is this too broad a topic? i am studying this book right now and thought it might be helpful to start a topic about its principles to clarify some stuff as i go through it. for now i just have one question but i probably will have many more. overall i think it is a great great book.
so the first principle. otake talks about extending from corner enclosures and what the primary direction for an extension is based off of the enclosure.
the white circle is the primary direction for both enclosures. blacks extension (not accounting for the fact that white circle is a key point for both in this diagram) is slightly inferior than whites because of the marked stone for black. i would like to talk about this.
the first time i read this chapter i think i was confused that i thought primary direction had to do with the gaps between the stones at the extension and the corner being balanced, with the star point being between both. but otake talks about the reason blacks extension here is inferior is because of the lowness of the marked black stone. i am a little confused as to what this means as arent both stones on a third line depending on where you're looking? what i mean is an extension in the primary direction, the stone in the enclosure you're extending from would also be on a 3rd line. that is what i thought lowness to mean. i wonder if the lowness means that the extension is too narrow? if the marked stone was at 3-4 instead of 3-5 would the extension be in the primary direction? are both stones in the enclosure the problem? i just wonder what it is about the marked stone that makes the extension inferior because i don't understand what he means by the lowness of it.
Opening Theory Made Easy
-
cherryhill
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:09 pm
- Rank: KGS 11 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: cherryhill
- Kaya handle: cherryhill
- Has thanked: 70 times
-
Phoenix
- Lives with ko
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:44 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 301 times
- Been thanked: 127 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
It's about developing your stones, and going in a direction that has more potential, in terms of future territory.
In your diagram, the marked stone is 'low' in the sense that viewed from the top, it's on the third line, and has a nearby stone on the fourth line.
Viewed from the side, however, you'll see it as a stone on the fifth line with a nearby stone on the third line - an important one-line difference.
The "box-like shape" idea is simply about efficiency. If you want to make territory on the sides, the best way to do so with the minimum stones is with three straight lines of stones. You might as well start aiming for that kind of shape from the start.
I don't much like "Opening Theory Made Easy", because I find it very jumpy and incomplete. That being said, I can't think of another title to recommend for understanding the opening...
Edit: Another thing I would like to add is that going for a 'box' shape instead of a 'tray' shape tends to establish stronger, higher and meaner sector lines. Either way, you're aiming for maximum potential in the long run.
In your diagram, the marked stone is 'low' in the sense that viewed from the top, it's on the third line, and has a nearby stone on the fourth line.
Viewed from the side, however, you'll see it as a stone on the fifth line with a nearby stone on the third line - an important one-line difference.
The "box-like shape" idea is simply about efficiency. If you want to make territory on the sides, the best way to do so with the minimum stones is with three straight lines of stones. You might as well start aiming for that kind of shape from the start.
I don't much like "Opening Theory Made Easy", because I find it very jumpy and incomplete. That being said, I can't think of another title to recommend for understanding the opening...
Edit: Another thing I would like to add is that going for a 'box' shape instead of a 'tray' shape tends to establish stronger, higher and meaner sector lines. Either way, you're aiming for maximum potential in the long run.
-
jts
- Oza
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:17 pm
- Rank: kgs 6k
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 310 times
- Been thanked: 632 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
The question is partly, which looks easier to invade and/or reduce??
This diagram should suggest which one is easier to invade.
This is a super-simplistic picture of what the stupidest possible reduction would look like.
This diagram should suggest which one is easier to invade.
This is a super-simplistic picture of what the stupidest possible reduction would look like.
-
Loons
- Gosei
- Posts: 1378
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:17 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: wHam!lton, Aotearoa
- Has thanked: 253 times
- Been thanked: 105 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
To paraphrase Phoenix slightly, if you think of an enclosure as a wall the primary direction is the one the wall faces.
-
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
One beautiful thing about of Go is its visual aspects. 
We start with this corner shape for Black, and we limit our choices to (a) and (b) --
we ask, which one is better for Black, (a) or (b) ?
Instead of getting confused and jangled up by terms like "primary", "secondary",
"high", "low", "facing this", "facing that", "reduce", "invade", etc.,
ask yourself which triangle you prefer as Black: the one with
, or the one with 
:
And if we add a fourth corner to each figure, which one you prefer as Black:
If you're still not clear whether or is better for Black, let us know.
