John Fairbairn wrote:{Kano} does say the position you quote is double sente, but nowhere can I see any statement that tells me I must rush to play double sentes willy nilly. He does cite the proverb ryosente yuzurubekarazu, I know, but that and the position cited are firmly embedded in a section entitled "two-point moves" (as opposed to other sections on one-point moves, three-point moves, five point moves and so on).
Well, it belongs in the 7 point section.
Kano knew that there was a problem with double sente, he just couldn't put his finger on it. I am not casting blame. Note that the latest (1995) edition of the Yose Shojiten does not include double sente (or sente, as far as I can tell) in its section of N-point moves. I don't know about the Mokusu Shojiten.
Japanese writers, as you know, . . .
I don't think that this has anything to do with differences in East-West thinking. After all, O Meien does not talk about double sente at all. (Judging by the hullabaloo when I do, that seems wise.
)I really do think the mutual damage kind of kosumi is in a different category altogether, and I personally find the attempt to drag it into the same box as Kano's kind of move just to have a pop at Kano (and then kick it out again!) is what causes confusion, at least for me.
Kano was deceived by double sente, and he was not the only one. In real games, I expect that he sometimes did not respond to the second line kosumi, just like Fujisawa. But if you want to apply the proverb, Kano's "two point double sente" is not the place to do so.
Edit: Having slept on this, I think I have to cast blame on Kano for his "two point double sente". Maybe his ghost writer came up with it, but Kano okayed it. It is gote, and not a big one, at that. I did not mention it "just to have a pop at Kano", but to show how the idea of double sente causes problems.
