I have been reading Opening Theory Made Easy for a few days, and it uses one space and two space jumps to run away/attack a lot. Since both jumps can be cut, especially the two space jump, why would it be a good way of fleeing or attacking? In what sort of a position would these jumps be safe from cutting?

I don't have any games to show, because this was just a question that I thought about and couldn't get my head around.

It's very important to look at the SPECIFIC situation. It's very difficult to answer your question without a specific position.

Of course, Ed is right, that without specifics, it's hard to give an adequate answer. But I will toss out a few generalizations anyway.

You are right that both the one and two space jumps can be cut. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will be cut.

First of all, it depends a great deal on where the surrounding stones are. If the jump is in the middle of nowhere, trying to cut without support may very well leave the cutter at a disadvantage.

If you are thinking about jumping in order to get out into the center, then you might also look at the alternatives. Both the iron pillar and the diagonal move can not be cut, but they both move slower towards the center. If you end up getting surrounded, then it doesn't help you much that you can't be cut. Ideally, when you jump out, you are not just running, but also threatening something, so that when your opponent defends, you will have time to secure your stones. Also, if your jump does get cut, it will be in the process of a fight, and not the end of the story. Presumably you will get something in return, and if you don't, then you probably shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.

If you are thinking about jumping to attack, for example in order to surround your opponent, then being cut is a two way street. Your opponent doesn't only need to cut you - he also needs either to live, or to capture some of your cutting stones.

In any case, try posting an example, and you'll see why there's usually no clear cut answer.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

You have a good point. I will post a game about it if I encounter a situation where I do a one or two space jump.



Thanks for the advice. I will need to play more games to get a sense of when is a good time to jump. As I said, I will try to find a game with a one or two space jump.

It'd be quite interesting to find a game without any.

Actually, only the last one is a jump

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorial ... gPositions has some material about one space jumps in the abstract.

Sorry for my wording I meant a game where I get cut after doing a jump

A game where you do not get cut may be almost as educational--since we will have to ask whether or not your opponent could have cut, and why or why not.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

That's a good idea, and since all games have jumps, as EdLee pointed out, I'll post one of my next games here then.

In the game that you already posted moves 15, 16, and 17 are all one-space jumps, right? What did you think of those?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Yes, the 1-space and 2-space jumps can be cut.

The thing to keep in mind is that when you make a cut you have to manage your cutting stones or it is pointless.

1-space and 2-space jumps are especially strong in the open because cutting them by placing an unsupported stone is almost never worthwhile. The cutting stone in such a scenario is the beginning of a very weak group that can't be treated lightly if the cut is going to stick. So the player who's jump is being cut gets a long series of forcing moves that make his position thick and strong while the cutting player is forced into a series of moves that make his position heavy without being strong.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . 4 O . . . . .
$$ . . 2 1 3 . . . .
$$ . 7 5 O . . . . .
$$ . . . 6 . . . . .[/go]

Look at Black - he just made two weak groups just to cut White. Are White's groups weak? Not really. White's top group has room to make a base. White's lower group faces the center and has an easy path to run. This was a terrible exchange for Black, but every move was forced if Black wants to keep white separated.

Local context can change a lot of things, though. If the ladder is favorable moves like W6 or B7 can be omitted. Likewise if there's a supporting black stone near B3 the position is markedly improved for Black.

Similar principles apply with the two-space jump: the cutting stones will be exposed to forcing moves. One it's own the cut creates two weak groups for the cutting player with marginal prospects for developing into valuable influence or solid territory.

As the area around those jumps gets more crowded the possibilities from cutting become more complicated and better opportunities may be found. I mean how much better is this than the original cut diagram?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . O . . . . .
$$ . B . 1 . B . . .
$$ . . . O . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

@mlund: in that first diagram white would usually not play that way unless there is support that makes the fight favourable (rare, because then the opponent would not try to cut). On an empty board it's somewhat more advantageous for white, but it's still a complicated fight. In real games often white will just let the third-line stone go because usually black will have support (e.g. one possible sequence is as below, though the situation is very very sensitive to surrounding pieces as you have said).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . 9 7 . . . .
$$ . . . O 5 6 . . .
$$ . . 3 1 2 . 8 . .
$$ . . . O 4 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I also don't think the second one is that much better for black - he'll end up with a stick on one side and a damaged piece on the other (e.g. one possible sequence as below, though again very sensitive to surroundings).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . 9 7 . . . .
$$ . . . O 5 6 8 . .
$$ . B 3 1 2 B . . .
$$ . . . O 4 . 0 . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I highlighted a few keywords in the OP that seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about attacking and defending.


If you are attacking, why bother about being cut? The objective is to surround and/or cut the opponent. When you attack, you should already have a strong position, therefore you should not have to worry about your own cuts.

On the other hand, if you are the one running away, you should play lightly. If you play only uncuttable moves, you end up with a single heavy group, and you're unable to sacrifice stones. Sometimes, you *want* to be cut, so you can stabilize a part of your group by sacrificing the other. Your opponent usually doesn't want to cut, and instead tries to attack the whole group on a larger scale.