A particular double approach

For lessons, as well as threads about specific moves, and anything else worth studying.
Post Reply
Boidhre
Oza
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:15 pm
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: Boidhre
Location: Ireland
Has thanked: 661 times
Been thanked: 442 times

A particular double approach

Post by Boidhre »

I face this kind of position fairly often in handicap games as black:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ----------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . 3 . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------+[/go]
The issue is I'm not wholly comfortable with positions arising out of the bottom right corner. Specifically this one just makes me feel like Black has seriously messed up and has a heavy clumpy group even though a and b are options and maybe c (I dislike c):
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . c 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ , . . . O 5 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . b . . a . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]
Any thoughts on this? The other attach for :b1: is something I've glanced at but it looks rather complicated.
Top
gowan
Gosei
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:40 am
Rank: senior player
GD Posts: 1000
Has thanked: 546 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: A particular double approach

Post by gowan »

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . c 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ , . . . O 5 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . b . . a . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]
The best move here is for Black to turn at c, as in
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 9 8 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 7 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ , . . . O 5 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . b . . a . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]
Black is thick and later, Black can close the right side as in
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ . . . . . X O . 1 . |
$$ . . . . . X O . 2 . |
$$ . . . . . X X O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ , . . . O X X O . . |
$$ . . . . b . . a . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ --------------------+[/go]
Black b in the original diagram is slack when Black has the pincer on the right side.

There is good discussion of this situation in volume two of the Takao joseki dictionary.
Last edited by gowan on Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Boidhre
Oza
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:15 pm
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: Boidhre
Location: Ireland
Has thanked: 661 times
Been thanked: 442 times

Re: A particular double approach

Post by Boidhre »

Thanks gowan, my dislike of that continuation probably comes from undervaluing thickness. I feel pushing white along the fourth line is giving white too good a result. I suspect my evaluation is quite flawed.

Edit: Also I might be expecting too much after such a soft pincer.
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: A particular double approach

Post by Bill Spight »

The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
User avatar
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

Post by EdLee »

Boidhre wrote:my dislike of that continuation probably comes from undervaluing thickness.
I feel pushing white along the fourth line is giving white too good a result.
I suspect my evaluation is quite flawed.
There's another factor -- you mentioned you were worried about your "heavy clumpy group".

If you link up as Gowan and Bill said, then your potential weakness becomes strength.

When either of these happens --
  • Weakness becomes strength
  • Strength becomes weakness
-- it can be significant (i.e. big). ( Not always true, of course. )

Remember you tenuki'd once from the LR corner at :b2: , and you can still get a good result by linking up.

See if you recall from your previous games where your seemingly "strong" group suddenly became weak (or even died).
Conversely, when your dying group suddenly became a monster and killed your opponent.

It can be a big turning point.
Top
User avatar
Joaz Banbeck
Judan
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am
Rank: 1D AGA
GD Posts: 1512
Kaya handle: Test
Location: Banbeck Vale
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 1434 times

Re: A particular double approach

Post by Joaz Banbeck »

I don't like the play at 1. It feels like the wrong direction.

Anytime you attach to a stone, you encourage it to become stronger. When the R6 stone becomes stronger, your pincer stone at Q10 becomes less effective.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ----------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . B . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . b a . . . . |
$$ . , . . . O . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------+[/go]
I would try 'a' or 'b', encouraging him to build strength on the bottom. Then R6 is still threatened by the pincer.

EDIT: I see that Bill has provided an example of this. Note that as white builds strengyh in the other direction, your Q10 stone becomes more relevant.
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207
Top
User avatar
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

Post by EdLee »

I don't like the play at 1. It feels like the wrong direction.
Anytime you attach to a stone, you encourage it to become stronger.
The situation is much more complicated than this.
As Boidhre and I discussed briefly in PM,
there is a (paid) online resource about the basic variations of the double approach.
It consists of about 13 lessons of about 30 to 45 minutes each.
I estimate that's about 1 year's worth of study (for an adult who has to support a family).
Also, this is only for the local considerations (as is the OP board),
not even looking at the whole board.
This amount of knowledge -- the immense number of variations -- cannot be abbreviated to a generic proverb.
Top
gowan
Gosei
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:40 am
Rank: senior player
GD Posts: 1000
Has thanked: 546 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: A particular double approach

Post by gowan »

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I don't like the play at 1. It feels like the wrong direction.

Anytime you attach to a stone, you encourage it to become stronger. When the R6 stone becomes stronger, your pincer stone at Q10 becomes less effective.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ----------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . X . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . B . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . b a . . . . |
$$ . , . . . O . X . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------+[/go]
I would try 'a' or 'b', encouraging him to build strength on the bottom. Then R6 is still threatened by the pincer.

EDIT: I see that Bill has provided an example of this. Note that as white builds strength in the other direction, your Q10 stone becomes more relevant.
Yes, attaching makes the stone stronger but it also makes Black's stone(s) stronger. Locally Black is weaker than White, two white stones versus one black. Also, attaching can make the White stone heavier. In this case, that allows Black to make his group thick. Bill pointed out that White sliding to S3 is usual instead of pushing at R4. This sliding move gets about as much territory as R4 and helps the white O4 stone somewhat, giving some momentum to a white move at O3 later.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Study Group”