We start with this corner shape for Black, and we limit our choices to (a) and (b) --
we ask, which one is better for Black, (a) or (b) ?
Instead of getting confused and jangled up by terms like "primary", "secondary",
"high", "low", "facing this", "facing that", "reduce", "invade", etc.,
ask yourself which triangle you prefer as Black: the one with
, or the one with :And if we add a fourth corner to each figure, which one you prefer as Black:
If you're still not clear whether
or is better for Black, let us know. -
jts
- Oza
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:17 pm
- Rank: kgs 6k
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 310 times
- Been thanked: 632 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
Loons wrote:To paraphrase Phoenix slightly, if you think of an enclosure as a wall the primary direction is the one the wall faces.
This is an excellent point, and not just a metaphor. An enclosure will often become a wall after an invasion or a probe in the corner.
-
cherryhill
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:09 pm
- Rank: KGS 11 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: cherryhill
- Kaya handle: cherryhill
- Has thanked: 70 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
very helpful guys, thanks!
i am having a bit of trouble understanding principle 6 which aims to explain the difference between the 3rd line being for completion and the 4th which is for development. he offers these two diagrams as a comparison.
so otake says the first diagram is inferior to the second because the two marked white stones mean that the marked black stone doesnt have much potential for farther expansion (though its on the 3rd line, which i thought mean it was there to complete something based on this principle? otake seems to imply the intention of this stone is for development... i don't see how it isnt actually working as completion here) and that the 2nd diagram is better. i really don't understand this for a number of reasons.
first, it just seems like the first diagram covers a lot more territory and that the second gives white a lot of room for an extension. otake talks about how if you don't play the marked black stone in the first diagram you are asking for trouble but it seems like the 2nd diagram doesnt play this stone yet is better for it?
second, the second diagram, it assumes (literally in the text, it goes, IF white 2 & 4 then the exchange is over and white is solid) white will follow the joseki, which it doesnt in the first diagram. there is an earlier principle that discusses the possibility of white doing what it does in the d1 by not following the joseki but by extending to the star point. there is no discussion about what might happen if you respond to the approach with the knights move like in d2 and white doesnt respond with the standard joseki. here it just seems like two different scenarios with different variables are being compared where in the first white is being difficult but in the 2nd white isn't. it makes it harder for me to see the benefit.
third, i have read this chapter a few times... besides believing (because i do) the idea, theoretically, that the 4th line is for development and the 3rd is for completion, i don't understand it based on the examples given. i don't see for instance, why the marked black stone in d1 isn't "completing" the shape by being on the third line as it is. it seems like according to the principle it should be completing something since its on the third line. i just don't understand whats wrong with it and why it isnt completing territory, roughly, as it appears to be.
i am having a bit of trouble understanding principle 6 which aims to explain the difference between the 3rd line being for completion and the 4th which is for development. he offers these two diagrams as a comparison.
so otake says the first diagram is inferior to the second because the two marked white stones mean that the marked black stone doesnt have much potential for farther expansion (though its on the 3rd line, which i thought mean it was there to complete something based on this principle? otake seems to imply the intention of this stone is for development... i don't see how it isnt actually working as completion here) and that the 2nd diagram is better. i really don't understand this for a number of reasons.
first, it just seems like the first diagram covers a lot more territory and that the second gives white a lot of room for an extension. otake talks about how if you don't play the marked black stone in the first diagram you are asking for trouble but it seems like the 2nd diagram doesnt play this stone yet is better for it?
second, the second diagram, it assumes (literally in the text, it goes, IF white 2 & 4 then the exchange is over and white is solid) white will follow the joseki, which it doesnt in the first diagram. there is an earlier principle that discusses the possibility of white doing what it does in the d1 by not following the joseki but by extending to the star point. there is no discussion about what might happen if you respond to the approach with the knights move like in d2 and white doesnt respond with the standard joseki. here it just seems like two different scenarios with different variables are being compared where in the first white is being difficult but in the 2nd white isn't. it makes it harder for me to see the benefit.
third, i have read this chapter a few times... besides believing (because i do) the idea, theoretically, that the 4th line is for development and the 3rd is for completion, i don't understand it based on the examples given. i don't see for instance, why the marked black stone in d1 isn't "completing" the shape by being on the third line as it is. it seems like according to the principle it should be completing something since its on the third line. i just don't understand whats wrong with it and why it isnt completing territory, roughly, as it appears to be.
-
SoDesuNe
- Gosei
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:57 am
- Rank: KGS 1-dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 490 times
- Been thanked: 365 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
cherryhill wrote:first, it just seems like the first diagram covers a lot more territory and that the second gives white a lot of room for an extension. otake talks about how if you don't play the marked black stone in the first diagram you are asking for trouble but it seems like the 2nd diagram doesnt play this stone yet is better for it?
Did you read the whole Principle-Six-chapter to the end?
Because in diagramme 5 and in diagramme 7 and onwards Otake explains the weaknesses of the high corner enclosure (it deals more with the high Shimari enclosure but the principle is quite similiar).
As fas as territory is concerned, the high corner enclosure in this diagramme offers not per se more territory but has a lot more potential than the low corner enclosure.
cherryhill wrote:second, the second diagram, it assumes (literally in the text, it goes, IF white 2 & 4 then the exchange is over and white is solid) white will follow the joseki, which it doesnt in the first diagram. there is an earlier principle that discusses the possibility of white doing what it does in the d1 by not following the joseki but by extending to the star point. there is no discussion about what might happen if you respond to the approach with the knights move like in d2 and white doesnt respond with the standard joseki. here it just seems like two different scenarios with different variables are being compared where in the first white is being difficult but in the 2nd white isn't. it makes it harder for me to see the benefit.
You should focus on Black's position for the moment.
To clarify first the "third is for completion" and "the fourth line is for developement" thingy: If you look at diagramme 5 in in this chapter in Opening Theory Made Easy you'll see what Otake means with Black omiting the third line extension would be painful for Black. So to complete his position Black needs to make an extension from his fourth line stone (extension = development) to the third line (third line = completion).
But this extension is of low value because White is strong and low on the top, so despite Black making locally the right move, it just defends and has very little impact on White (e.g. no attack) or Black's further game (no follow-up, the stone offers no possibilities). A move that serves just one purpose and above all if this one purpose is only defending, then the move is generally speaking not very efficient.
Moves, especially in the opening stage, should aim at a follow-up, they should have more meaning in them.
With this in mind, White does not want to exchange D2 for C3 as in your second diagramme. It will only solidify Black unneccessarily (it adds more stones to Black's position, so it ought to become stronger ^^) and White would like to keep all his options. Since Black already played a inferior variation, White should be patient and see how he can get the most of this. E.g. which point a to c he will play later on.
cherryhill wrote:third, i have read this chapter a few times... besides believing (because i do) the idea, theoretically, that the 4th line is for development and the 3rd is for completion, i don't understand it based on the examples given. i don't see for instance, why the marked black stone in d1 isn't "completing" the shape by being on the third line as it is. it seems like according to the principle it should be completing something since its on the third line. i just don't understand whats wrong with it and why it isnt completing territory, roughly, as it appears to be.
No, you understand it just fine. But the example goes a little bit deeper than that. The extension to the third line in you diagramme 1 does complete Black's shape, but see above it has very little value in itself.
So Otake says, it is much better to play on the third line (third = completion, no further move neccessary) immediately (your second diagramme) when White approaches because an extension along the side is not big but when Black plays high it is urgent otherwise White will approach again and Black's stones are floating (see Otake's diagramme 5).
In a nutshell: A stone on the fourth line not only aims to make an extension (development) to the third line, it also requieres it to a certain degree (see again Otake's diagramme 5). But at the same time if you have to make an extension to complete your shape, this extension should have more meaning than just having to defend/complete a fourth line stone. This is about efficiency (see Otake's diagramme 3 and 4).
I would recommend you read this chapter again, because I think Otake actually answers all your questions =)
-
cherryhill
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:09 pm
- Rank: KGS 11 kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: cherryhill
- Kaya handle: cherryhill
- Has thanked: 70 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
hm i have read the chapter twice more since reading your post. i am still struggling with it. i think maybe my understanding of auxiliary principles relating to this one are maybe holding me back from getting it. i guess... hm i don't know. i mean there are many times in this book where he explains something and im like OH and it's so clear. maybe i need to see the difference in how the two different approaches play out because i cannot see them on my own. it probably doesn't help that i am terrible at that knights move joseki as i always find a way to lose that corner or get my territory destroyed whenever i use it. i don't know how to follow it up
-
SoDesuNe
- Gosei
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:57 am
- Rank: KGS 1-dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 490 times
- Been thanked: 365 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
Don't worry too much about this.
I've read this book maybe three times already and I'm certain I still get opening positions wrong. But that's okay, I'm still weak myself so there should be room for improvement everywhere =D
Furthermore to really get a good understanding of the opening you have to be able to come up with follow-ups. Like I said above it's not enough to just extend because the principle tells you so. If you extend and at the same time pincer an opponent's stone - that's great! Very efficient!
But this "coming up with follow-ups" requieres a fair bit of experience with positions on the board (their weaknesses etc.) and the ability to read ahead, e.g. what you can achieve when you play here and there and how your opponent has to react then here and there to not get killed or not become surrounded.
So, I would recommend that you just read straight through this book one time. Don't try too hard to figure everything out. If you are finished, play a couple of games and try to focus on your opening. When you lost a game, look at the first ~30 moves and compare them to the principles in the book. See if you followed them and when you have no clue what went wrong, post this game in the Game Analysis subforum here - maybe we can help you : )
post scriptum:
The problem with the Keima Joseki has most likely nothing to do with not knowing the follow-up of the Joseki but with general fighting strength. After you solved a lot of Tsumegos and Tesujis the Joseki follow-up (when there is one) sometimes present itself naturaly. Otherwise you just have to battle it out with your opponent ; )
I've read this book maybe three times already and I'm certain I still get opening positions wrong. But that's okay, I'm still weak myself so there should be room for improvement everywhere =D
Furthermore to really get a good understanding of the opening you have to be able to come up with follow-ups. Like I said above it's not enough to just extend because the principle tells you so. If you extend and at the same time pincer an opponent's stone - that's great! Very efficient!
But this "coming up with follow-ups" requieres a fair bit of experience with positions on the board (their weaknesses etc.) and the ability to read ahead, e.g. what you can achieve when you play here and there and how your opponent has to react then here and there to not get killed or not become surrounded.
So, I would recommend that you just read straight through this book one time. Don't try too hard to figure everything out. If you are finished, play a couple of games and try to focus on your opening. When you lost a game, look at the first ~30 moves and compare them to the principles in the book. See if you followed them and when you have no clue what went wrong, post this game in the Game Analysis subforum here - maybe we can help you : )
post scriptum:
The problem with the Keima Joseki has most likely nothing to do with not knowing the follow-up of the Joseki but with general fighting strength. After you solved a lot of Tsumegos and Tesujis the Joseki follow-up (when there is one) sometimes present itself naturaly. Otherwise you just have to battle it out with your opponent ; )
-
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
That's perfectly normal -- at your level, trying to understand the 3rd and 4th lines from a chapter is likecherryhill wrote:i am having a bit of trouble understanding... the difference between the 3rd line... and the 4th...
teaching a child about hot and cold by talking about jiggling atoms.
What the child needs is not particle physics; what she needs is a warm cup of tea, an ice cream, a blanket in winter...(*)
What you need is experience. Tons of it. In the order of tens, hundreds, or even 1,000+ of games (your mileage may vary
).What SoDesuNe said -- just enjoy the book for now.SoDesuNe wrote:Don't worry too much about this.
(*) Later, when the time comes, she can study all the quantum mechanics she wants.
-
Insane
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:38 am
- Rank: sdk
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 15 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
Phoenix wrote:I don't much like "Opening Theory Made Easy", because I find it very jumpy and incomplete.
It covers a lot of base without being bogged down with unnecessary detail.
Phoenix wrote:That being said, I can't think of another title to recommend for understanding the opening...
"In the beginning" by Ishigure is also good, but may be perceived as more difficult.
"The connection between the language in which we program and the problems and solutions we can imagine is very close" -- Bjarne Stoustrup
-
peppernut
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:51 am
- Rank: 5k
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: peppernut
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
i am having a bit of trouble understanding principle 6 which aims to explain the difference between the 3rd line being for completion and the 4th which is for development. he offers these two diagrams as a comparison.
