McGuigan Series # ??
Bruce Wayne
I'm trying to recover a lesson which was included in the Ejournal last
month, but the archives on the AGA website don't seem to include the
attachments. Specifically, I'm looking for the lesson that included a
diagram about how black needs to respond correctly to a 2-2 invasion
under his 4-4 stone. I recall the lesson saying that the 3-3 response
was incorrect.
Thanks, BW
Mef
Hello,
While I can't say I've read the series, as far as I know the 3-3
is the correct response to the 2-2 invasion under the 4-4 points,
however you make make sure to not overextend yourself on the
continuation. After the 3-3 response, the invader will invariably play
one of the 2-3 points, and you can hane (making a tiger's mouth). Then
they will typically play the other 2-3 point, and you will be tempted
to make a double tiger's mouth, which is what the trap is. If you make
a double tiger's mouth, they can peep on the outside and force you to
protect a small corner. Instead when your opponent plays the other
2-3, you want to play the corresponding 5-3 point, which will
effectively allow you to seal your opponent in, and much smaller than
if he had played the 3-3 invasion. The position should now look
something like this:
. . . . . .
. O O . . .
. O X . X .
. X . X . .
Hope that helps,
Mef
Bruce Wayne
having trouble remembering white's continuation when black does make
the double tiger's mouth mistake.
Something like this? Or does white start off with the (2) 5-2 points?
How does it continue?
. . . 8 . .
. O O X 7 .
. O X 2 1 .
6 X 4 X . .
. 5 3 . . .
Much obliged, BW
Mef
W can extend down the side from one of his groups. Black has only one
eye in the corner and will have a hard time attacking the other white
group with any success. Overall, a rough situation for black
considering he started a move ahead.
Cheers,
Mef
ro...@telus.net
example of counter-productive "teaching." It condemns good moves for
being less than perfect, and recommends that amateurs eschew the good
moves they understand in favor of pro-level moves that will surely get
them into trouble in an actual game.
On 2 Mar 2006 11:58:36 -0800, "Bruce Wayne" <maxpu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Something like this?
>
>. . . 8 . .
>. O O X 7 .
>. O X 2 1 .
>6 X 4 X . .
>. 5 3 . . .
Giving:
. . . X . . .
. O O X O . A
. O X X O . .
X X X X . . .
. O O . . . .
. . . . . . .
. B . . . . .
Sorry, but what is O supposed to have achieved here that is better
than the 3-3 invasion? Not one of his 7 stones is performing any
useful function, AFAICT, other than providing X with potential
targets. X can play A or B at any time, and what is left of O's
postion?
Granted, this is probably a little bit worse for O in isolation:
. . . . . .
. O O . . .
. O X . X .
. X . X . .
. . . . . .
But at least there is some aji. Any kind of O support to the right --
even the possibility of playing a ladder-breaker, say -- would IMO
turn B's 3-5 response into an outright error.
-- Roy L
denis feldmann
> I don't know who came up with this example, but IMO it is a typical
> example of counter-productive "teaching." It condemns good moves for
> being less than perfect, and recommends that amateurs eschew the good
> moves they understand in favor of pro-level moves that will surely get
> them into trouble in an actual game.
In one of the first european go congress with chinese pros (was it in
1982 ? I can no longer be sure), they played this invasion in a large
number of their first high-handicaps games. Very often, the black corner
ended dead, or had to run way, ruining black's game ; and they explained
after the game the "correct" sequence (ie the one you judge dangerous)
which should have been played (and did not try this particular trick
again). Draw your own conclusions ...
Bruce Wayne
this thread?
http://senseis.xmp.net/?BobMcGuigan
If so, he seems to be pretty credible.
Mef
>
>. . . X . . .
>. O O X O . A
>. O X X O . .
>X X X X . . .
>. O O . . . .
>. . . . . . .
>. B . . . . .
>
>Sorry, but what is O supposed to have achieved here that is better
>than the 3-3 invasion? Not one of his 7 stones is performing any
>useful function, AFAICT, other than providing X with potential
>targets. X can play A or B at any time, and what is left of O's
>postion?
Compared to a 3-3 invasion this is great for W. W has forced B into
making a ~10 pt corner that has only 1 eye. B's group has to find a
second eye in the center so W should be able to develop at least 1 side
and settle the other. With a 3-3 invasion white takes a small corner
and give's B a strong wall. B will only get to play 1 of A or B since
W has sente, and even then B won't get much of an attack since he still
has a weak group to protect. Now, if you compare the correct way to
this, W has a smaller corner than he would with a 3-3 invasion, and is
completely sealed in on both sides, with B having a strong connected
position. You mentioned something about getting the chance to play a
ladder breaker? What kind of ladder breaker are you talking about?
I'm hard pressed to find any ladder than can be threatened to be broken
in the second variation that the first variation doesn't outright break
(in sente no less). If there's any kind of support to the right, black
is really in trouble in the first variation, because white can support
the lower group and now you have 2 strong white groups with a weak
black group in between, a recipe for disaster. When given the choice
between running a weak group to the middle and sealing my opponent into
a 3 point corner, I'd take the latter 49 out of 50 times.
Cheers,
Mef
ro...@telus.net
>>Giving:
>>
>>. . . X . . .
>>. O O X O . A
>>. O X X O . .
>>X X X X . . .
>>. O O . . . .
>>. . . . . . .
>>. B . . . . .
>>
>>Sorry, but what is O supposed to have achieved here that is better
>>than the 3-3 invasion? Not one of his 7 stones is performing any
>>useful function, AFAICT, other than providing X with potential
>>targets. X can play A or B at any time, and what is left of O's
>>postion?
>
>Compared to a 3-3 invasion this is great for W.
Incomprehensible. W has no territory, no eyes, and two groups with no
resources, separated by a strong group that cannot be enclosed.
>W has forced B into
>making a ~10 pt corner that has only 1 eye.
?? Whereas he started with a _0_-point corner with _no_ eyes....
And in return for giving B 10 points and an eye, W has obtained what,
exactly? No territory, and no power.
>B's group has to find a
>second eye in the center
Or kill one of W's resourceless two-stone bricks.
>so W should be able to develop at least 1 side
>and settle the other.
?? Develop _what_? His stones have no eyes, no shape, and are
performing no function.
>With a 3-3 invasion white takes a small corner
>and give's B a strong wall.
In sente. And it's been joseki for centuries for a reason.
>B will only get to play 1 of A or B since
>W has sente, and even then B won't get much of an attack since he still
>has a weak group to protect.
?? "Weak"??? Compared to _W_'s groups?? ROTFL!!
>Now, if you compare the correct way to
>this, W has a smaller corner than he would with a 3-3 invasion,
?? Well of course it's worse than 3-3, the 2-2 invasion is a mistake.
>and is
>completely sealed in on both sides, with B having a strong connected
>position.
B's position is also strong and connected, and W is also sealed in,
using the double tiger mouth.
>You mentioned something about getting the chance to play a
>ladder breaker? What kind of ladder breaker are you talking about?
On the right.
>I'm hard pressed to find any ladder than can be threatened to be broken
>in the second variation that the first variation doesn't outright break
>(in sente no less).
I'm talking about W being able to play a ladder breaker somewhere on
the right in sente, allowing him to then either live in the corner or
break out.
>If there's any kind of support to the right, black
>is really in trouble in the first variation, because white can support
>the lower group and now you have 2 strong white groups
ROTFL!!!
>with a weak black group
ROTFL!!
>in between, a recipe for disaster. When given the choice
>between running a weak group to the middle
I find this description of the situation bizarre. B's grou0p is not
weak. W's stones on the outside are weak. B has one strong group
splitting two weak W groups.
>and sealing my opponent into
>a 3 point corner, I'd take the latter 49 out of 50 times.
That's not the choice.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<denis.feldm...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net a écrit :
>> I don't know who came up with this example, but IMO it is a typical
>> example of counter-productive "teaching." It condemns good moves for
>> being less than perfect, and recommends that amateurs eschew the good
>> moves they understand in favor of pro-level moves that will surely get
>> them into trouble in an actual game.
>
>In one of the first european go congress with chinese pros (was it in
>1982 ? I can no longer be sure), they played this invasion in a large
>number of their first high-handicaps games. Very often, the black corner
>ended dead, or had to run way, ruining black's game ;
Yes, well, in how many games against pros do weak amateurs _not_ end
up with a ruined game, one way or another?
>and they explained
>after the game the "correct" sequence (ie the one you judge dangerous)
>which should have been played (and did not try this particular trick
>again). Draw your own conclusions ...
And you conclude from this that the "correct" move, unlike the double
tiger mouth, is somehow swindle-proof? That amateurs who do not know
how to handle something as simple as the double tiger mouth can
correctly handle something a lot more complex?
Riiiiight...
Let me show you what could easily happen if a weak amateur B played
the "correct" sequence against a pro W:
> . . . . . .
> . O O 1 2 .
> . O X 3 X .
> . X 4 X 5 .
> . . . . . .
And W kills the B stones on both sides of 5.
-- Roy L
Mef
>weak. W's stones on the outside are weak. B has one strong group
>splitting two weak W groups.
Ah, then I see we've found the root of our problem, as you get stronger
and your positional analysis improves, so will your understanding of
why the correct answer is correct. In the meantime, I wish you the
best.
Cheers,
Mef
Bill Spight
royls:
>>I find this description of the situation bizarre. B's grou0p is not
>>weak. W's stones on the outside are weak. B has one strong group
>>splitting two weak W groups.
Mef:
> Ah, then I see we've found the root of our problem, as you get stronger
> and your positional analysis improves, so will your understanding of why
> the correct answer is correct. In the meantime, I wish you the best.
Here is the position in question (top left corner):
. . . X . . . . .
. O O X O . . . .
. O X X O . . . .
X X X X . . . . .
. O O . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
Let's do a little tewari, by removing pairs of stones.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . X O . . . .
. . . X O . . . .
. X X X . . . . .
. O O . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
This pairing may be a few points unfair to Black, because Black's 4-1
stones are probably more valuable than White's 3-2 stones. However,
consider this line of play, White playing first:
. . . . . . . . .
. . . 2 1 . . . .
. . . 4 3 . . . .
. 8 6 X . . . . .
. 7 5 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
(It's hard to come up with anything sensible. ;-)) Black has plainly
gotten pushed around. Even giving Black back a few points for the
original removal, this is terrible for Black. (And Black has at least a ko
in the corner, should he get hemmed in.)
Best regards,
Bill
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
No kidding. I'd say you've gypped B by nearly 10 points.
>However,
>consider this line of play, White playing first:
>
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . 2 1 . . . .
>. . . 4 3 . . . .
>. 8 6 X . . . . .
>. 7 5 . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>
>(It's hard to come up with anything sensible. ;-))
Because W's moves after 1 are so clearly idiotic. Right.
>Black has plainly
>gotten pushed around.
?? Whereas W has played like a 10-kyu, at best.
Let's look at someting a bit more plausible:
. . . . . . . . .
. . . 4 3 . . . .
. . . 2 1 . . . .
. 6 8 X . . . . .
. 5 7 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
How is this better for W than the lone B stone at 4-4? Aside from 8,
where has B played a really bad move? OTOH, where has W played a good
move?
>Even giving Black back a few points for the
>original removal, this is terrible for Black.
But it's just as bad for W, if not worse.
>(And Black has at least a ko
>in the corner, should he get hemmed in.)
Or, let's try a different tewari:
>. . . 2 . . . . .
>. 5 1 X O . . . .
>. 3 6 X O . . . .
>4 X X X . . . . .
>. O O . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
Clearly W has played like a pro, while B has been "pushed around" ;^)
Whatever you're on, I want some.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>>I find this description of the situation bizarre. B's grou0p is not
>>weak. W's stones on the outside are weak. B has one strong group
>>splitting two weak W groups.
>
>Ah, then I see we've found the root of our problem, as you get stronger
>and your positional analysis improves, so will your understanding of
>why the correct answer is correct.
Let's ask any pros who might be reading this if they'd rather play
against a strong amateur with four corners that look like this:
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . X . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
or like this:
. . . X . . . .
. O O X O . . .
. O X X O . . .
X X X X . . . .
. O O . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
If W can't enclose B -- and he can't -- how is the latter better for W
than the former?
-- Roy L
Mef
>than the former?
Because white doesn't need to enclose the corner. B has a 1 eyed group
whose only source for eyes is through a small gap leading to the
center. White will have 2 groups, both with open acess to the sides,
one which he can use sente to make a base for, the other which will be
able to settle while black tries to make his group live in the center.
White will make somes point along the side while attacking, while
black's group has no room to gain more than one or two points while it
struggles to live.
Cheers,
Mef
Mef
>where has B played a really bad move? OTOH, where has W played a good
>move?
