Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

yoyoma · Post by **yoyoma** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:10 pm

Fredrik wrote:So in this local corner, Black plays 2! more moves than White, and locally I think the position is even (White after all has 10 points of points, and Black still has some defect in his shape like White's peep at 5-5.

(Is my point understandable? I do know how to create an sgf file, I can do that otherwise =) )

I think Fredrik is talking about this position?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 4 6 8 . . . $$ | . . 2 O 3 . 7 . . $$ | . . . , 5 . . . . $$ | . . X . . . 9 . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I think black only played 1 extra move here. So that makes it comparable to invading 3-3 under a 4-4 stone. I agree with others that said usually invading 3-3 is not good early in the game.

So one solution would be to call B1 here premature, and simply tenuki. Where is black's severe follow up? If he plays the 3-3 point then it's similar to black opening 3-3, and doing a 1 point extension from it. And then white makes a forcing exchange. No big deal.

Later if black doesn't add another move, the above diagram is fine. But also the knight's move cut that ends up with sharing the corner is ok too, and to me feels more appropriate to play in normal early opening situations.

jts · Post by **jts** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:10 pm

yoyoma wrote:I think black only played 1 extra move here. So that makes it comparable to invading 3-3 under a 4-4 stone. I agree with others that said usually invading 3-3 is not good early in the game.

I may be misunderstanding Fredrik, but I think his point was: (i) If I play first in a corner, I expect to get a better result there, (ii) if I take gote in a corner sequence, I expect to get a better result there, so (iii) if I play first and take gote, I should get a much better result. -i- and -ii- each allow my opponent to play elsewhere, so the strong local position is deceptive. That's also true of the standard 3-3 invasion, but the wall B gets in the position we're discussing isn't as thick. No?

Fredrik · Post by **Fredrik** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:16 pm

yoyoma wrote:
Fredrik wrote:So in this local corner, Black plays 2! more moves than White, and locally I think the position is even (White after all has 10 points of points, and Black still has some defect in his shape like White's peep at 5-5.

(Is my point understandable? I do know how to create an sgf file, I can do that otherwise =) )

I think Fredrik is talking about this position?

$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 4 6 8 . . .
$$ | . . 2 O 3 . 7 . .
$$ | . . . , 5 . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . 9 . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 4 6 8 . . . $$ | . . 2 O 3 . 7 . . $$ | . . . , 5 . . . . $$ | . . X . . . 9 . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I think black only played 1 extra move here. So that makes it comparable to invading 3-3 under a 4-4 stone. I agree with others that said usually invading 3-3 is not good early in the game.

So one solution would be to call B1 here premature, and simply tenuki. Where is black's severe follow up? If he plays the 3-3 point then it's similar to black opening 3-3, and doing a 1 point extension from it. And then white makes a forcing exchange. No big deal.

Later if black doesn't add another move, the above diagram is fine. But also the knight's move cut that ends up with sharing the corner is ok too, and to me feels more appropriate to play in normal early opening situations.

Tenuki is a viable and interesting idea. It would certainly avoid a bad result locally, as I agree with your logic that black would not have a very severe move locally. However, at the same time it would not produce a good result, which white should be able to make because of blacks obscure move.

Additionally, I will try to explain my meaning in my previous post:

I think that you possibly misunderstand what I mean with "two" moves. Black had already invested one move when white invaded, thus black should get a better result locally. White ending up with sente, while playing 5 stones to blacks six, means that black spent "two" moves on this result. Do you understand what I'm trying to emphasize?

Edit: jts posted while I was writing this. He explains my reasoning well.

Further, I think this result is much better than a normal 3-3. Mainly because:

1: Black has played several damaging moves (see my previous post)
2: I think it's an understatement to say "Black is less thick than from a normal 3-3 invasion". I think the difference in thickness is huge.
3: White's corner is bigger than it would be from a 3-3 invasion.

yoyoma · Post by **yoyoma** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:28 pm

Fredrik wrote:I think that you possibly misunderstand what I mean with "two" moves. Black had already invested one move when white invaded, thus black should get a better result locally. White ending up with sente, while playing 5 stones to blacks six, means that black spent "two" moves on this result. Do you understand what I'm trying to emphasize?

I would rather emphasize your point by saying black spent one more move and lost sente.

Simplified example: Take an empty corner. Black invests one move by playing in the empty corner, thus black should get a better result locally. White ends up with sente (in this simplified example he achieves this by tenuki! ;-)

)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Can we say black invested two moves? No. Instead it's better to say black has played 1 more move and lost sente.

Another way of emphasizing it is to use the wording "a whole extra move", implying he played a whole move and lost sente completely (ie not even having a large follow up etc).

Fredrik · Post by **Fredrik** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:43 pm

yoyoma wrote:
Fredrik wrote:I think that you possibly misunderstand what I mean with "two" moves. Black had already invested one move when white invaded, thus black should get a better result locally. White ending up with sente, while playing 5 stones to blacks six, means that black spent "two" moves on this result. Do you understand what I'm trying to emphasize?

I would rather emphasize your point by saying black spent one more move and lost sente.

