I don't consider that move flexible. I consider it very solid, strong, and effective there. Flexible and / or efficient would not be terms I would use. To me, its goal is "win the liberty race one side or the other by increasing liberties and restricting opponent's liberties". Strong? Yes. Tesuji? Yes. Even dual purpose (aiming at miai) makes sense. But flexible? Not for me

Regarding the last example that Shaddy posted,
can one really look at a complicated corner fighting position and classify it as good or bad shape?

Which makes more sense?
1.) Given each move, each consequent Joseki move is considered "good shape".
2.) Good shape is only a term that can be coined to groups of stone that have been laid out on the board and must prove themselves in the coming battle.

In that last example, I don't think one can say that white's empty triangle at the end is good shape, even though it is effective and probably one of the few possible moves in that position.

Who wants to step up to the board and call that move good shape in front of a group of professionals? Maybe one of them would agree with you...

_________________
Ko is the best solution.
With Ko, I can keep eating and drinking until I am full.

Visit >>>Koosh's Study Journal<<<

It reminds me of one of Rob van Zeijst's articles:

"Sakata told me that to become a top player, it was only necessary to avoid mistakes and play an occasional brilliant move. In other words, it was not necessary to play brilliant moves throughout a game."

I also think Steinitz's theory of chess also applies to go a bit. We sometimes spend so much time learning fancy strategies and techniques that we lose track of the humble state of mind required to consistently avoid obvious silliness. I still stuggle with this. If I win, it is often because I have kept in mind that I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun my opponent.