「3目強くなることを私が保証します」(依田紀基) Does it say -- I guarantee a 3-stone improvement, or a 3-point improvement ?
Three stones (though from what base in this case I don't know). I
This point confuses even Japanese people. In the ordinary language the counter 目 counts territory and 子 counts handicap stones. But among go players, 目 in such phrases is accepted as referring to handicap stones (a similar one is 定石を覚えて２目弱くなる - learn joseki and become two stones weaker), to the extent that some go players will even read the correctly written 三子 as sanmoku rather than sanshi. Similarly a line of three stones will generally be called sanmoku (as in sanmoku no mannaka wa kyuusho - the centre of three stones is a vital point, or nimoku no atama wa mizu haneyo - hane automatically at the head of two stones) but we see shi (which some regard as correct) in nishi ni shite suteyo - make a single stone into a two stones then sacrifice.
Speculating, shi also means "death" and "four" and references to four are often changed to yo to avoid unpleasant associations. Also sanshi would sound confusingly like "three or four", so go players, who obviously use these terms more than the average person, would have a couple of good reasons to avoid shi. In the case of 'nishi ni shite suteyo' I would imagine the euphony of repetition prevailed.
Go players also have a few grammatical usages, e.g. of de and wo, which defy standard grammar books and confuse Japanese non-go players.
When I think about shape in Go, I think more about things like the table, the mouth etc. Rather than the relationships between two moves, or haengma as it is called in korean.
Good shape are formations that are easy to make eyes and hard to attack.
Bad shape is formations which are hard to make eyes and easy to attack.
So to make an eye in the middle of a board, you need to control 3/4 of the corners of a 9x9 intersection area. This is why the mouth shape and the table shape, are good shapes. And why playing in your opponent's vital shape positions can be really effective.
Bad shape are things like the empty triangle, because it is over concentrated and has a shortage of liberties problems.
So to me, to teach good shape you should give details of good shape, and then give examples of the haengma used to make them. Also it isn't enough to make good shape, you need to do it in sente as much as possible. Perhaps also explaining bad shape, and why it is bad.
In my opinion, efficiency isn't really directly linked to good shape, the mouth shape, is good shape, but it is really over concentrated and can be inefficient, depending on the situation locally.
In the 9 stone game, move 15, isn't really an attack, the white stone is very weak, rather it is a trick move, often used in high handicap games, which typically makes the black player panic and think he is under attack, and play passively, or defensively, allowing white to get an advantage. 9 Stone games are tough, because they typically include a lot of less than good play, because white has around 150 points of advantage to erode, white has to play a lot of what would normally be considered overplays. In truth, none of black's stones are under attack, there are so many stones around, they are all very strong, and white has played a weak stone surrounded by black's. I don't think white's shape is particularly good either, it has the advantage that it is not surrounded, but it is a stick with no eye potential, the white stone played has no way of forcing black into white's stick. It does make the black player play a slow move, making a heavy group with bad shape, poor eye potential, so itmight have to run, but it is still strong enough that the surrounding white stones become weaker. White then makes a bad shape with his one point jump. A good shape for white is to make a two point extension, but because it is a Handicap game, he doesn't really have that option.
In the 7 stone game, at move 8, Black makes a bad shape, I don't think white was really threatening to play there, and threatening the cut at N3, just forces white to fix, and removes future potential of the weakness.
A play at Q6 would have made good shape, it would have helped settle black's group, and marked out more potential territory, but a better move might be to play at the bottom part of the board, white could concievably live with it's 4 stones, and not only that the bottom is wide, so White wants to build there, a better way to use the cut would be to play on the left of the group, if white fixes then black makes a base on the bottom.
The point here is that as a result of the bad shape move, black didn't really get black anything, and forced white to fix a weakness.
Every move you play should be at least as good if not better than your opponents. If you play a bad move and your opponent plays a better one, then they get ahead, if this happens enough you lose. In this exchange, black gets the worse deal, he helps white to fix a weakness, he helps white get some thickness to expand along the bottom, and he doesn't gain a lot more for himself. This is often a characteristic of moves that create bad shape.
All this said, sometimes you have to play bad shape, often if you have to play a bad move, that makes bad shape, your opponent will have had to play a bad move to make it happen. In the seven stones game, move 35 an empty triangle, leads to move 36 another empty triangle. This exchange is about even. White's next move at move 37, is bad shape, white gets to live in gote, and Black gets to play a really good move.
Leading up to this there were many poor moves or bad shape moves, this is important, because making bad shape or poor moves, typically leads to more bad shape. If you have to play an empty triangle, you probably played a bad move 10 or 20 moves ago. In this game, again because it is a handicap game, white has to play unreasonable moves to make up for the massive lead black has. White's move 25, is complete overplay, Black naturally cuts it off, and normally white would just sacrifice, but white has to play whereever it is possible to get points. Most high handicap games are a matter of trying to get black to play weak moves that leave bad shape, which white can then attack, and probably kill a group or two.
However getting your opponent to play bad shape usually requires you to play bad shape, so such a tactic isn't very useful in an even game, as they will likely take advantage of your moves, or leave you no opportunities to do so. So playing good shape becomes very important.
aiichigo wrote:In the 7 stone game, at move 8, Black makes a bad shape, I don't think white was really threatening to play there, and threatening the cut at N3, just forces white to fix, and removes future potential of the weakness.
A play at Q6 would have made good shape, it would have helped settle black's group, and marked out more potential territory, but a better move might be to play at the bottom part of the board, white could concievably live with it's 4 stones, and not only that the bottom is wide, so White wants to build there, a better way to use the cut would be to play on the left of the group, if white fixes then black makes a base on the bottom.
The point here is that as a result of the bad shape move, black didn't really get black anything, and forced white to fix a weakness.
is still joseki. The SGF file below shows a couple of variations with comments.
(;GM[1]AP[GOWrite:2.3.46]SZ[19]CA[ISO8859-1]FF[4]ST[2]PM[2]PW[ ]AB[dd][dj][dp][jj][pd][pj][pp]FG[259:]GN[ ]PB[ ] ;W[nq] ;B[np] ;W[mp] ;B[no] ;W[pq] ;B[qq] ;W[or] ( ;B[op]C[*** Joseki.] ;W[mq] ;B[qr] ) ( ;B[pn] ;W[qr]C[*** Black is embarrassed for a move in the corner. The Q-06 stone is misplaced.] )
( ;B[qp]C[*** Looks natural. Joseki when White has connected at P-03. However, . . .] ;W[qr]C[*** White gets this hane, which was the point of the previous White play at P-02. Black 8 in the joseki prevents this hane.
Even so, the R-04 stone is better placed than the Q-06 stone in the previous variation.] )
)
If you have to play an empty triangle, you probably played a bad move 10 or 20 moves ago.
Good point.
However getting your opponent to play bad shape usually requires you to play bad shape
That does not accord with my experience.
Last edited by Bill Spight on Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
John Fairbairn wrote:Imagine two lines, one white, one Black, of three stones facing each other a space apart somewhere away from the edge. Each line of stones has six sujiba, and three of them are shared.
The basic premise is that it is inefficient to play on a sujiba, so if you look at a completed position and see any stones on sujiba, you have spotted a likely inefficiency.
snorri wrote:What's your opinion of the level of the book?
I would say single digit kyu to low dan it would be interesting for. Double digit kyu could gain a lot but have to spend more effort with the variations.
John Fairbairn wrote:The basic premise is that it is inefficient to play on a sujiba [...]
So sujiba = non-nose, in old money? But the teaching point is about bad shape (lack of expansion of liberties), rather than a heuristic about good shape (if liberties matter, add two not one)??
Charles Matthews wrote: So sujiba = non-nose, in old money? But the teaching point is about bad shape (lack of expansion of liberties), rather than a heuristic about good shape (if liberties matter, add two not one)??
There are explanations using sujiba about lines that create good shape rather than bad shape. The best lines create good shape for both, but the goal is first to avoid bad shape for yourself. He does also discuss the times that making the bad shape is correct play and why.
No, not quite, because the empty inside point in an empty triangle is not a sujiba (it was until the offending extra stone was added).
But the teaching point is about bad shape (lack of expansion of liberties), rather than a heuristic about good shape (if liberties matter, add two not one)??
Again, no. From memory, I don't think he refers to good shape in his blog, and I think the only time he refers to bad shape is when he talks about the empty triangle proverb. What he does talk about repeatedly - the teaching point - is efficiency of stones, i.e. doing work (hataraki). This is a reprise of the old discussion about westerners fixating on static good shape when orientals have dynamic nuances uppermost (hataraku being a verb, of course). He redefines tesuji in terms of sujiba and again (unlike westerners who see a tesuji as a static brilliant move) stresses correctly the dynamic "way of playing" meaning. I can't remember the full definition, I'm afraid, and I'm feeling lazy.
Ed Lee was sniffy about the marketing hype. Probably rightly so, but it might be worth pointing out that Yoda now spends a lot of time teaching children in a school he set up a short walk from his house. He's got his two eldest boys - elementary school children - up to 7-dan and 5-dan, and he has bigger plans for the youngest boy as he intends to start him earlier then the others (it's common in the go and shogi worlds for the youngest child to become the strongest when all play, Go Seigen being the classic example). Anyway, my point is that Yoda genuinely thinking about teaching is, and something about it he may discovered have. I await the book to see whether the force really is with him.
is still joseki. The SGF file below shows a couple of variations with comments.
