Life In 19x19

Hi,

I rencently went to a game where my opponenent invaded my hoshi on a 3-3 point.
In that game at the moment of the invasion, I decided that trying to keep the corner was important because if not, I wouln't have any corner...
I don't have the sgf as we played on a real goban but here is what happened :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 0 . . |
$$ . . . . 7 6 . |
$$ . . . 8 4 5 . |
$$ . . . O 3 9 . |
$$ . . . 2 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------+[/go]

The unexcpected move is that which I replyed at but I lose the corner again, despite the double hane... Is there something I missed in that situation... is a viable variation if black decide to get the corner ? I allready went to SL but didn't find anything on that ...

Any advice welcome...

Double hane does not force your opponent to take the outside ponnuki, but it means if he insists on keeping the corner he gets an inferior result to the joseki where you extend (sealed in and gote life). Can you see how to kill if black now tenukis?

Compare this joseki:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . 1 2 . |
$$ . . . . O X . |
$$ . . . O X . . |
$$ . 7 . O X . . |
$$ . . 5 4 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------+[/go]

with (I finished with white gote to capture the ladder stone, which is honte and makes stone counts the same)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . 4 . O . |
$$ . . . O O X . |
$$ . . . O X X . |
$$ . a . O X . . |
$$ . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------+[/go]

In the former white is open on the right side and black has about 10 points in the corner, in the latter the right side is closed and white is very thick there, and black only has 6 points in the corner; the only downside is the absence of a white stone at a so black can exploit this weakness (with peep or cut or clamp or simply 1st line hane in endgame).

It is quite common for there to be a way for your opponent to resist your strategic plan of direction (here double hane saying I want to keep corner and give you outside), but he has to accept a local loss to do say. All these little losses add up.

If you really want to kill the invasion then 2 must be played on point lower on the second line and you must have a LOT of outside strength to stop the stone from escaping. Unless it is late in the game this is not likely to be the case.

oca wrote: The unexcpected move is that which I replyed at but I lose the corner again, despite the double hane. . . .

Any advice welcome...

Give up your attachment to territory.

Thanks you all for your comments !

Bill Spight wrote: Give up your attachment to territory.

+

Knotwilg on oca's log topic wrote: ...To me this shows that you are thinking a lot about territory and not about the primary goal of Go, which is to put as many alive stones on the board as possible.

= oups... your right... seems I'm still to focused on territory

Uberdude wrote: Can you see how to kill if black now tenukis?

maybe that way...

oca wrote: maybe that way...

Remember that the L-group is dead and the L+1 group lives or dies with sente. Does this help point to the best move?

Hi DrStraw,

Thx for your comment, for now I'm stuck, but still trying ...
tried that but that lead me to seki I think...

oca, you liked this post, don't forget it!

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 51#p166351

Hi oca,

Let's be a bit visual with DrStraw's last hint.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . O O X . |
$$ . . . O X X . |
$$ . . . O X . . |
$$ . . . O X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------+[/go]

The above shape is L+1. If Black plays first, Black lives. If White plays first Black dies. This isn't your shape, though ... let's look at your shape ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . O O X . |
$$ . . . O X X . |
$$ . . . O X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------+[/go]

1) What is different between this shape and L+1?
2) Can you force your opponent to make the L+1 shape (which, assuming you have studied it a bit, has a known outcome)?

From there, I think you should be able to find a number of interesting variations to play with.

Hope that helps! I think the variations here have some important techniques for attacking, and are good to go over.

Ok thank you marcus, that helped me a lot, I think I got it
But I still need to check a few variations to be sure

Bill Spight wrote:Give up your attachment to territory.

Hi oca, good advice.

The generalized form is to lose your attachment not only to cash,
but also to influence, moyo, ... and in fact, anything "unimportant".

Go Seigen's moves were an epitome of this: he would be willing to
give up huge groups, as long as he got an even or better deal in the trade.
His thinking was very flexible. Extremely high level.

For you, a nice first step in that direction is to see cash in a new way.

EdLee wrote:For you, a nice first step in that direction is to see cash in a new way.

Never use credit when you can use cash?

DrStraw wrote:Never use credit when you can use cash?

• A friend mentioned his recent experience in Vegas, at DefCon (spelling?): cash-only event;
• Some credit cards have "cash back" rewards.

So, it all depends. Be flexible.

DrStraw wrote:

EdLee wrote:For you, a nice first step in that direction is to see cash in a new way.

Never use credit when you can use cash?

I was referring to go. Never take a situation where you owe a move if you can get an equal result without owing.

EdLee wrote: The generalized form is to lose your attachment not only to cash,
but also to influence, moyo, ... and in fact, anything "unimportant".

Hi Edlee,

That's funny, this's not that far from what I put in my signature... "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."... but as always, applying that thing right is another question...

The "dream" game I wish I can play is a game where there are only small groups of two or three stones that are just "so well connected" that they form a full solid game... I would say, a bit like atoms compose matter... the space between stones being the force between atoms... but that's not easy not to be cutted... and then everything collapse...