This is much worse than a lone 4-4, and in fact has betrayed the
purpose of the 4-4 entirely. Black has taken an overprotective
position trying to take the corner with a 4-4, which is very
inefficient, and the presence of 2 white stones on both sides of his
formation prevent any development by black down the sides. White
hasn't necessarily played good moves here, but B hasn't made any effort
to punish them. Instead after black's poor responses, white's moves
suddenly do look good. If white is playing bad moves and they are
looking good, then B really must be playing bad moves.
Cheers,
Mef
Bill Spight
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . 4 3 . . . .
> . . . 2 1 . . . .
> . 6 8 X . . . . .
> . 5 7 . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
>
> How is this better for W than the lone B stone at 4-4? Aside from 8,
> where has B played a really bad move?
B4 is questionable, but B6 is bad, too.
> OTOH, where has W played a good
> move?
;-)
On an empty board, after W1 - B4 the value of the position has not changed
much. However, once Black has built such strength, the exchange of W5 - B8
is definitely bad for Black. (And in this case Black can still live in the
corner.)
Best,
Bill
ro...@telus.net
>>How is this better for W than the lone B stone at 4-4? Aside from 8,
>>where has B played a really bad move? OTOH, where has W played a good
>>move?
>
>This is much worse than a lone 4-4, and in fact has betrayed the
>purpose of the 4-4 entirely. Black has taken an overprotective
>position trying to take the corner with a 4-4, which is very
>inefficient, and the presence of 2 white stones on both sides of his
>formation prevent any development by black down the sides.
He doesn't need to develop down the sides. He already has a 10-point
corner, while W has nothing.
>White
>hasn't necessarily played good moves here, but B hasn't made any effort
>to punish them.
I agree B is playing a little slackly, but IMO he is playing better
than W, and ends with a better position than W.
>Instead after black's poor responses, white's moves
>suddenly do look good. If white is playing bad moves and they are
>looking good, then B really must be playing bad moves.
I don't see W's moves looking good. They look horrible. They have no
eyes, no power, no base, and no shape. B moves out effortlessly by
attacking them, gaining center power while W struggles for eyes. W
_has_ to save both of his two-stone bricks, or his whole strategy here
goes into the bin. That makes his stones heavy.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . 4 3 . . . .
>> . . . 2 1 . . . .
>> . 6 8 X . . . . .
>> . 5 7 . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>>
>> How is this better for W than the lone B stone at 4-4? Aside from 8,
>> where has B played a really bad move?
>
>B4 is questionable, but B6 is bad, too.
>
>> OTOH, where has W played a good
>> move?
>
>;-)
>
>On an empty board, after W1 - B4 the value of the position has not changed
>much.
?? Huh? You're claiming W 1 and 3 is _joseki_???
IMO W has taken a clear and substantial loss by such an exchange. If
B had turned on top instead of blocking with 4, W's position would be
garbage.
>However, once Black has built such strength, the exchange of W5 - B8
>is definitely bad for Black. (And in this case Black can still live in the
>corner.)
I agree B 6 and especially 8 are slow, and to that extent B has been
swindled a bit, given the 1-4 exchange. But I still have not seen
your explanation of what W has gained here. Personally, I don't mind
playing slow moves if I am gaining anyway because my opponent is
making outright blunders.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>>If W can't enclose B -- and he can't -- how is the latter better for W
>>than the former?
>
>Because white doesn't need to enclose the corner.
Then he has given B 10 points in the corner for nothing?
>B has a 1 eyed group
>whose only source for eyes is through a small gap leading to the
>center.
No, he has another ready source of eyes: killing one of W's two-stone
bricks.
>White will have 2 groups, both with open acess to the sides,
>one which he can use sente to make a base for,
IOW, giving B sente in return for less territory and eyeshape than he
has already given the B corner group.
>the other which will be
>able to settle while black tries to make his group live in the center.
B will not be the one trying to live. W has to save his stones or his
strategy goes down the toilet, and his two bricks are both
incomparably weaker than B's corner group. He pressures one, then the
other, effortlessly controlling the center.
>White will make somes point along the side while attacking, while
>black's group has no room to gain more than one or two points while it
>struggles to live.
B builds massive center-facing power in sente while crushing W down to
a few points along the edge.
-- Roy L
Barry Phease
> On 4 Mar 2006 13:57:01 -0800, "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>If W can't enclose B -- and he can't -- how is the latter better for W
>>>than the former?
>>
>>Because white doesn't need to enclose the corner.
>
> Then he has given B 10 points in the corner for nothing?
I think you have an opportunity here to improve by at least one stone Roy.
It is clear that black is tricked here, and if the rest of the game
continues with the same mentality it will be easy for white. This thread
has exposed the blind spot that is preventing you from making progress.
--
Barry Phease
Mef
>corner, while W has nothing.
Realizing how truly wrong this statement is will help you break the 15
kyu barrier.
Cheers,
Mef
Bill Spight
> He doesn't need to develop down the sides. He already has a 10-point
> corner, while W has nothing.
Black does need to develop down at least one side in order to realize the
value of the original handicap stone. It is also important that in the
full sequence Black does not have a 10 point corner, because it has only
one eye.
Best,
Bill
Bill Spight
>>> . . . . . . . . .
>>> . . . 4 3 . . . .
>>> . . . 2 1 . . . .
>>> . 6 8 X . . . . .
>>> . 5 7 . . . . . .
>>> . . . . . . . . .
>>> . . . . . . . . .
>>>
>>> How is this better for W than the lone B stone at 4-4? Aside from 8,
>>> where has B played a really bad move?
>>
>>B4 is questionable, but B6 is bad, too.
>>
>>> OTOH, where has W played a good
>>> move?
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>On an empty board, after W1 - B4 the value of the position has not
>>changed much.
>
> ?? Huh? You're claiming W 1 and 3 is _joseki_???
>
Nope. Both W1 and B4 are bad. However, Black has gained only about 2
points in the exchange.
> IMO W has taken a clear and substantial loss by such an exchange. If B
> had turned on top instead of blocking with 4, W's position would be
> garbage.
>
>>However, once Black has built such strength, the exchange of W5 - B8 is
>>definitely bad for Black. (And in this case Black can still live in the
>>corner.)
>
> I agree B 6 and especially 8 are slow, and to that extent B has been
> swindled a bit, given the 1-4 exchange. But I still have not seen your
> explanation of what W has gained here. Personally, I don't mind playing
> slow moves if I am gaining anyway because my opponent is making outright
> blunders.
>
They are not just slow, Roy, they are kikasare. Consider where you would
play B6, for instance.
Best,
Bill
ro...@telus.net
I'm AGA 5d.
-- Roy L
Mef
this is an awful result for black. Black has been forced to make a
small one eyed corner with a 4-4 stone (which is more or less meant to
take the corner only as a last resort), while in the meantime white has
limited Black's influence on both sides in sente with 2 groups which
even if they weren't more or less safe as is, he would be under no
obligation to save anyway as they could be treated as kikashi.
Cheers,
Mef
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>> He doesn't need to develop down the sides. He already has a 10-point
>> corner, while W has nothing.
>
>Black does need to develop down at least one side in order to realize the
>value of the original handicap stone.
No, he will move out in one or both directions by attacking W, but he
doesn't need to _develop_ either side. He can live in the center. By
contrast, if W's plan here is not to be a total disaster, he _must_
live on _both_ sides.
B does not have to stick with the initial strategic meaning of the
hoshi stone, because W has made some bad moves and thus changed the
overall situation rather dramatically. If W is willing to give up
enough to change B's strategy -- which he evidently is, as he played
the 2-2 stone -- there is no reason B should not be flexible and use
the 4-4 stone to take the corner. After all, nobody claims B's first
two moves to capture W's 2-2 stone are bad. The criticism was only
leveled at the _second_ tiger mouth.
>It is also important that in the
>full sequence Black does not have a 10 point corner, because it has only
>one eye.
?? Huh? Get serious. He either has a 10-point corner, or he will be
killed. And how is he going to be killed, when he can move
effortlessly into the center by attacking W along one side or the
other? Just because pros can swindle kyu players with this sort of
thing doesn't mean it is playable against strong opposition. Does
anyone here think a pro playing W would be willing to swap an opposing
hoshi stone for the end diagram, in a game against another pro?
Think about it. What pro W would prefer his pro opponent had this:
. . . X . . . . .
. O O X O . . . .
. O X X O . . . .
X X X X . . . . .
. O O . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
rather than this:
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . X . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
He _knows_ he is not going to kill B in the first diagram. What is he
going to get to make up for the corner territory, his two heavy,
separated, resourceless groups, and B's easy access to the center??
-- Roy L
T Mark Hall
writes
--
T Mark Hall
www.gogod.demon.co.uk
www.gogod.demon.co.uk/NewInGo/NewInGo.htm
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:46:56 +0000, royls wrote:
>
>> On 4 Mar 2006 13:57:01 -0800, "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>If W can't enclose B -- and he can't -- how is the latter better for W
>>>>than the former?
>>>
>>>Because white doesn't need to enclose the corner.
>>
>> Then he has given B 10 points in the corner for nothing?
>
>I think you have an opportunity here to improve by at least one stone Roy.
Really? 6d at last?
>It is clear that black is tricked here, and if the rest of the game
>continues with the same mentality it will be easy for white.
B is tricked?? Really?
Has B been tricked here?
. . . . . . . . .
. O . . . . . . .
. O X . . . . . .
. X . X . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
No? How about here?
. . . . . . . . .
. O . . . . . . .
. O X . . . . . .
4 X 2 X . . . . .
. 3 1 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
No? Then why is B suddenly tricked if the exact same thing happens on
the other side, too, given that it most certainly does not result in B
getting sealed in? If I were playing B in the second diagram, I would
be inviting W to take B, and several handicap stones, too, as he
clearly is a quite weak player. How does he become so much stronger
by doing the exact same thing again?
-- Roy L
Mef
wouldn't B prefer to answer W1 with 3 or possibly the other 2-3 point?
Cheers,
Mef
Bill Spight
Well, it is not so bad a result for Black. Look, many, if not most
positions where one player has fallen into a trap can be clearly
demonstrated to be such by straightforward tewari. That's not the case
here. Between players of equal strength, Black's disadvantage is probably
not as much as komi. In a handicap game, because Black's corner is
attackable, White can probably parlay it into much more.
Also, it is not true that White can simply regard his outer stones as
kikashi. If he simply lost them on one side without getting something in
exchange, *counting the 3 stones in the corner* he would have lost 5
stones in exchange for 4 Black stones (count 'em). Then the tables will
have turned. While it is not absolutely true, as Roy says, that White must
save his stones, in practice that will almost always be the case.
Best,
Bill
Bill Spight
>>> He doesn't need to develop down the sides. He already has a 10-point
>>> corner, while W has nothing.
>>
>>Black does need to develop down at least one side in order to realize the
>>value of the original handicap stone.
>
> No, he will move out in one or both directions by attacking W, but he
> doesn't need to _develop_ either side. He can live in the center. By
> contrast, if W's plan here is not to be a total disaster, he _must_ live
> on _both_ sides.
>
I think that we are using "develop" in different senses. I do not mean
that Black has to end up with a single group extending from the corner
along one side, but that, in order to realize the original value of the
handicap stone he will have to make something on one side or other, as a
rule. There is not enough potential in the center. Just making a second
eye in the center is insufficient.
> B does not have to stick with the initial strategic meaning of the hoshi
> stone, because W has made some bad moves and thus changed the overall
> situation rather dramatically. If W is willing to give up enough to
> change B's strategy -- which he evidently is, as he played the 2-2 stone
> -- there is no reason B should not be flexible and use the 4-4 stone to
> take the corner. After all, nobody claims B's first two moves to capture
> W's 2-2 stone are bad. The criticism was only leveled at the _second_
> tiger mouth.
>
Well, I have some questions about Black's first two moves, particularly
his second move. They are saved by the fact that White's first two moves
are so bad.
>>It is also important that in the
>>full sequence Black does not have a 10 point corner, because it has only
>>one eye.
>
> ?? Huh? Get serious. He either has a 10-point corner, or he will be
> killed.
It is not an either-or, life or death. Black is attackable, which is an in
between state. Therefore we cannot give full value to the 10 points or so
in the corner.
In fact, I was originally going to stress, as I did in my recent note to
Mef, that Black was not so bad off. But then I considered this position,
where each side has the same number of stones:
. . . X . . . . .
. O O X O . . . .
. O X X O . . O .
X X X X . . . . .
. O O . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
It seems to me that if White plays first, the result will be bad
for Black, while if Black plays first, the result will be fairly
equitable. Conclusion: This position is disadvantageous for Black.
Best,
Bill
ro...@telus.net
>If you're really an AGA 5d then I'm baffled as to why you can't see
>this is an awful result for black.
Simple: it's not.
