Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering if there were some rules about those stones being more important that I didn't know about. My personal experience with that shape often do seem like I just lose everything without compensation :p Guess it's just my poor judgement and reading then.
Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Honinbo Shuei makes me feel like a beginner too: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 41#p116641Samura wrote: As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones
-
Samura
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:06 pm
- Rank: KGS 14 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Samura
- Location: Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
I love Honinbo Shuei, his style is so... "natural". I know it's a fuzzy word, but every time I watch his games I got the feel that I understand what his is doing.
Cho Chikun, on the contrary....
Cho Chikun, on the contrary....
-
Alguien
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:50 pm
- Rank: KGS 3k
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: Alguien
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
My problem with this kind of plays is that I have no faith in the evils of vulgarity.mitsun wrote:Sometimes it is good to be skeptical
Here is a common technique to reduce a large B framework.
After this sequence, where does W play to make shape?
After this move, it B cuts, W can just sacrifice some stones, maintaining a good outside position.
I read that as: Which I don't see as magnificently better than: I'm not doubting it is much better. It's just that my eyes are not ready to see giving the entire side in exchange for a wall as good, because I don't know how to use walls good enough.
-
Tami
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:05 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: Reisei 1d
- Online playing schedule: When I can
- Location: Carlisle, England
- Has thanked: 196 times
- Been thanked: 342 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
For my 2 pence worth, I don`t think Black is doing badly here. Yes, the peeps are irritating, but White can only live small in the corner with 6 at the 3-3, and then her stones on the outside are wasted. For instance,
From my POV, White has lived small with bad aji and her stones on the outside have become useless. Locally, I`d prefer Black, but a lot would depend on the position as a whole. And, as jts pointed out, Black also had the option of resisting instead of making the B2 Bomber.
I think this situation, while the same shape, is different from the reduction joseki (when misplayed) that mitsun mentioned. In that case, permitting yourself to be peeped at would be to become heavy, but in this one Black simply suffers a little irritation while gaining a compensation (the wastage of White`s outside stones).
Instead of 9, Black can also block White in with a. Whether that would be better than 9 would depend on the overall position.
Anyway...don't make bad shape carefree (as Takemiya says!), but don't be dogmatic either. It all depends.
From my POV, White has lived small with bad aji and her stones on the outside have become useless. Locally, I`d prefer Black, but a lot would depend on the position as a whole. And, as jts pointed out, Black also had the option of resisting instead of making the B2 Bomber.
I think this situation, while the same shape, is different from the reduction joseki (when misplayed) that mitsun mentioned. In that case, permitting yourself to be peeped at would be to become heavy, but in this one Black simply suffers a little irritation while gaining a compensation (the wastage of White`s outside stones).
Instead of 9, Black can also block White in with a. Whether that would be better than 9 would depend on the overall position.
Anyway...don't make bad shape carefree (as Takemiya says!), but don't be dogmatic either. It all depends.
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
-
Samura
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:06 pm
- Rank: KGS 14 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Samura
- Location: Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Tami,
well, I was thinking about the shape in an abstract way and the fact that it doesn't look right in any place of the board.
As an example, in this situation for instance, the peeps help white solidify the bottom right area and don't have any cost for white:
But forget it, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking about shapes without context is almost meaningless!
well, I was thinking about the shape in an abstract way and the fact that it doesn't look right in any place of the board.
As an example, in this situation for instance, the peeps help white solidify the bottom right area and don't have any cost for white:
But forget it, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking about shapes without context is almost meaningless!
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
As you say, an abstract example has little meaning, so in your example, resist the peep by making a ponnuki!
-
Tami
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:05 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: Reisei 1d
- Online playing schedule: When I can
- Location: Carlisle, England
- Has thanked: 196 times
- Been thanked: 342 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
It could be you`re about to make a step forward in your understanding, Samura...Samura wrote:But forget it, I'm coming to the conclusion that thinking about shapes without context is almost meaningless
As far as I grasp it, shape is something that results from an exchange, not something you usually make in isolation. In other words, if you get a ponnuki as a result of capturing a stone, it is usually a blessed and lovely thing, but if you were to make one simply by adding a stone to a tiger`s mouth, it probably won`t have the same effect. So, to make shape you have to read carefully. Often it`s better to sacrifice to get a good shape than it is to hold on to stones in bad shape. Good shape helps you to fight effectively - as in the example Alguien gives.
