting eggs before they're hatched, it seems to me that there are too many other elements that have to be assessed at that stage of the game in order to find a good way forward. After all, how many famous battles have been fought and won by a side that had a huge deficit of men or materiel yet its general had a better grasp of other factors?
I found the following example from a book by Shirae Haruhiko on two-space extenions useful in this regard.
Black had just played the triangled stone and Kajiwara Takeo, giving a commentary at the Nihon Ki-in (it was a Meijin title match) looked aghast, declared the game "owa" (finished: a Kajiwara-ism for owaru) and promptly lost interest. When he was told later that the game went on for 217 moves (said Shirae - the published version gives 214), Black winning by a whopping 8 points, Kajiwara just snorted that they'd wasted their time on 200 moves.
What if you count prospective territory in the usual way here?. I'd suggest counting the two black corner enclosures and his group on the left side, but ignore for the purposes of this count the square-marked stone on the lower side (apart from being a rather wide extension, Black has made one more move, so White's next move can be regarded as cancelling out that stone). Allowing for 5 points komi, I think you'll get a figure that suggests the balance of prospective territory is very close. But Kajiwara saw instantly that there was a huge imbalance.
Homework for tonight (after the World Cup, of course) is: what was he seeing beyond the usual (amateurish?) count?
A couple of clues. One is that the triangled stone was the tedomari in this fuseki, (i.e. the fuseki is finished), and Black got it. How? And what difference does it make? Second, according to the Kido commentary, the next move by White (which was not criticised per se - White's strategies are limited here, after all) led, after Black 29, to Black getting a solid and substantial territory.
Here is the full game. It is useful to try to visualise how it might go from the position above, and then to map these fuseki stones in the final position. But maybe more useful is to see how powerful a flimsy looking extension (the square) can be when it acts as a Venus fly-trap.
, I would have put it on the left side and not the bottom. It seems like a better direction from the shimari and W didn't use it to put pressure on 
should be one farther out, but I know nothing about 3-3 joseki. so......
, almost falling off the board I think he called them) but with no komi I would expect to be criticised for it by a stronger player for failing to be active enough to counteract black's first move advantage, and would comment to that effect when reviewing a game. Of course I'm not saying Ishida was unaware of this and he probably thought he could win with it and his strong yose, but Otake showed he was wrong. This game is quite probably part of the evidence that reinforces the opinion that white shouldn't allow two shimaris like that (though perhaps the fact white played double 3-3 means his corners are finished so black's sente after the split can't be used for an approach somewhat alleviates that criticism).
:facepalm: