What is the name of this shape?

[Unusedname]

Does this shape have a specific name?

My go is at the level where this is currently the most emotional shape that can appear on the board.

When I'm playing W I am ecstatic. As though forcing my opponent into this position is proof that I am on my way to being a very strong player.

But when I'm playing B I start to look back on my life, and wonder where it all went wrong.

I'd just like to know the name of the shape that makes me feel this way.

$$c This is a label for the diagram.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c This is a label for the diagram.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[Solomon]

I don't think this shape has a name, but I call it the spider because it looks like one if you tilt your head a little.

[tchan001]

Shapes don't necessarily all have names but in general black in this situation is described as heavy and inefficient.

[Joaz Banbeck]

It is a B1 bomber with one pilot ejecting.

[HermanHiddema]

I would call it the result of the Eye Stealing Tesuji

[EdLee]

When I'm playing W I am ecstatic.

Why? It looks like a Broken Shape for W.

...in general black in this situation is described as heavy and inefficient.

Hmmm? It still looks like a broken shape for W, to me.

Herman, are you sure that's the eye-stealing tesuji shape?
Unusedname's shape is very different from this:

$$
$$. . . . . .
$$. O O O . .
$$. X X O . .
$$. . X X O .
$$. O . X O .
$$. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$. . . . . .
$$. O O O . .
$$. X X O . .
$$. . X X O .
$$. O . X O .
$$. . . . . .[/go]

[HermanHiddema]

When I'm playing W I am ecstatic.

Why? It looks like a Broken Shape for W.

...in general black in this situation is described as heavy and inefficient.

Hmmm? It still looks like a broken shape for W, to me.

Herman, are you sure that's the eye-stealing tesuji shape?
Unusedname's shape is very different from this:

$$
$$. . . . . .
$$. O O O . .
$$. X X O . .
$$. . X X O .
$$. O . X O .
$$. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$. . . . . .
$$. O O O . .
$$. X X O . .
$$. . X X O .
$$. O . X O .
$$. . . . . .[/go]

$$
$$. . . . . .
$$. O O O . .
$$. B B W . .
$$. . B B O .
$$. W . B O .
$$. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$. . . . . .
$$. O O O . .
$$. B B W . .
$$. . B B O .
$$. W . B O .
$$. . . . . .[/go]

I would say it is identical. The marked stones are the only ones that matter, the rest are just context.

Specifically, the marked white stones are what makes the tesuji.

$$W
$$ . . ? ? ?
$$ . X X W ?
$$ . . M X ?
$$ . 1 . X .
$$ . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . ? ? ?
$$ . X X W ?
$$ . . M X ?
$$ . 1 . X .
$$ . . . . .[/go]

If in this diagram, if is not a weak stone, but has support in the greyed area, then makes sure that black can never make an eye at , hence the name "eye stealing".

But even in the unlikely case that the marked white stone is entirely on its own, then black still isn't good. Black has 5 stones here, with no eyeshape. The shape is highly inefficient.

[jts]

In short, could we say:

$$ Efficient
$$. . . . . .
$$. . . . . .
$$. . X O . .
$$. . X X . .
$$. O . . . .
$$. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Efficient
$$. . . . . .
$$. . . . . .
$$. . X O . .
$$. . X X . .
$$. O . . . .
$$. . . . . .[/go]

$$ Efficient
$$. . . . . .
$$. .. . . .
$$. X . O . .
$$. . X . . .
$$. O . X . .
$$. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Efficient
$$. . . . . .
$$. .. . . .
$$. X . O . .
$$. . X . . .
$$. O . X . .
$$. . . . . .[/go]

$$ Heavy
$$. . . . . .
$$. ... . .
$$. X X O . .
$$. . X X . .
$$. O . X . .
$$. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Heavy
$$. . . . . .
$$. ... . .
$$. X X O . .
$$. . X X . .
$$. O . X . .
$$. . . . . .[/go]

...?

[HermanHiddema]

Yes. Given either of your first two diagrams, would you play the remaining two stones to create the third?

[jts]

Yes. Given either of your first two diagrams, would you play the remaining two stones to create the third?

No, of course not. I was more verifying that the first two diagrams are both locally acceptable, than that the third is inefficient.

[HermanHiddema]

Yes. Given either of your first two diagrams, would you play the remaining two stones to create the third?

No, of course not. I was more verifying that the first two diagrams are both locally acceptable, than that the third is inefficient.

Yep. The question was rhetoric, BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you would
It was just meant to show a way of thinking about shapes that not all readers of the thread are necessarily familiar with.

[Bill Spight]

I keep thinking: Cassiopeia.

http://space.about.com/od/starsplanetsg ... iopeia.htm

[Phelan]

The only name I've seen ascribed to this shape is "double empty triangle".

[Uberdude]

Walk like an Egyptian.