Punishing the hane (for beginners)

[Uberdude]

Here's how a Japanese 9p crushed the hane when Azerbaijan's comedy 6 dan played it in the 1st WMSG (he also did it to Alex Selby the UK representative in the 2011 WAGC and Alex immediately cut which is bad as then black plays the 2nd line hane-connect and white is in big trouble).

[Uberdude]

Illustrating my point about white connecting on the 3rd line and black not being as thick, we can do a little tewari. Assuming black backs down and connects at 2, white now has a choice of how to connect.

$$Wc How to connect?
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . . . X O . . |
$$ . X . O a X O . . |
$$ . . . . b 1 c d . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc How to connect?
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . . . X O . . |
$$ . X . O a X O . . |
$$ . . . . b 1 c d . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------+[/go]

If you played the descent first then you have already picked your answer at c. However, a and b look better. There is a shape problem with a if you want to jump out later (though the exchange of 6 for 7 does lose some yose for black in the corner):

$$Wc Shape weakness
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 5 . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . 8 . X O . . |
$$ . X . O 3 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 6 1 7 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Shape weakness
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 5 . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . 8 . X O . . |
$$ . X . O 3 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 6 1 7 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------+[/go]

Connecting with b avoids this but doesn't have as many points or take a liberty from black. I'm not sure which is better. Black could always hane once before connecting at 2 if he doesn't like white playing b, but that does lose a little corner yose.

So now let's compare white's points and black's thickness with the descent vs hane variations (given black backs down with 2).

$$Wc Descent v1
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . 8 6 . X O . . |
$$ . . X . O 4 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 7 5 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Descent v1
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . 8 6 . X O . . |
$$ . . X . O 4 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 7 5 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]

$$Wc Descent v2
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . b 8 6 . X O . . |
$$ . . X 7 O 4 X O . . |
$$ . 0 9 a . 5 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Descent v2
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . b 8 6 . X O . . |
$$ . . X 7 O 4 X O . . |
$$ . 0 9 a . 5 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]

$$Wc Hane
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . b . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . 8 6 a X O . . |
$$ . . X . O 3 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 7 4 1 5 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Hane
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . b . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . . . 8 6 a X O . . |
$$ . . X . O 3 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 7 4 1 5 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]

White has the weakness of push and cut at a or a peep at b to aim at so black is not as thick (plus has fewer points). Also white has more points that in Descent v1.

[illluck]

Mmm, the sequence I see recommended by Wu Xinyu after black backing down is b as it doesn't allow black to complete the wall solidly,

[Uberdude]

Mmm, the sequence I see recommended by Wu Xinyu after black backing down is b as it doesn't allow black to complete the wall solidly,

Interesting. If black really wants the wall he could do this but it loses some yose so maybe white isn't so sad:

$$Wc I want a wall!
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 4 X . . |
$$ . . . 6 . X O . . |
$$ . X . O 5 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc I want a wall!
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 4 X . . |
$$ . . . 6 . X O . . |
$$ . X . O 5 X O . . |
$$ . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------+[/go]

[jts]

Tedomari s.b. tewari, right?

[Uberdude]

Tedomari s.b. tewari, right?

Yes, thanks. Corrected.

[tchan001]

IMO if you think "punish" the hane, you're already on the wrong track.

why he believes the r5 move not to be a mistake by Black.

Nowhere did I say whether or not I consider R5 to be a mistake by Black. Please don't put words into my mouth.

See this thread -- in particular John's Posts #3 and #9 -- http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =12&t=1578

Ed, I interpret your original statement as follows:
1. on the wrong track >>> made a mistake
2. "punish" the hane >>> the source of the mistake

If you want another way to look at it, the pro attitude is to say: If all my moves are perfect, I don't need to worry about my opponent's moves. The amateur attitude is to look for imperfections in the opponent's moves and to try to punish them.

