An exercise in superficiality of shape

Knotwilg · #1

https://senseis.xmp.net/?DietersStudyWi ... Exercise15

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm24 Moves 24 to 29 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . a 5 . 1 X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In this game, the white group in the upper right had been under pressure by the somewhat weirdly placed stone BB. So W24 was played to relieve that pressure by separating BB from the corner, while containing that corner. Black's best move would have been to maintain the pressure with ''a''. When B25 responded with the [hane connect] I was happy to make strong shape with a [tiger's mouth].

Next, Black took the initiative to build the left side, which I expected and understood. I had several options now.

Without giving any hints, where would you play?

Hint: https://senseis.xmp.net/?DietersStudyWi ... cise15hint

John Fairbairn · #2

I think this is a good example of where we amateurs (with normal mindsets) can't really learn anything from either pros or AI.

Thinking in the usual amateur way, as directed by countless commentaries by pros and the amateurs who ape them, I (and, I think, most others here) would instantly see various options, all of which could be found recommended by pros in various cases. Not only that, we could even give chapter and verse as to why such-and-such a strategy may be good.

Here, for example, I could envisage a White move at C12. This would help solidify the upper-left corner while threatening to invade Black's imminent moyo. If Black answers at C11 it could be argued that he is suffering overconcentration, and White could add to that by playing the hanetsugi in the lower-left corner with, now, no regrets.

Alternatively, I could see sense in a play at S4. Ur secures the corner and we could argue that White then has 2 and probably three corners, which is usually the sign of having a good game. At the same time, White would be putting pressure on Black's two-space group. This could be gote for White, so a plausible variation of this might be to kick at R5 then play the hanetsugi there, in the hope that it's sente.

Followers of Wilcox's Instant Go might consider G10, breaking the sector line. Or is G9 better?

J3 has merit. I threatens to join up with the White group on the lower left and and also offers succour to the White group to the right. But its main benefit could be to offer a base for driving a wedge into the Black moyo.

My own intuitive choice would be M16. One reason, for me, would be the not very sensible one that pros often point out that such moves are rarely considered even though they have a technical name: kakoi (surrounding). That's not quite how they put it, of course, but that's what it boils down to.

There are other options. But all of them, including the ones above, have the major problem that pros never tell us how to choose between them (with the minor exception of counting, but that only works if the position is truly countable). When pros say which option they have chosen, it's often a case of something like "it creates the sort of position I like."

It's understandable. Every option involves a question of degree. It's overconcentrated, but how unconcentrated? It's bit but it's gote - so, is it big enough. It's surrounding territory but how much? It looks like I am threatening to attack but might I be strengthening him? And so. We all feel very knowledgeable listing these options in our heads, but we end up choosing burger and chips because the rest of the menu is in French and we are not sure what we are getting.

But, over the years, what I have noticed that pros do most often when they are in this menu-reading dilemma, is that they simply look for the weakest long-term weakness and do something to eradicate it. In other words they invest in strength and hope for long-term gains rather than quick short-term profits. On that basis, I would say that the weakest long-term weakness for White is his two-space extension on the right. So, for that reason I would want to reinforce the upper-right group. Which, for me, means M16. In a quick game I would play that instinctively.

Given the form of the question here, however, I suspect that there is a little more to it. I observe that White R14 has a good chance of being sente kikashi, and, if it is is, it is giving next to nothing away (S13 - a trivial second-line move). Indeed, with that in place it may be possible to replace M16 next with the bigger L16 (or is it bigger? - the old degree dilemma).

Because that's the way I think about these questions, I come to the conclusion that neither pros nor AI tell us how to deal with evaluations of degree. The pros do at least teach us many basic strategies, and it is worth having them in mind even if we can't assess them against each other very well. But AI (at present) doesn't even teach us these basic strategies.

On the assumption that I am in the right area, it may nevertheless be argued that AI is teaching us to look at non-degree type moves. If that is true, then I suspect it may not be teaching us to look for long-term weakness and eradicate them (which is my quite possibly gleaning from pro practice), but is rather teaching us to improve the efficiency of our play. In that regard, playing R14 so as to allow L16 next would be an example of such efficiency.

