4-4 large knight's defence attach to get sente

[Knotwilg]

Some time ago, someone called LoveLove published a series of middle game and other joseki. I happened to play one of those in my recent match but got into trouble. When analyzing the position, I found that there was still something wrong with the suggested pattern. See sgf.

[Uberdude]

Yes black is uncomfortable there. If he has some support on the left side he could come out (with kosumi) and try to get a counterattack on white's wall. If you don't like that play e3 rather than b5, sacrifice the 2 stones but get some ataris on the outside then extend on the bottom.

[Bill Spight]

A few variations from the Suzuki-Kitani Small Joseki Dictionary.



If you compare the result in lovelove's variation where Black gets the corner with joseki, you see that Black has made a killing.

[Knotwilg]

Goodness! I missed the attachment tesuji in the second variation.

Thanks Bill

[gowan]

Twenty some years ago at a US Go Congress a Japanese pro (Aragaki 8p?) said that it would be good for people to play the large knight response to a knight's move approach. He felt that it would be good for amateurs to play using a good move that isn't familiar.

[Bill Spight]

Suzuki-Kitani show 44 joseki starting with the 4-4, large knight's response. Not all of them are basic, I guess.

[ez4u]

This is a situation where JF would caution us about the term 'joseki'. There is very little experience with these moves. Originally the attachment can be seen in old Chinese games but always with other stones close by: pincers along the top and/or white stones at or around C11 (in Bill's orientation above). Similarly, in 19th century Japan we can see it as a response to a pincer at K17. The variations selected are often clearly affected by those stones.

In an otherwise empty 10x10 corner I find only 11 cases of the attachment out of more than a thousand examples where White plays first. Basically there must be a specific reason why White does not invade at 3-3 or extend along the top. The earliest example was played by Go Seigen in 1944. Pretty much we can say that it is used where Black can make good use of the outside if White invades and Black is strong enough to profit from an immediate invasion if White simply extends. White attaches to settle the stones. The most common line is that originally chosen by Go Seigen, shown below. Note the extension at 10. This seems to be invariably played when there is not an actual pincer. So we do not seem to find the idea of attaching in order to take sente in professional play. The tougher fighting like the line under discussion in this thread arise more often when there are more stones already in the mix. White's goals may be more complex and Black's opportunities to resist more strongly as well.

$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 7 4 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 1 O . O . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 7 4 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 1 O . O . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[Bill Spight]

This is a situation where JF would caution us about the term 'joseki'. There is very little experience with these moves.

Well, most games do not make it into the databases. Often they give a good sense of what the standard plays were, but not always.

This thread prompted me to take a look at some old joseki books, and a few minutes ago I chanced upon this very line in a joseki book from 1884. URL: http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/861260 (p. 12.)

$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 7 4 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 1 O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 7 4 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 5 1 O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[ez4u]

A quick look at the book makes me hesitant to accept the diagram as a claim that the line is joseki as opposed to an illustration of White's ability to crosscut against the hane. Note that the last two thirds of the book consist of about forty examples of handicap fuseki. And how many times does White attach underneath in those forty examples? None as far as I could see (feel free to correct me if I missed it).

It is certainly true (and highly regrettable) that most games have not yet ( ) made it into the databases. Despite that my current database spits out 733 examples of the large-knight response to the small knight approach in an otherwise empty 10x10 quadrant played between 1660 (to exclude most but not all old Chinese games) and 1884 the date of the book. How many times does White attach underneath as the next play to occur in that quadrant (not necessary the very next play)? Again, there are no games where this occurs. Remember that the early games in the databases are highly biased in concentrating on the famous historical players. So if we want to think that the relevant games are just missing from the databases, we have to also think that there was a 'joseki' in use that was not used by people like Dosaku, Jowa, Shusaku, Shuho, and so on. This is questionable because the list of 13 games where the attachment did appear, as a response to a pincer or at least with other stones close by, looks like this:

Honinbo Dosaku - Yasui Chitetsu (B), 1673-81-00
Yasui Senkaku - Komatsu Kaizen (B), 1751-00-00
Kojima Doshi - Yotsutsujimae Dainagon (B)
Honinbo Jowa - Ito Matsujiro (W), 1822-04-08
Ota Yuzo - Ono Kaibee (W), 1839-04-28
Ota Yuzo - Yasuda Shusaku (B), 1842-08-13
Ota Yuzo - Yasuda Shusaku (B), 1842-08-17
Ota Yuzo - Yasuda Shusaku (W), 1842-08-20
Honinbo Shuwa - Mitamura Kisaburo (B), 1845-04-17
Ota Yuzo - Murase Yakichi (-), 1854-06-07
Murase Yakichi - Kajino Tsunejiro (W), 1858-11-13
Murase Shuho - Kobayashi Tetsujiro (B), 1866-00-00
Murase Shuho - Yamazaki Sotosaburo (B), 1884-05-00

[Bill Spight]

Well, where to draw the line between joseki and situational plays is not clear from just looking at games, because the choice between joseki also depends on the situation. Unlike Suzuki-Kitani, the authors hardly ever call a line of play joseki. I noticed the term only once in vol. 1, where they said that a certain play was "also joseki". If I were a reader of the book in the 1880s I would have thought that that line of play was joseki, and decades later Suzuki-Kitani call it joseki. (Note that Suzuki-Kitani often call a variation an even exchange but do not call it joseki, and they also say that some variations are common but do not call them joseki, either. So when they call a variation joseki, I think that it was generally regarded as joseki at the time.)

[Knotwilg]

I'd probably be less bothered with a pattern be "joseki" or not but know when it is playable. Even that one should figure out for oneself I guess.

The bottom line for me is that the crosscut is not a standard pattern (unlike what lovelove suggested) to get sente or so, but an exceptional pattern for certain global situations. The crux is at where White will choose the corner or the side influence.

It's a useful pattern to study. Thanks for all the research done.