Please think about your approach to Go. If you say that you "hate people who don't play joseki," then I think that you're playing Go according to formula, and that's completely unrealisitic. In fact, I heard the story of someone who had deeply studied joseki as a high-ranking amateur and was told, when he became a student professional, to start by forgetting the joseki he had memorized.
Your opponent is right in testing your knowledge of the joseki by trying an unusual move, and I believe that your only defense is to get stronger at Go.
Resenting the moves of an opponent who may have deeper insight into the game is a losing way imho. I am grateful to such opponents because they challenge my understanding; in a sense they are providing free lessons and, possibly, they are showing original thinking about the game.
>I cut at a with 5, attempting to punish Black, >but it hasn't worked out so welll... what is >best play for both sides?
4 is a blunder (it should be at a), but the cut at a is out of order. First you should descend below 1. If 2 made sense, # can't let O connect, so he descends too. Then the cut at a will capture either 4 or the three stones including 2. # is helpless in this position:
By cutting at a prematurely, you let # hane below 1 and connect with 8, below. That changes the situation drastically. 9 is forced, and O's position will either collapse or be pressed down onto the second line:
# can play A and has the hane at B and attachment at C in reserve, so after O pushes along the second line to live, 5 will probably be captured in a net.
business7@NO_SPAM_bigfoot.com wrote: > Please think about your approach to Go. If you say that you "hate > people who don't play joseki," then I think that you're playing Go > according to formula, and that's completely unrealisitic. In fact, I > heard the story of someone who had deeply studied joseki as a > high-ranking amateur and was told, when he became a student > professional, to start by forgetting the joseki he had memorized.
> Your opponent is right in testing your knowledge of the joseki by > trying an unusual move, and I believe that your only defense is to get > stronger at Go.
> Resenting the moves of an opponent who may have deeper insight into > the game is a losing way imho. I am grateful to such opponents because > they challenge my understanding; in a sense they are providing free > lessons and, possibly, they are showing original thinking about the > game.
One redeeming feature of boardgames is socialization. Though at times some players might not appear fully socialized most would conclude that experience with gaming was more beneficial than not. It's also a comment on the nature of a society which tolerates figures of speech involving the term "hate" and where nobody took the time to explore aspects of "hate" with the person claiming to emote "hate." There's also a difference between "hate" toward a person versus "hate" for some actions by a person. People are not necessarily what they do.
Nevertheless I'm not proposing any laws against "hate speech" because I don't find that it's a Constitutional Role of government to usurp non-enumerated powers that have been left to the people.
Among the many problems I find with this discussion thread is the small size of the diagrams, the notion that one should follow an understandable pattern of play, and the artificial division into joseki and fuseki. With deeper comprehension of any game one learns new technical skills. Playing outside the book also challenges your opponents to respond appropriately to test whether they have really acquired the essential sensibilities of fundamental principles.
- regards - jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cops Clock Driver At 137 mph In '93 Honda Civic http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96ESQUO1&show_article=1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way (and this comment is not about the position in this thread), a few times people have getten angry at me for "not playing joseki." Unfortunately for them, it was a valid joseki variation that they didn't know about, and they got into a lot of trouble trying to punish my "mistake."
So, if one doesn't recognize a move that doesn't mean it's not joseki.
Again, best,
Dave
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:12:12 -0800, business7@NO_SPAM_bigfoot.com wrote:
> I cut at a with 5, attempting to punish Black, but it hasn't worked > out so welll...
The cutting point at ‘a’ is a weakness, and is the reason why Black 4 was a mistake. But White needs a little more preparation before taking advantage of that weakness:
---------------------- | . . . . . . . . . . | . b # O a . . . . . | . . O # . . . . . . | . . O # . O . # . . | . . O # . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . .
White will be happy with either of ‘a’ or ‘b’ here, leaving Black with an uncomfortable decision.
> I hate people who don't play joseki.
Heh. It's only joseki if *you can show* that there is no move that is locally superior. If you can't punish deviations from the supposedly “superior” moves, you shouldn't think of joseki as superior :-)
-- \ “Cross country skiing is great if you live in a small country.” | `\ —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney