Got into a situation very early (move 5) in a game yesterday:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . 2 . .
$$ | . . O , 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

My general heuristic for responding to the low pincer here when W has a stone in the lower-left, I attach at 3-3, otherwise I consider the splitting move at 2-5. In any case, this game the lower-right was W on the star point, so I proceed to attach, and it's pretty much W's choice to play this out:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 8 . . . .
$$ | . . X 2 3 9 O . .
$$ | . 4 O 1 X . . . .
$$ | . 6 5 . 0 . . . .
$$ | . . 7 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

At this point, B has played second in the corner, has maybe 10 points there, but W has development on both sides.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . X X O O O . .
$$ | . X O O X . . . 5
$$ | . X O . X . 4 . .
$$ | . 1 O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . . . 3 . . . 6 .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

Here's the follow-up from the game. W descended , and I decided that the descent was not sente against the corner (which may or may not be correct) so I elected to run out my cutting stones. This may not be such a good decision, though, because it gives W the opportunity to settle his developments on both sides. In particular, I felt as soon as and were played, the cutting stones lost their meaning as W is unlikely to be pressured on either side, so I played a fairly large jump with , figuring I would eventually sacrifice the original stones and would become a reduction.

I can't help but feel that were too passive. Or perhaps I should force the sacrifice in the first place by playing at directly. Can anyone give me advice on how to handle this?

_________________
Keep in mind, I am frequently wrong.

Pros don't seem to play above:



Perhaps there's a better ? I'm thinking about:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X 2 3 . O . .
$$ | . 4 O 1 X . . . .
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . .
$$ | . . 6 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

You have an alive corner and a strong cutting group despite being in the corner second, so I prefer black here. However, I do think the - exchange is more helpful to white than black, but I don't know what's best.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Maybe this is better?
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X 2 3 . O . .
$$ | . 4 O 1 X . . . .
$$ | . . 5 . 6 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Or maybe this?
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 6 . . . .
$$ | . . X 2 3 7 O . .
$$ | . 4 O 1 X . . . .
$$ | . . 5 . 8 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

Daniel's move also looks interesting.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Thanks for the comments so far. I agree that I like the result of the joseki, but only if I can handle the cutting stones skillfully. If W successfully harasses them, it doesn't feel nearly as good.

@DE:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B I'd be worried about this...
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . . X X O . O . .
$$ | . X W W X . . . .
$$ | . C W . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . a b . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

In your first diagram, W2 seems sente against the corner if B can't kill the marked W stones. And, I don't immediately see how either a or b works to kill (and no other move jumps out at me but I may just be missing it), so I'd probably respond by living at 2-2, at which point I might as well play the atari before W has the chance to play . That also makes the marked descent sente against the corner, hence playing the crawl and atari before extending comes from the logic of playing double-sente moves before W has the opportunity.

_________________
Keep in mind, I am frequently wrong.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Daily joseki says that pros don't like white 5 as the empty triangle, and instead do something along these lines.

This is the variation I expected. It continues with either B living/defending at 2-2, offering to live small in return for sente or linking up to , giving up sente but taking the corner with one side unsealed.

_________________
Keep in mind, I am frequently wrong.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Looks fine to me
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . 5 X X O . O . .
$$ | . X W W X . . . .
$$ | . 4 W . 1 . . . .
$$ | . 6 3 . . . . . .
$$ | . 8 7 . . . . . .
$$ | . . 9 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . .[/go]

I like forcing White to crawl along the second line.

Also, at 6, sacrificing the corner that way, looks OK, too.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.