Jeromie and I discussed playing a Malkovitch based on luigi's kingo variant: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=14524.
Open book, or closed? I can play either way.
I'll nigiri:
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:54 pm
by EdLee
How to denote the pawns ( ) vs. the kings ( ) ? What's the board size for this first game, 9x9 ? Enjoy.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:01 pm
by jeromie
Nigiri: even.
I'd say we should play on a 19x19 board - 9x9 is so tactical that it would make using the kings extremely difficult. Might make it exciting, though!
I like Ed's suggestion for marking pawns and kings; that's the same thing I had in mind.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:02 pm
by jeromie
Looks like you're first. I'll play on whatever size you choose.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:59 am
by luigi
Thank you guys for giving this variant a try! I'll be following this with great interest.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:36 pm
by hyperpape
Good luck.
I had thought the same thing as Ed about markers, and I'd assumed a 19x19 board. 9x9 might be interesting, but the room for large scale attacks and trades seem interesting in this variant.
Did you want open book or closed? My one Malkovitch before was open--I feel like that makes sense for correspondence games, but I can go either way.
As preparation, I reviewed several pro games with an eye to when strong looking groups get sacrified or bullied. Ke Jie vs. Chen Yaoye (2017-07-05) was fascinating. While it doesn't get sacrified, White had a strong looking group (3-4 point high approach, inside contact joseki) gets chased into the center.
I'm hesitant to comment on pro games, but I think that playing that close to the edge is less common for people at my level.
I considered playing the first move as a king, but couldn't convince myself that it was worthwhile.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:33 pm
by EdLee
A slight clink to the notation: The numbered moves through 98 99 are all for pawns. To denote a new, current king move, maybe ( ) just for the first time the move appears ( convenient to spot ), after which it goes back to ( ) for the rest of the game ?
This has been my standard opening as white against lately, and I don't see any reason to deviate from that here. I like both playing a 3-4 stone and the opportunity for a cross fuseki.
In general, my strategy will be to play a thick and/or territorial game early on. As soon as I know that a stone or group can live without being harassed for profit by black, I can begin adding kings to a group. Since a lot of pros have been experimenting with an early 3-3 invasion after the AlphaGo games and I know a 3-3 invasion can't be killed, I will be aiming to try invading with a king as early as it seems reasonable. I'd rather do this early in the game anyway before there's the possibility of ko developing in a crucial position on the board, because every move in that corner will demand an immediate response. If an early 3-3 invasion is already considered good and I can add kings to it right away, it seems that this would tip the balance in the invader's favor. If black plays a king on his wall, I can make potentially make sente moves to reduce the use of his outside thickness while taking profit elsewhere. This does mean that I can't leave the position unsettled as AlphaGo often does, but I think the slightly increased profit will make up for that.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:04 pm
by jeromie
Some additional thoughts: I know that my move is considered questionable because black can play the lower left 4-4 and then the approach is good for black if white takes the other corner. I don't think the difference is huge though (move 2 will not be what loses this game, despite Kajiwara's musings!), and I still like getting the 3-4 stone down early. Perhaps I'll reconsider when I get stronger.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:09 pm
by sparky314
jeromie wrote:
Some additional thoughts: I know that my move is considered questionable because black can play the lower left 4-4 and then the approach is good for black if white takes the other corner. I don't think the difference is huge though (move 2 will not be what loses this game, despite Kajiwara's musings!), and I still like getting the 3-4 stone down early. Perhaps I'll reconsider when I get stronger.
Hey Jeromie
I don't think this is questionable. If you were facing the black stone, then it's not recommended (direction of play/basics). But since it's facing an empty corner, it's fine, and cross fuseki tends to favor white with komi. Additionally, if black does take the other corner, that places the 3-4 stone better in a territorial standpoint than the 4-4, and cross fuseki is usually more territorial.
Some additional thoughts: I know that my move is considered questionable because black can play the lower left 4-4 and then the approach is good for black if white takes the other corner. I don't think the difference is huge though (move 2 will not be what loses this game, despite Kajiwara's musings!), and I still like getting the 3-4 stone down early. Perhaps I'll reconsider when I get stronger.
Hey Jeromie
I don't think this is questionable. If you were facing the black stone, then it's not recommended (direction of play/basics). But since it's facing an empty corner, it's fine, and cross fuseki tends to favor white with komi. Additionally, if black does take the other corner, that places the 3-4 stone better in a territorial standpoint than the 4-4, and cross fuseki is usually more territorial.
@sparky314
I agree that the other 3-4 is more questionable (that's the one Kajiwara specifically mentioned), but when I went to look for fuseki that used this I found a sensei's library page that claimed black had a 65% winning percentage in pro games after this move and playing the other 4-4 point in the lower left. It's still played, though, so I don't think it's too bad. And I don't think it will make a big difference at this level, especially since I want to avoid allowing a 3-3 invasion for the same reasons I mentioned above.
Sensei's library calls this the Showa fuseki. I've been wanting to study Go Seigen some more, so a return to that era seems appropriate.
I still think the 3-3 invasion has added value in this variant, so I don't want to play my normal move at the 4-4. I assume black will approach next. There are lots of variants after that, but in all of them I should be able to keep his groups unsettled for a while so he can't immediately play a king and gain an advantage.
Edit:
Actually, the Showa fuseki is if black makes a high approach to one of my 3-4 stones.
Re: Kingo Malkovitch#1: Jeromie vs. Hyperpape
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:27 am
by Schachus
Not for players
no kings played yet. Actually I might have played a king on 4-4 or 3-4, I wouldnt intend to sacrifice that. As for Jeromies idea of invading 3-3 with a king, I dont like it. It just has a problem if black plays a double hane. Yes you will live, but you end up with a pretty bad sequence if you cant give your corner up:
This seems to be the best thing you get if 1 and 3 were kings, even worse, if 5 is also a king. Now ok, assume you played 1,3,7,9 as kings in this sequence, so that gained you 4 points compared to not playing kings. But even if 1 and 3 were not kings, depending on the choice of variantion, you might start putting kings starting with 7, so the gain is between 2 and 4 points. I dont think thats worth it, but not 100% sure.
) ?
through 
)