My biggest question to myself right now is what kind of game would I like to play?
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Some options I am considering
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , M . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M M . . |
$$ | . . . X . M . . M , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
So, to break these down, there's a keima or ogeima extension, a pincer, and the attach-extend as direct responses, as well as forming a shimari and disrupting white's shimari.
The keima extension seems like the most basic response. It's very simple, white will probably play around k4 or l3, at which point black can take sente to approach the bottom right. White will then likely try to select a sente joseki or directly approach the top left in response. Black can then extend from the 3-4 down the side or use a kosumi to start forming a moyo.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$cm1 keima response
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , 4 . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . 2 . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
If white doesn't respond to 1, then I have the option of kicking f3 and then pincering at a later time.
The ogeima is similar to the keima, but opens up the corner more. It's also a little closer to the top side, making a future moyo based on a shimari a little tighter. I don't think that white is as likely to slide in at d2 because it will make black's response more efficient, but if white invades the 3-3 directly, I feel it weakens the white group on the bottom side and could be problematic if done too early, and I will always have the option of defending should white strengthen the bottom group. I wonder, though, if that would be too slow, or give away sente. I kind of like this move, though, because it's a little less conventional, so it might take my opponent out of his book, so to speak.
It's also possible that white would invade directly instead of setting up the framework on the bottom. I'm wondering which side would be better to defend in that case... the left could turn into a larger framework, but it also concedes one to white on the bottom. Do I want this game to become a moyo game? If I seal white in the corner with the standard 3-3 invasion to the 4-4 + ogeima I think the aji of the approach would be too great, so I would probably have to concede some for solidity. I still don't like the idea of the f3 stone's aji, though, and it hampers a good extension.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$cm1 The pincer, 3-3 invasion
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 X . . . . 1 , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 2 3 9 O . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . 8 6 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
I don't like the way black's wall is left facing the strong side of the 3-4 in the bottom right, but black gets left with sente to approach it. A standard approach seems to push white towards activating the aji of the original approach move, though, and I feel like black's stones are uncoordinated with the other corners.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$cm1 Pincer double approach
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 X . 3 4 . 1 , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 6 . 7 O . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
I feel this has the same issue as the 3-3, in that black has strength but it's not facing the optimal direction. I am playing another turn based game where I took this option from the other side (white here), with my opposing corner stone on 4-4, and I think it worked out well for me there, so I don't want to play it here.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$cm1 Attach-extend
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . 1 2 . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 4 O . . . 6 . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
I don't like the attach-extend joseki as much because white is left with sente, and if black makes a shimari, white will probably jump in near the marked point and reduce a lot of its use. I didn't give this a whole lot of thought, as I feel it's usually much better with a supporting stone around c10.
Tenuki options
If I tenuki to approach q3 or to form an enclosure on the top left, it is quite possible that white will take the miai alternative and I will be in the same position, but with more information, which I like. This leaves two questions: Whether to approach or make the enclosure, and what to do if white plays a double approach in the bottom left.
To take the second first, the real question is whether to respond to the double approach, or if taking a second tenuki to solidify things would be better. If I make the 3-4 5-4 enclosure in the top left, I think that a double approach would let me lean on the bottom approach stone at f3 to build a nice wall and pincer the left approach stone while extending from the shimari. As a result, I think white would enclose his own corner.
If I approach white's corner low, at the 5-3, and white makes the double approach, I would have the ladders to play the taisha if I'm feeling frisky, or I could press, or I could take the two space high pincer. A full-on taisha fight might be frightening for my opponent, but I am concerned that it would hurt what would be left of the bottom left corner for not much gain. I think it's a little more painful for black to tenuki away if white responds directly, though, than if black approached high, at the 5-4.
With the high approach, I think a white tenuki to make the double approach is a little easier than the low one, as white can get more in the corner after a second move, or white can more easily play towards the stone on f3. In exchange, though, white's expansion is pre-checked on the right side if black follows to take care of the d4 stone. If white stops black's shimari, the pincer of the f3 stone becomes more viable as it becomes a splitting attack as well. Lastly, if white plays against q5, I think black could treat it more lightly to return to the lower left as appropriate.
My two favourite options here are either the extension on the left side or the high approach at q5. I think that the extensions are more likely to lead to a moyo game and the approach to a more broken up game with smaller territories. I tend to end up in moyo games kind of by default, so I think I will go for the other approach, but I do find the ogeima very tempting. Tempting enough that I almost want to play another game with it in response.
If you haven't noticed by now, I tend to think rather deeply (dare I say overthink?) about the opening. I got tired of making diagrams, also, but if anyone wants one because something is unclear, please let me know.