Yes, the words "for development" are kind of abstract and I don't think they really help in explaining what's going on.
Fourth line stones have the potential to be expanded into larger territories than third line stones.
Third line stones create points that are more secure than 4th line stones, It's also easier to create living shapes on the third line and corner.
If you go to your diagrams, the invasions are important, but it's also important realize that Black is better poised to continue to play and add his territory. This is possible:
In the third line example, black cannot gain as much by adding a single stone, just 6 points as shown:
Furthermore, if black tries to switch back to the 4th line, it doesn't work as well:
There's room for White to aim underneath, and because of this it turns out Black hasn't really made any new territory with his last move at all.
Notice now in this last diagram how black's 2 marked stones on the side are in a sense backwards! It would have been better to play the last stone on the third line, and the next to last on the fourth. As played it's the wrong order. To me, this is what development means. The box-like formations, moyos, and invasions are stuff you will learn later.
-
SoDesuNe
- Gosei
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:57 am
- Rank: KGS 1-dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 490 times
- Been thanked: 365 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
Sorry, maybe I didn't understand you correctly but I think you just mixed up everything ^^
It's not about imagining black stones, which would complete his left side (it's also not strictly about territory).
It's about the decision if Black reacts to White's approach with a high move (fourth line) or a low one (third line). To make that decision it's important to know that a move on the fourth line aims at development, in most cases this is an extension on the third line. Otherwise the shape is incomplete and White could attack Black's base.
The problem in the given diagramme is that White is solid (strong) and low at the top left side. If Black know extends towards it (the proverb states something like don't approach thickness), he just makes it to _defend_ his high stone (but this does not defend all the territory - important!). Just defending is negative. It loses the initiative and in this case follows no plan.
So the third line extension from the high move doesn't look good in this case. That's why Black should play low in the first place. With playing on the third line Black has made a complete shape and has nothing to worry about at the moment. It's not about immediately extending from the third line, which might be a big move in the later stage of the opening but again, it serves now no further purpose.
It's not about imagining black stones, which would complete his left side (it's also not strictly about territory).
It's about the decision if Black reacts to White's approach with a high move (fourth line) or a low one (third line). To make that decision it's important to know that a move on the fourth line aims at development, in most cases this is an extension on the third line. Otherwise the shape is incomplete and White could attack Black's base.
The problem in the given diagramme is that White is solid (strong) and low at the top left side. If Black know extends towards it (the proverb states something like don't approach thickness), he just makes it to _defend_ his high stone (but this does not defend all the territory - important!). Just defending is negative. It loses the initiative and in this case follows no plan.
So the third line extension from the high move doesn't look good in this case. That's why Black should play low in the first place. With playing on the third line Black has made a complete shape and has nothing to worry about at the moment. It's not about immediately extending from the third line, which might be a big move in the later stage of the opening but again, it serves now no further purpose.
-
jts
- Oza
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:17 pm
- Rank: kgs 6k
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 310 times
- Been thanked: 632 times
Re: Opening Theory Made Easy
Yes, with all due respect to peppernut I found her explanation a little confusing.
I see the explanation like this.
#1 The black extension on the left side is worth way more than the black extension on the right side.
#2 The black extension on the left is worth way more than the black extension on the right (or the alternate point marked A).
#3 So therefore, in a position like the one on the left, the high value of the second extension should make B more eager to make the first extension, and so he should choose a joseki (
) that will make the first extension worth making ( 
).
But on the left, the low value of the second extension should make B less eager to make the first extension, so he should choose a joseki () that will allow him to omit the first extension entirely (tenuki for ).
I see the explanation like this.
#1 The black extension on the left side is worth way more than the black extension on the right side.
#2 The black extension on the left is worth way more than the black extension on the right (or the alternate point marked A).
#3 So therefore, in a position like the one on the left, the high value of the second extension should make B more eager to make the first extension, and so he should choose a joseki (
) that will make the first extension worth making ( ). But on the left, the low value of the second extension should make B less eager to make the first extension, so he should choose a joseki (
) that will allow him to omit the first extension entirely (tenuki for ).