If you reread what JF wrote, you'll see that he's talking about pros making an effort to play perfect moves and not being able to be punished by his opponent. He is talking about the attitude of not looking for imperfections in the opponent's move. We are talking about how to punish something we know is an imperfection in the opponent's move. Nowhere does JF say that you should overlook imperfections in the opponent's move. He's only talking about how pros invest and don't look for get rich quick schemes. You need to remember that in investments, arbitrage is a very profitable activity which takes advantage of mispricings in the market. Likewise, punishing well known imperfections is reaping reward for playing solid moves yourself.

[EdLee]

tchan, I'm currently in 3 Malkovich games and strictly speaking cannot peruse Ishida or Takao,
but I'm very curious if either of them used the word "punish" or "punishment" in their dictionaries.
I seem to remember wordings like "foil", "counter attack", "avoid the trap",
and of course the usual "favorable", "unfavorable", "satisfied", "dissatisfied", etc.
I suppose I can search for "punish" in kogo as a text file without actually reading it.

Nowhere does JF say that you should overlook imperfections in the opponent's move.

Neither did I.

[cyclops]

Tedomari s.b. tewari, right?

"s.b." s.b. "should be", rt?

[illluck]

There's no need for that much work. Pros routinely call certain moves "overplays", what do they try to do against those moves?

[EdLee]

Pros routinely call certain moves "overplays", what do they try to do against those moves?

They continue to play their best, most severe moves.

It's my personal preference, and I could well be in the minority here, thus my emphasis of "IMO".
But I still prefer to not think in terms of "punish" or "punishment" against overplays, unreasonable moves, soft moves, slow moves, etc.,
but just continue to play the best, most severe reply, counter-attack, etc. That's all.

[illluck]

A rose, by any other name... :p

In any case, I don't think that's a wrong way to think of things, but hard to claim that looking for punishments for apparent non-optimal moves is "on the wrong track".

[jts]

Tedomari s.b. tewari, right?

"s.b." s.b. "should be", rt?

s.b. s.b s.b., indeed.

[tchan001]

Looks like even Shusaku plays the second line hane. Watch move 51 bottom right corner

[daal]

It's my personal preference, and I could well be in the minority here, thus my emphasis of "IMO".
But I still prefer to not think in terms of "punish" or "punishment" against overplays, unreasonable moves, soft moves, slow moves, etc.,
but just continue to play the best, most severe reply, counter-attack, etc. That's all.

A rose, by any other name... :p

In any case, I don't think that's a wrong way to think of things, but hard to claim that looking for punishments for apparent non-optimal moves is "on the wrong track".

For most of us, it's probably much more important to learn to read out countermeasures to an overplay than it is to quibble about what to call it, but I suspect that EdLee is right in cautioning us against using the word "punish."

There is a subtle but significant difference in attitude between "I will punish my opponent's mistake" and " I will play the best move in this situation." Of course a pro wants to figure out how best to exploit any weakness in an opponent's position, but that is surely secondary to finding the moves that will best lead to a win. By focusing on punishment, we are limiting our scope.

I don't think though that it's just a matter of local vs global; it's also about how we direct our minds and thoughts. Using the word "punish" places our focus on rectifying a transgression against us. It awakens our sense of righteousness (and also a fear of being swindled). By adding a moral element, we are giving the situation more weight than it would otherwise have, and it becomes more difficult to view the situation objectively.

One might say that this is also true of "jealous" and "greedy," which are easily understood concepts that are helpful in pointing out moments in which an amateur's play turned sour. Usually such play is bad, and usually punishing overplays is good, but all of these terms insert emotional involvement into the equation, where a pro would more often tend to make a dispassionate assessment.

It might also be worth noting that in contrast, the words "severe" or "painful" for example do not have a moral element, and are frequently used by pros.

Then again, we aren't pros (yet), and approaching the game on an emotional level can offer us worthwhile shortcuts, but like any shortcuts, if they become habits, they will hinder us in the long run.