Life In 19x19

I follow the recent developments in Go via go4go.net and MasterGo. And it indicates that almost no pro plays the Kobayashi Fuseki anymore. They play either the Chinese Fuseki or a kind of a modified Chinese Fuseki (where they play Chinese after first kakari white's 4-4 stone). Do you think there are reasons? Is there a discussion going on? I just wonder....

in my opinion:
no professionals plays fuseki same reason as nobody wears bell bottom pants.
many have to do with what is in.
kobayashi fuseki is not in just like bell bottom pants are not in.

In the 3rd volume of "Baduk Made Fun and Easy" by Nam Chihyung, she devotes some time to the evolution of the Kobayashi and does in fact end with a conclusion that Black isn't good and hopes that someone will find a way to rehabilitate it. It's quite a fascinating discussion, but it's not appropriate to repeat it here.

IMHO, this doesn't mean that the opening is refuted at the amateur level, or that any pro can take white and win against any other pro. I think of it more like current study has moved onto other things.

snorri wrote:In the 3rd volume of "Baduk Made Fun and Easy" by Nam Chihyung, she devotes some time to the evolution of the Kobayashi and does in fact end with a conclusion that Black isn't good and hopes that someone will find a way to rehabilitate it.

That sounds interesting and could be a reason. It matches my idea that someone found a way so that this fuseki is not good anymore - at pro level of course. Can u post the constellation, because maybe she is referring to a special branch of Kobayashi that is indeed bad for black.

The lessons are available for free online, linked to by sensei's: BadukMadeFunAndEasy. Specifically, lessons 130-132 deal with the Kobayashi. The articles are quite informative, so I'm glad I can read them online .

Yes, Magicwand is correct in that it is mostly about fads.

The truth is that if you are not involved in research groups, then you are mostly just following fads in your own games. Casual professionals usually just follow fads or do not keep up, so play older moves and rely on early fighting or the middlegame to win. The big opening fads are usually born in research groups and then the top players play with it for a period and show what it can do. It is like a 'theory' and 'application' process. After and during this period research groups are continuing to study these 'application' results while coming up with new big opening fads. More can be said about this relationship, but I'll leave that alone for now.

Regarding Nam Chi-hyeong's conclusion, I am weary of it. I know of some research that is as new as 2008 in the Kobayashi that gives Black a superior position. I do not know of any related counter-measures by White--but there is a lot of research out there. Her book was published in 2008, and almost all of the book-series was based on her older free articles on The Korean Times. So, I do not think that she was fully privy to all of the variations that I am referring to. For reference, here is one base position where Black begins to have a superior position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ A or B are fine
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . O a . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X b . . . . . , . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . , . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

For what it's worth, she says that in light of the fact that black can play at 'a' still, she would prefer to be black in this situation. Reading the articles, I didn't really get the impression that she thought the Kobayashi was bad for black. She does say, however,

Nam Chi-hyung wrote:I'm afraid that you may get the feeling that the Kobayashi Opening is not as powerful as before, since Black's results weren't better than White. One thing for sure is that we should not expect more from Baduk. If your opponent answers correctly, the best you can get is a balanced result. Or, perhaps there can be another innovation for Black. This is what the young Korean professionals are working on these days.

Make of that what you will.

I have just done a quick check on GoGoD, and we have 21 pro games in 2010 and over 100 since 2008, so pros are still trying it. I agree that there are fads and styles in fuseki and joseki, but when people like Gu Li and Yamashita Keigo are still trying the Kobayashi fuseki, there is obviously still something of interest there.

Best wishes.

let me elaborate on my point:

1)kobayashi fuseki is mainly designed for point oriented game.
since lee changho, trend has shifted from point oriented game to thickness oriented game.

2)also many professional's try to get the edge on fuseki by studying it prior to the use.
kobayashi opening has been studied enought that professionals feel that there is no edge using it.

TMark wrote:I have just done a quick check on GoGoD, and we have 21 pro games in 2010 and over 100 since 2008, so pros are still trying it. I agree that there are fads and styles in fuseki and joseki, but when people like Gu Li and Yamashita Keigo are still trying the Kobayashi fuseki, there is obviously still something of interest there.

Best wishes.

Thanks TMark, useful as always - how does this compare to, for example 1995-2000 or 2000-2005?

logan wrote:Yes, Magicwand is correct in that it is mostly about fads.

The truth is that if you are not involved in research groups, then you are mostly just following fads in your own games. Casual professionals usually just follow fads or do not keep up, so play older moves and rely on early fighting or the middlegame to win. The big opening fads are usually born in research groups and then the top players play with it for a period and show what it can do. It is like a 'theory' and 'application' process. After and during this period research groups are continuing to study these 'application' results while coming up with new big opening fads. More can be said about this relationship, but I'll leave that alone for now.

Regarding Nam Chi-hyeong's conclusion, I am weary of it. I know of some research that is as new as 2008 in the Kobayashi that gives Black a superior position. I do not know of any related counter-measures by White--but there is a lot of research out there. Her book was published in 2008, and almost all of the book-series was based on her older free articles on The Korean Times. So, I do not think that she was fully privy to all of the variations that I am referring to. For reference, here is one base position where Black begins to have a superior position:

$$ A or B are fine
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . O a . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X b . . . . . , . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ A or B are fine
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . O a . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . X b . . . . . , . O . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I usually play the following. Do u people think it's worse for black? (just your personal opinion since it's also often played by pro's and we all here don't have the knowledge to actually judge fusekis) One think I like about this opening is the fact you can play it often as black and white, so that you get a deeper feel for the opening.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ A or B are fine
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . X . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Searching in the database only for played out kobayashi and mini-chinese may miss the main point. To an initial star point, professionals overwhelmingly answer on the adjacent starpoint nowadays. (I use MasterGo database.) That is on initial star point nearly 80% 2 in 3 play on adjacent starpoint since 2005, while only 1 in 8 before 1990. This is likely related to Kobayashi (less) and Mini-Chinese (more) as it offers an easy way to deny Kobayashi and Mini-Chinese with the White move in the fourth corner by the appropriate 3-4 point (which is most common for denying Mini-Chinese and gaining popularity against the Kobayashi, of course a pincer against a "Kobayashi approach" is common as well).

Nobody who doesn't like these fuseki strategies (and the hickhack of complicated variations) has to play them. Good simplifying strategy.

tapir wrote:Searching in the database only for played out kobayashi and mini-chinese may miss the main point. To an initial star point, professionals overwhelmingly answer on the adjacent starpoint nowadays. (I use MasterGo database.) That is on initial star point nearly 80% play on adjacent starpoint since 2005, while only 1 in 8 before 1990. This is likely related to Kobayashi (less) and Mini-Chinese (more) as it offers an easy way to deny Kobayashi and Mini-Chinese with the White move in the fourth corner by the appropriate 3-4 point (which is most common for denying Mini-Chinese and gaining popularity against the Kobayashi, of course a pincer against a "Kobayashi approach" is common as well).

Nobody who doesn't like these fuseki strategies (and the hickhack of complicated variations) has to play them. Good simplifying strategy.

Interesting stats these. I've just gone through all 50 games posted so far in 2011 on the JustPlayGo site, and found the following:

13 games started on the 3-4 point
37 games started on the 4-4 point

Of those 37:
29 had White respond on the adjacent 4-4 point
7 had White respond on the opposite 4-4 point
1 had White respond on the adjacent 3-4 point (pointing towards the empty corner)

So not quite 1/8 out of this collection, but still clearly a significant minority, and almost no games at all that didn't have a 4-4 followup of some kind.

topazg wrote:

tapir wrote:Searching in the database only for played out kobayashi and mini-chinese may miss the main point. To an initial star point, professionals overwhelmingly answer on the adjacent starpoint nowadays. (I use MasterGo database.) That is on initial star point nearly 80% play on adjacent starpoint since 2005, while only 1 in 8 before 1990. This is likely related to Kobayashi (less) and Mini-Chinese (more) as it offers an easy way to deny Kobayashi and Mini-Chinese with the White move in the fourth corner by the appropriate 3-4 point (which is most common for denying Mini-Chinese and gaining popularity against the Kobayashi, of course a pincer against a "Kobayashi approach" is common as well).

Nobody who doesn't like these fuseki strategies (and the hickhack of complicated variations) has to play them. Good simplifying strategy.

Interesting stats these. I've just gone through all 50 games posted so far in 2011 on the JustPlayGo site, and found the following:

13 games started on the 3-4 point
37 games started on the 4-4 point

Of those 37:
29 had White respond on the adjacent 4-4 point
7 had White respond on the opposite 4-4 point
1 had White respond on the adjacent 3-4 point (pointing towards the empty corner)

So not quite 1/8 out of this collection, but still clearly a significant minority, and almost no games at all that didn't have a 4-4 followup of some kind.

Ehem, only 1 in 8 played adjacent 4-4 before 1990, a bit less than 80% about 2 in 3 since 2005. 2011 data fit in the picture. Btw. the adjacent komoku (of course point towards the empty corner) was once the main line. Imho the thought behind it is clear, if the opponent plays a komoku in the third move, White has a choice how to face it in the fourth corner - a choice White foregoes by playing in the opposite corner on move 2. The price is offering a diagonal fuseki - most amateurs are scared of granting this choice to Black for some reason, professionals are not, and Black actually does not like it.

I wonder whether the belated turn of amateurs towards fashionable whole board openings may be even worse than joseki craze of earlier times - joseki were at least modular giving you something to think about choices and the whole board, nowadays people from mid-dan to hi/lo kyu grades (those near to 10k) are parroting professional whole board openings. Bad development if you ask me.

tapir wrote:Ehem, only 1 in 8 played adjacent 4-4 before 1990, a bit less than 80% since 2005. 2011 data fit in the picture. Btw. the adjacent komoku (of course point towards the empty corner) was once the main line. Imho the thought behind it is clear, if the opponent plays a komoku in the third move, White has a choice how to face it in the fourth corner - a choice White foregoes by playing in the opposite corner on move 2. The price is offering a diagonal fuseki - most amateurs are scared of granting this choice to Black for some reason, professionals are not, and Black actually does not like it.

Ah, I apologise, I'd read your previous post as the other way around in both senses (1/8 did not play adjacent 4-4 post 2005 etc) - no idea how my brain did that.

tapir wrote:I wonder whether the belated turn of amateurs towards fashionable whole board openings may be even worse than joseki craze of earlier times - joseki were at least modular giving you something to think about choices and the whole board, nowadays people from mid-dan to hi/lo kyu grades (those near to 10k) are parroting professional whole board openings. Bad development if you ask me.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I still don't even really know what the mini-chinese looks like, and I have no idea what I'm technically supposed to do with Kobayashi either. It sort of reminds me somehow of the whole "Hey, it wasn't my fault I lost the corner, he didn't play the joseki right" type arguments