It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:57 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: two question about 4-4 point approach
Post #1 Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:36 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 155
Liked others: 160
Was liked: 4
Rank: 4k OGS 1d Fox
Online playing schedule: OGS, Fox Server
Hi all.

I am struggling about grasping the ideas behind this two related topic about 4-4 point joseki. I'm 4k btw.

After LeelaZero now this approach it's pattern, which usually leads to a pushing battle (according to my analysis with bots) that leaves me kinda confused.



Isn't simpler the following josekis, which lead to simpler position for white, without pushing battle and stuff like that? Why this isn't pattern anymore? Why the attachment seems more "urgent" than the slide (locally of course)




Second question. The famous 3-3 invasion.

With LeelaZero help we play this fuseki


The bots says that here black is perfectly placed and is around 56% winning chances. Since black is around 43% on the first move that means that black having "sente" in the final position (and having few points on the corner) this is more than sufficient for having a +13% improvement even if white has nice territory at the top and komi. It seems to me that white position at the top is big and hardly invadable. Ok M17 is an invasion possibility but after the usual joseki white is very thick I think and how to reduce that? And in the top left under the wall that is pure 20 points territory.... it seems to me too big.

Here what is black's usual plan against that position on the top left? How Black usually attacks the wall that white build after he faces the 3-3 invasion? Can you please show me some plans against the wall of the 3-3 invasion or here to study it?

Thanks.

_________________
Don't play 1-2-3
Just play 3

(Go proverb)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: two question about 4-4 point approach
Post #2 Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:20 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 9545
Liked others: 1600
Was liked: 1711
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
In the second position, I'm not all that worried about white's points on the top, yet. What does he have in terms of definite points? You already mentioned the black invasion possibility, so after that, white has like 10 or 15 points of definite territory, maybe. Yeah, white has thickness then, but it's give and take... If black doesn't invade, white has 25 or 30 points maybe, with 10 stones to do it. So on average, getting 2.5 or 3 points per move, maybe... I'm not too worried about it.

For the first position, white is playing tighter - has the option of getting the corner by capturing R3, too.

That being said, I don't think you have to disregard your idea from the second sgf. If you're playing something reasonable, especially in the opening, I think it's better to play to get into a position you're comfortable with than to strictly follow the AI. Like before AI, if pros were playing some complicated avalanche variation all of the time, it didn't mean that we had to follow that trend.

AIs can give you new ideas, and think about interesting possibilities.

But at the end of the day, you are the commander of your stones - so I think you should play in a way that you feel comfortable with.

_________________
be immersed


This post by Kirby was liked by: Fllecha
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: two question about 4-4 point approach
Post #3 Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:42 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2401
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Liked others: 2338
Was liked: 1332
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
Fllecha wrote:
Hi all.

I am struggling about grasping the ideas behind this two related topic about 4-4 point joseki. I'm 4k btw.

...
Second question. The famous 3-3 invasion.

With LeelaZero help we play this fuseki


The bots says that here black is perfectly placed and is around 56% winning chances. Since black is around 43% on the first move that means that black having "sente" in the final position (and having few points on the corner) this is more than sufficient for having a +13% improvement even if white has nice territory at the top and komi. It seems to me that white position at the top is big and hardly invadable. Ok M17 is an invasion possibility but after the usual joseki white is very thick I think and how to reduce that? And in the top left under the wall that is pure 20 points territory.... it seems to me too big.

Here what is black's usual plan against that position on the top left? How Black usually attacks the wall that white build after he faces the 3-3 invasion? Can you please show me some plans against the wall of the 3-3 invasion or here to study it?

Thanks.


If you used LZ to create this fuseki, you should have some feeling already for where your thinking is going wrong. White should continue extending at :w3: below instead of playing "a" in your example. LZ considers that "a" loses 6% versus 3 and the game is instantly equal when Black grabs the key point with a play at 3. In old-school terms as well, "a" is too close to White's wall and it allows Black to "hane at the head of three stones". At 4k the rules to live by include:
* "Always allow your opponent to push from behind on the second line!"
* "Don't tenuki and allow your opponent to hane at the head of either your two stones ( :w1: below) or your three stones ( :w3: )."
By the time you get to 4d you will not have found many exceptions to these rules!


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


By the end of the example LZ considers :w1: below a -8% play. It is way too close to the wall (now something like seven stones tall but with lots of defects. LZ considers that White should just play away to "a" in the bottom right for example with a roughly equal game. :w1: does pop up frequently in LZ analyses - as a possible response to Black "b". LZ will often sacrifice the marked White stones as apparently it does not consider the effort to fix up the defects worth it!
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . 1 . . O . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X @ . b . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21


This post by ez4u was liked by 3 people: Bill Spight, Fllecha, Joaz Banbeck
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: two question about 4-4 point approach
Post #4 Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:07 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1733
Location: Earth
Liked others: 621
Was liked: 310
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ +-------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . c b . . . . .
$$ | . . a . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]


recent pro games, white to move:

move a: 1396
move b: 1179
move c: 360

I am always happy if white chooses c. You may still call move c joseki if YOU like to.


This post by Gomoto was liked by: Fllecha
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: two question about 4-4 point approach
Post #5 Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:44 am 
Judan

Posts: 6725
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 436
Was liked: 3719
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
Worth noting that the vast majority of those 360 instances of 'c' in recent games will be followed by the double hane rather than extend.


This post by Uberdude was liked by: Fllecha
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group