I don't really think in those terms. Your play is fine, combining attack and making a framework. Maybe it is better than J-07. I just hate for a play to become mochikomi.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, it is.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Prisoners: B=1, W=1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O O X . X X O X . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . O X X X . O O . X . . |
$$ | . X . O . O . O . O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . . O . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | X . X O . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . X O . O . . . . X . . . O . O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O W . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . C . C . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . C B . . C . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . C . . . . . C . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . C . . . . . . . C . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . C . . . . O . . . . C X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . C . . . . . . . C . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . C . . . . . C . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . . B . . B C . . X X O . |
$$ | . . X X . . . O . B . C O . X . O . . |
$$ | . O X O O . . . . . C . . . . . . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Within a Manhattan distance of 5, it has one friendly stone to four enemy stones. True, the Black tengen stone is even weaker, but Black's play should strengthen it.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The reason I am against contacting a weak stone is because the contact tends to strengthen both sides, and it makes a weak stone stronger. That's also my rationale for why people say to attach to strong stones.

In this case, I thought that attaching might bring strength to the marked black stone in your diagram if white defended as he did in the game.

1.) Is this part correct? Does the attachment bring strength to black as well in the relative area? This was my feeling.

2.) I didn't think of the white stone as being weak at all because of the weakness of my tengen stone. The stone seems quite safe because it can always attack my tengen.

However, based on what you've said, I am gathering that if I play another move that is not a contact move to help my tengen stone, I strengthen my weakness without strengthening his.

In other words, white's stone is not weak for as long as my tengen is weak. But if I play a move to help my tengen without contacting, the white stone becomes more weak.

This is what I am getting from the explanation. Am I still missing something?

_________________
be immersed

Both stones are weak, but the tengen stone is weaker. Each player to play can strengthen his own stone without strengthening the other.

White's stone, although weak, is not in any real danger of being killed. Black's stone is. So my first thought is about sacrificing it. Maybe you played the attachment with the idea of saving it. Well, you did, but at what cost?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I understand that my play in the game was bad, and I think that I get everything that you've said except for the one part:

"White's stone, although weak, is not in any real danger of being killed."

I don't understand how a stone that is not in any real danger is weak, I guess. This is what is getting me with the whole "don't contact a weak stone" bit, I think.

How can I tell if a stone is weak? The manhattan distance trick is kind of interesting, but I'm not really sure how to tell if a stone is weak when it is not in any danger.

_________________
be immersed

You are stronger than me so I'm not sure I should try to jump in, but: one of the most useful strategies in Go is to take profit while attacking a weak group. It doesn't mean that the weak group was "in any real danger" of dying, but the fact that your opponent had to spend time and energy making it safe (even though making it safe was not difficult) while you did useful things is very valuable. Just because you can't reasonably hope to kill it doesn't mean that you can't profit from attacking it.