skydyr wrote:
I think what Bill is getting at is that if you have a position you have a question about, but when you ask the question you present a slightly different position, the answer may no longer be relevant to the position you were originally wondering about.
skydyr, the original position I was wondering about is actually much different than either of these, I am trying to figure out how to apply that kakari approach and tenuki idea to a position to my non mainstream san-san openings. So the original position isn't exactly relevant in the first place.
I think something that has stymied me in the past is when people tenuki my kakari, I tend to take my chances with a double kakari, but I feel this is fairly risky.
skydyr wrote:
I think what Bill is getting at is that if you have a position you have a question about, but when you ask the question you present a slightly different position, the answer may no longer be relevant to the position you were originally wondering about.
skydyr, the original position I was wondering about is actually much different than either of these, I am trying to figure out how to apply that kakari approach and tenuki idea to a position to my non mainstream san-san openings. So the original position isn't exactly relevant in the first place.
Rightly or wrongly, when it's attributed to Go Seigen, most of us say "it looks weird, but maybe there's something to it?" We're deceived by the suggestion that the position is coming from someone much more knowledgable than us.
Without that, it's easy to see the position for what it is, and say "it's not good."
skydyr wrote:
I think what Bill is getting at is that if you have a position you have a question about, but when you ask the question you present a slightly different position, the answer may no longer be relevant to the position you were originally wondering about.
skydyr, the original position I was wondering about is actually much different than either of these, I am trying to figure out how to apply that kakari approach and tenuki idea to a position to my non mainstream san-san openings. So the original position isn't exactly relevant in the first place.
Rightly or wrongly, when it's attributed to Go Seigen, most of us say "it looks weird, but maybe there's something to it?" We're deceived by the suggestion that the position is coming from someone much more knowledgable than us.
Without that, it's easy to see the position for what it is, and say "it's not good."
Deceived by go incompetence. I saw the one diagram on the one page, and then some plays on the other page, and didn't quite get it right. I kind of liked some peoples explanations though. They actually made sense to me.
SmoothOper wrote:Deceived by go incompetence. I saw the one diagram on the one page, and then some plays on the other page, and didn't quite get it right. I kind of liked some peoples explanations though. They actually made sense to me.
It's useful to you though. Now you know you didn't understand that joseki properly. If you did you wouldn't miss the Q14 stone's presence in Bill's diagram. This is a good thing, finding our blindspots is important.
hyperpape wrote:Rightly or wrongly, when it's attributed to Go Seigen, most of us say "it looks weird, but maybe there's something to it?" We're deceived by the suggestion that the position is coming from someone much more knowledgable than us.
I must say that my first thought seeing this thread was not "Go Seigen said it, there's probably something to it", but was "SmoothOper posted it, it is probably nonsense".
hyperpape wrote:Without that, it's easy to see the position for what it is, and say "it's not good."
To be fair, while I think it was fairly crappy of SmoothOper to attribute some nonsense he'd just made up to Go Seigen, I don't find this position (or any) easy to analyse at all. I made a post earlier in this thread giving my perspective on why it might not be a bad move; why was I wrong? (I could probably guess at some reasons for that too, but I really am just piling guess on top of guess without being strong enough to be able to judge what's right and what's not.)
, , look like perfectly reasonable moves to me, but does white really want to play here? Probably not - not now, and not for a long time. The exchange of the two marked stones gives black the option to pull the stone back out later. White has got thick locally, but black has developed much faster for the loss of a single stone.
A pro may not punish immediately, or if they did, probably not by capturing that one stone, I looked it up evidently the kick isn't even joseki without a pincer in place.
I don't know when it's appropriate, but it seems as if the initial kick is becoming more common in professional play. Many of the things we know aren't joseki get reevaluated quite often.
SmoothOper wrote:
A pro may not punish immediately, or if they did, probably not by capturing that one stone, I looked it up evidently the kick isn't even joseki without a pincer in place.
I can find over 800 examples of the kick without a pincer in pro games. It's always been explained to me as a special purpose move, usually referring to a pincer being in place, but I strongly suspect there are other conditions when it is also the best move. I'm not strong enough to spot a pattern in pro games though and talk authoritatively about it.
See move 57 here for example:
I really don't understand why you'd kick here at all. Maybe making a base for the two stones is too small or something for White and tenuki'ing after standing to the kick is more painful than just a tenuki from the kakari?
In this case, both sides thought the right side was not big --
W also did not make an extension after -- the focus at the point was
the left-center: B had to make sure W did not get too big there ( high, ).
In this case, both sides thought the right side was not big --
W also did not make an extension after -- the focus at the point was
the left-center: B had to make sure W did not get too big there ( high, ).
Ok, but why then play rather than in the first place? Is it to make white heavier before playing ?
Boidhre wrote:Ok, but why then play rather than in the first place? Is it to make white heavier before playing ?
Maybe to protect the corner in sente?
Edit: well, since it was invaded shortly after, obviously not
But developping that area in sente could have been a reason.
were at 17, Black would pincer.
I saw the one diagram on the one page, and then some plays on the other page, and didn't quite get it right. I kind of liked some peoples explanations though. They actually made sense to me.
here look good to you, capitalising on black's strange move
? If not immediately, then when?
,
look like perfectly reasonable moves to me, but does white really want to play
).rather than
in the first place? Is it to make white heavier before playing