Go is very, very, very, difficult. Sometimes good shape is good, and sometimes it isn`t. Sometimes bad shape is bad, and sometimes it isn`t.
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
-
illluck
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1223
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:07 am
- Rank: OGS 2d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: illluck
- Tygem: Trickprey
- OGS: illluck
- Has thanked: 736 times
- Been thanked: 239 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
The way I use "good shape" is to consider them first when making a move (prioritize in order to cut down the amount of reading I have to do). I also have a mental database with some of the key points (e.g. liberty shortage problem with bamboo joints, peeps for tiger mouths, cutting points, influence outside, endgame potential) that I use to evaluate (also to cut down the amount of reading required). I suspect that all players have such a database.
-
cyclops
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 3:38 pm
- Rank: KGS 7 kyu forever
- GD Posts: 460
- Location: Amsterdam (NL)
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 107 times
- Contact:
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.
-
Tami
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:05 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: Reisei 1d
- Online playing schedule: When I can
- Location: Carlisle, England
- Has thanked: 196 times
- Been thanked: 342 times
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Maybe I`ll make a complete nurk of myself by attempting to explain, but here we go:cyclops wrote:For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.
The top left is a common joseki. Black could play at a to make a ponnuki, but I can`t imagine there would be many players who would. It`s more efficient to play away from the strong tiger`s mouth shape than to add to it.
In the lower right, Black needs to capture the White stone, before it runs away and causes trouble. Since Black needs to capture the stone, it is not a wasted move to make the ponnuki shape - far from it, in fact. After capturing, Black`s shape is extremely strong, and he has gained this only by doing what was necessary.
So, just making a ponnuki in isolation is adding strength to strength - inefficient and slow. But capturing a stone to make a ponnuki is to create something powerful by completing a necessary task - that is very efficient.
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:
-
EdLee
- Honinbo
- Posts: 8859
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
- GD Posts: 312
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Has thanked: 349 times
- Been thanked: 2070 times
Just a random thought, after seeing Tami's Post #27 (maybe it's redundant, not sure):cyclops wrote:For me it is difficult to understand that a ponnuki that caught a stone is better shape than one that didn't.
I do understand that it is more efficiënt to make a ponnuki by capturing a stone.
For the lower right corner, W only needs to add 1 move to get this result (huge difference if
captures here instead)...
...but for the upper left corner (yes, stones removed), W needs 2 moves (much less urgent for at 
here):
PS. Is "efficiënt" more ëfficiënt than mere "efficient" ? 
-
EdLee
- Honinbo
- Posts: 8859
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
- GD Posts: 312
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Has thanked: 349 times
- Been thanked: 2070 times
Certainly.Tami wrote:Go is very, very, very, difficult.
I seem to recall multiple other instances of this discussion,Tami wrote:Sometimes good shape is good, and sometimes it isn`t. Sometimes bad shape is bad, and sometimes it isn`t.
and I seem to remember some people disagree with this, but here's my take on it:
We always look at the results. We don't look at any shapes in isolation, but always in context.
If a shape merely looks "ugly" or "bad" (e.g. empty triangle, dumpling, broken shape, etc.) but works, it WORKS!!
Conversely, even if a shape looks "pretty" or "good," if it does not work, it DOES NOT WORK!!
So:
Sometimes, a good-looking or pretty shape works. (Do you call it a "good shape"? If and only if it works?)
Sometimes, a good-looking or pretty shape fails. (Problem: do you say it's a "good" shape that fails, or simply a "bad" shape?)
Sometimes, a bad-looking or ugly shape fails. (Do you call it a "bad shape"? If and only if it fails?)
Sometimes, a bad-looking or ugly shape works. (Problem: do you say it's a "bad" shape that works, or simply a "good" shape?)