But, even making the huge assumption that I am on the right track there, we get straight back into the question of degree of efficiency improvement (as with R4 versus S5, for example).

I still believe AI only shows horses for courses and so there is no generic advice available. But I'd be interested if people would give their thoughts on this important matter - and in the process wake this forum up!!!

kvasir · #3

Knotwilg wrote:

Without giving any hints, where would you play?

My first instinct is something like this.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . 1 . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

This moyo looks like something the computer will prefer to play against. I think I prefer to not allow black to expand the moyo like this.

Helping white, I'd assume something like the following was OK.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W OK? $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 . X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . .| $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . 2 X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . 5 O O X X X 4 . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

I can only embarrass myself if I tried to give variations for the cut, but it looks to me like white can compromise and make something on the top side even if black is capturing one side of the cut.

When I come to think of it, black can't really cut this way. It could be premature to try.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W This isn't black cutting $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O 3 4 .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 O X 1 X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 2 5 . .| $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . X X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . O O O X X X X . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

Maybe a false alarm? Black is cutting in the following diagram.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O O X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 O X O X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O 2 .| $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O 1 . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 4 5 . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . 6 7 . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . X X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . O O O X X X X . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

It just begs the question why the atari is on the wrong side. I guess it is back to whatever it was that happens with the right atari.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O X 2 X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 1 . . .| $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . X X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . O O O X X X X . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

Maybe I need to go back and help black?

How about this attachment? It looks cool but white isn't complaining, I think.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 3 . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 2 1 O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , 7 5 4 6 . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . X X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . O O O X X X X . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

I guess I play on the left side for white. There is no need to try to figure out exactly what black could do.

It is likely that there are 1-2 bad errors in every diagram :-?

Knotwilg · #4

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . 1 . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

Kvasir's instinct is better than mine. Indeed :w1:

is the recommended play here.

Contrary to John, I think there's a very good lesson here, at least one that I can learn: the white group in the upper right is NOT thick, despite its appearance (to me). Hence :w1:

is not playing close to thickness, but a thick move in itself, which also happens to make (4th line) territory. As kvasir indicates, AI prefers this sort of thick, territorial move over the framework expansion we amateurs are so fond of.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . a . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . 2 . b . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d . X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . .| $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

Should White play the big move on the left side, then Black can start harassing the upper right with :b2:

. White"s shape suddenly doesn't look so strong anymore. Black A next hits the vital point, B falsifies the eye and C or D can cut. If White responds on the 2nd line then Black has created influence in sente.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +--------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X X . .| $$ | . . . . . O . . 6 . . 2 . O . O X . .| $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 X .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . 4 .| $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . B . . . . . X . . . . . , . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . .| $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . O . . . . .| $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| $$ +--------------------------------------+[/go]

Black can also attack this way. White can't cut because of the ladder ending on the marked stone. IIRC, White needs to play a floating defence like :w5:

and Black now makes a base at the top. (need to check again)

The title was a bit of a hint. My superficial appreciation of shape lured me into thinking the white group was thick. It isn't.

xela · #5

For reference: diagram with coordinates --

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm24 Moves 24 to 29 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . a 5 . 1 X . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . X . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . O O X X X . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

xela · #6

Thanks for posting an interesting position!

Knotwilg wrote:

My superficial appreciation of shape lured me into thinking the white group was thick. It isn't.

My bias is in the opposite direction. My first instinct was the same as kvasir's -- but in a real game, I could well have talked myself out of it. In similar situations I've timidly defended and then been told by the AI that the group was perfectly safe anyway. It's a fine line between an actually strong group and one that just looks strong. I've had to learn that I can't tell just on shape. I have to read out some sequences and answer the question: if I don't defend, can I see specifically what bad thing happens to me?

And then of course there's the positions where the group isn't actually strong, but you still shouldn't defend because there's a big or urgent move elsewhere. On this board, G2 is beckoning (and turns out not to be a terrible move either).

John Fairbairn · #7

On the subject of shapes looking thick but not being so, I remember posting a position illustrating that (it may have been on rec.games.go) and some player who I think may still be lurking on this forum got very shirty with me because he was convinced it WAS thick.

I think it was the following position, which was quoted originally by the editor of Kido under the heading 厚そうで薄い (looks thick but is thin).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O O X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . b . X O X X O . | $$ | . . . X . O . . . , . a . X O X O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O O X X . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . O O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ ----------------------------------------|[/go]

Hayashi Yutaka's explanation was:

Quote:

At first sight, it appears to be thick, yet this is a surprisingly thin shape. In the diagram, White has captured two stones and to an amateur's eyes this seems extremely thick. But White has to suffer two forcing moves from Black at 'a' and 'b' and so the aji is that one way or another he still lacks eyes. Despite appearances, he is actually thin.

As I said in my earlier post, I have observed that pros tend to give a high priority to remedying such bad aji, even very early in the game. Hayashi disappointingly does not say how White should continue here, and I am also disappointed why he does not explain why he goes so far as to say it is "very thin." I have no problem at all in accepting it is not thick. But he appears to be saying "not thick = thin" which seems a step a little too far for me. Is there really nothing in-between?

It's interesting that all three of the respondents so far have alighted on M16 yet have not mentioned "thin" "bad aji" or "(go) eyes" as Hayashi did. It is certainly true that pros do play moves that avoid such shapes, but I don't readily recall that they use such terms either in explaining their moves. The commonest ways of talking that come to mind are kakoi if a technical term is deemed appropriate, or otherwise phrases that amount to something like "you have to protect what you have already invested in".

Since the crux of the matter seems to be "what is thickness", I will take the liberty of quoting from myself (in Go Wisdom) and point out that in Japanese usage thickness is the result of a process. It starts with gaisei or outside influence. It transmutes into atsumi, which is usually rendered "thickness" in English. Regrettably, perhaps. The -mi ending adds, to a Japanese ear, a strong element of vagueness or incompleteness
(i.e. thick-ISH). At this stage of atsumi, the thickness is not yet complete -- it may lack eyes, have possible cutting points and be prone to attack and overconcentration. The change from "thick-ish" to true "thickNESS" is denoted in Japanese by the noun atsusa or by the adjective atsui. The -sa ending conveys that very clearly to a Japanese (the -mi/-sa endings are used with many other adjectives).

An analogy I have used is that a person can be fleshy and well built but not necessarily strong (he is all atsumi). If he wants to convert that into atsusa he needs to work out in the gym and convert the flab to muscle.

As to kakoi, I pointed out in Go Wisdom that it is first and foremost a large-scale prophylactic move.

Knotwilg · #8

John, thanks for bringing back the atsumi/sa conversation. I have held this in my conceptual repertoire, but reading your linguistic expertise again, I realize it had taken a "shape" of its own in my mind.

I thought atsumi was the local quality of a group being thick while atsusa was the global thickness. One image I held, was the typical Takemiya development of locally influential (but not yet thick) positions which globally cooperate to create thickness for themselves.

Now I read that the distinction is not local vs global but "in progress" vs "accomplished". Which would also explain why a merely influential position can be called "thick-ish".

Thinking about the position in terms of aji would have likely helped me finding the recommended move. While I considered the position "thick(ish)" I also had a "sour taste" about it. The falsification of the eye, the cutting points of the 2 space jump ... From that perspective a reinforcement can't be superfluous. It still looks slow to me though ...

dust · #9

John Fairbairn wrote:

There are other options. But all of them, including the ones above, have the major problem that pros never tell us how to choose between them (with the minor exception of counting, but that only works if the position is truly countable). When pros say which option they have chosen, it's often a case of something like "it creates the sort of position I like."

I think John is onto something here. One of the problems with trying to learn from AI is potentially becoming too focussed on the 'recommended move'.

This is an interesting position with lots of potentially viable moves, such as c12, b4, g2, r5 - as well as m16. I'd argue that whilst the white group may not be thick, it could be regarded as flexible - and so there's a judgement to be made on what kind of game you might want to play... Solidly defending and letting Black build the moyo or disrupting the moyo and being prepared to act flexibility on the right.

On thickness which is not yet complete, I recall there is a venerable Wanstead go saying, which rephrases an idiomatic English expression: "Walls may have ears - but not yet eyes".

Anyway, it is good to see an interesting position and some discussion.

An exercise in superficiality of shape

Who is online