>Black has been forced to make a
>small one eyed corner with a 4-4 stone (which is more or less meant to
>take the corner only as a last resort),
It's not a small corner, and if you don't think B should take the
corner, why is it good for him to play 3-3 in response to W1 at 2-2,
and 4-2 in response to W 3-2?
>while in the meantime white has
>limited Black's influence on both sides in sente with 2 groups which
>even if they weren't more or less safe as is, he would be under no
>obligation to save anyway as they could be treated as kikashi.
The idea that W's resourceless two-stone bricks are "more or less
safe" but B's corner group is not is so bizarre, so lacking in any
relation to the logic of the game, that I have to wonder just what you
are basing it on. If W treats _either_ of his groups as kikashi and
lets B kill it, he has simply thrown away more than a dozen points for
nothing, and has a lost game.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>After the 1-2 exchange the original 4-4 stone looks poorly placed,
Not compared to W's stones.
>wouldn't B prefer to answer W1 with 3 or possibly the other 2-3 point?
3 is definitely the move if the ladder works. The other 2-3 point is
garbage, as W descends to 3.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>>>> He doesn't need to develop down the sides. He already has a 10-point
>>>> corner, while W has nothing.
>>>
>>>Black does need to develop down at least one side in order to realize the
>>>value of the original handicap stone.
>>
>> No, he will move out in one or both directions by attacking W, but he
>> doesn't need to _develop_ either side. He can live in the center. By
>> contrast, if W's plan here is not to be a total disaster, he _must_ live
>> on _both_ sides.
>
>I think that we are using "develop" in different senses. I do not mean
>that Black has to end up with a single group extending from the corner
>along one side, but that, in order to realize the original value of the
>handicap stone he will have to make something on one side or other, as a
>rule.
No, he has already realized the original value of the handicap stone,
because his position is already better than just having the handicap
stone.
>There is not enough potential in the center. Just making a second
>eye in the center is insufficient.
It depends what happens on the way to making that eye.
>> B does not have to stick with the initial strategic meaning of the hoshi
>> stone, because W has made some bad moves and thus changed the overall
>> situation rather dramatically. If W is willing to give up enough to
>> change B's strategy -- which he evidently is, as he played the 2-2 stone
>> -- there is no reason B should not be flexible and use the 4-4 stone to
>> take the corner. After all, nobody claims B's first two moves to capture
>> W's 2-2 stone are bad. The criticism was only leveled at the _second_
>> tiger mouth.
>
>Well, I have some questions about Black's first two moves, particularly
>his second move. They are saved by the fact that White's first two moves
>are so bad.
Bingo. And you don't punish bad moves by ignoring them and pretending
they aren't there.
>>>It is also important that in the
>>>full sequence Black does not have a 10 point corner, because it has only
>>>one eye.
>>
>> ?? Huh? Get serious. He either has a 10-point corner, or he will be
>> killed.
>
>It is not an either-or, life or death. Black is attackable, which is an in
>between state. Therefore we cannot give full value to the 10 points or so
>in the corner.
And W's two groups somehow _aren't_ attackable? Give your head a
shake.
Well, that is more or less what W must be planning to do if he intends
to salvage anything here, and clearly B must answer. But with
resources like a and b available to B, how will W make up the corner
loss?
. . . X . . . . .
. O O X O . . . .
. O X X O . . O .
X X X X . . b . .
. O O . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. a . . . . . . .
I'm still waiting for a pro to say he would swap an opposing 4-4 stone
for this, playing O:
>> . . . X . . . . .
>> . O O X O . . . .
>> . O X X O . . . .
>> X X X X . . . . .
>> . O O . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
-- Roy L
Bill Spight
>>Well, I have some questions about Black's first two moves, particularly
>>his second move. They are saved by the fact that White's first two moves
>>are so bad.
>
> Bingo.
It's often dicey to evaluate positions where both sides have made bad
moves.
> And you don't punish bad moves by ignoring them and pretending
> they aren't there.
Well, my first impulse for responding to White's 2-2 invasion was to
tenuki. ;-) Maybe the 3-3 is the right response, but I kind of like at 5-3
right away, threatening to take a large corner.
Best,
Bill
Barry Phease
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:24:13 +1300, Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>I think you have an opportunity here to improve by at least one stone
>>Roy.
>
> Really? 6d at last?
Are you saying that you can never get to 6 dan?