Aidoneus wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Aidoneus wrote:
Additionally, I think I read in some thread here about comparative efficiency of adding a stone to different areas based on the local balance of power (number of stones per side), which I thought might apply in this position. Thank you in advance for any further insight!
Well, yeah, the 3-3 response puts Black one stone ahead locally, and threatens White's potential base. But, Leela 11 aside, the bots don't like it, and they don't particularly care for the slide, either.
But I was thinking that adding an approach stone to one of the other corners was more efficient per something that I read...I think in a thread here but I cannot find it at the moment. Something about getting one vs one or two versus one being more important? I guess I see it as percentage change in relative strength, though it wasn't expressed that way. Does this sound familiar? Maybe I was dreaming?!
No, you weren't dreaming. In general, with non-random placement of stones, and unless there is a capture or threat to capture, the more stones in a region of the board the lower its local temperature.
For instance, around three centuries ago in Japan it was popular to start games with a 3-4, then a 5-3 approach, then a pincer, then play in an open corner, often with the same pattern. Over time, players learned through experience that it was better to play in an open corner than to play a pincer. Later they started playing in an open corner instead of playing the approach.
OC, both local and whole board considerations can override this heuristic. For instance, bots usually prefer a corner approach or three-three invasion to playing in an empty side.