Simplified example: Take an empty corner. Black invests one move by playing in the empty corner, thus black should get a better result locally. White ends up with sente (in this simplified example he achieves this by tenuki! )
$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Can we say black invested two moves? No. Instead it's better to say black has played 1 more move and lost sente.

Another way of emphasizing it is to use the wording "a whole extra move", implying he played a whole move and lost sente completely (ie not even having a large follow up etc).

Hehe, seems we are getting a bit off-topic now but:

We do agree that black playing in the empty corner is investing one move, right?

And then black gets gote, by playing 9 in the variation we discussed, investing another move. For me, this adds up to two moves, perhaps I'm the one being illogical :-)

.

Anyway, let's not discuss this and kill the thread. I do not mind if we have different opinions, at least it seems that my point could be understood from my posts; If black has the corner stone, and also gets gote he should get a much better local result than white.

HermanHiddema · Post by **HermanHiddema** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:12 pm

I think tenuki is a very viable option indeed

I still think my first diagram is no good for white. Not so much because he ends up low, but because he gets locked into the corner.

Consider this tewari:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . . $$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . . $$ | . a . , 3 b . . . $$ | . . X c . . 9 . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Yes, the

exhange is weird and unneccessary, but it doesn't really hurt black that much, and black can still play a later.

The :w5:

exchange removes aji around b and c, so seems pretty neutral.

:w2:

and

on the other hand are pretty terrible moves, IMO.

Magicwand · Post by **Magicwand** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:27 pm

HermanHiddema wrote:I think tenuki is a very viable option indeed

I still think my first diagram is no good for white. Not so much because he ends up low, but because he gets locked into the corner.

Consider this tewari:

$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . .
$$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . .
$$ | . a . , 3 b . . .
$$ | . . X c . . 9 . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . . $$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . . $$ | . a . , 3 b . . . $$ | . . X c . . 9 . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Yes, the exhange is weird and unneccessary, but it doesn't really hurt black that much, and black can still play a later.

The exchange removes aji around b and c, so seems pretty neutral.

and on the other hand are pretty terrible moves, IMO.

doesnt seem that terrible
:w2:

is bad but :b1:

also look akward and :w5:

exchange is ajikeshi (i am sure you know that is true)

gaius · Post by **gaius** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:23 am

Magicwand wrote:
HermanHiddema wrote:I think tenuki is a very viable option indeed

I still think my first diagram is no good for white. Not so much because he ends up low, but because he gets locked into the corner.

Consider this tewari:

$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . .
$$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . .
$$ | . a . , 3 b . . .
$$ | . . X c . . 9 . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . . $$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . . $$ | . a . , 3 b . . . $$ | . . X c . . 9 . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Yes, the exhange is weird and unneccessary, but it doesn't really hurt black that much, and black can still play a later.

The exchange removes aji around b and c, so seems pretty neutral.

and on the other hand are pretty terrible moves, IMO.

doesnt seem that terrible
is bad but also look akward and exchange is ajikeshi (i am sure you know that is true)

is an old joseki move, no? And :w4:

might be necessary, but I would hate myself for having to play such an ugly slide; this is why they call the second line the "line of defeat". So given all of that, I don't mind playing the aji keshi :b5:

and

exchanges any more...

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:28 am

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . $$ | . . 3 O . . . . . $$ | . . . , 2 . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

How about this?

Fredrik · Post by **Fredrik** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:09 am

HermanHiddema wrote:I think tenuki is a very viable option indeed

I still think my first diagram is no good for white. Not so much because he ends up low, but because he gets locked into the corner.

Consider this tewari:

$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . .
$$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . .
$$ | . a . , 3 b . . .
$$ | . . X c . . 9 . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 7 8 6 4 . . . $$ | . . 2 O 5 . 1 . . $$ | . a . , 3 b . . . $$ | . . X c . . 9 . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Yes, the exhange is weird and unneccessary, but it doesn't really hurt black that much, and black can still play a later.

The exchange removes aji around b and c, so seems pretty neutral.

and on the other hand are pretty terrible moves, IMO.

Sorry, I do not agree with your tewari. There is no "flow" to it, you make white 2 look so unnatural. while it should be a direct response to black 7.

I think the tewari on the position should be like I explained in the main post:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 6 9 5 3 . . . $$ | . . 7 1 4 . 8 . . $$ | . . . , 2 . . . . $$ | . . X . . . 0 . . $$ | . . . . a . . . . $$ | . . b . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Here it's clear:

White played two conserative moves with 9 and 5 but we can not call them "bad". But black 7 and 5 is really easy to call bad, so in my opinion the position favors white.

Blacks thiness leave weakness like a or b, which are not easy to answer for black. And the topside is open.

But I really get your opinion Herman. Everyone has a different playing style, I prefer instant profit and reduce my opponents potential later, so grabbing quite a big corner in exchange for a not so effective thickness seems good to me.

But people that value the center more, and feel reluctant to get closed in and take the corner, might want to search for a better way of playing. Indeed, I think that there is a more severe way of playing then this diagram, though I think it's good enough.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . 9 8 . . . . $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . $$ | . . 5 , . 2 . . . $$ | . . 3 X . . . . . $$ | . . 4 6 . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

If we compare the first diagram to this joseki, I think Black is a lot more thick in this one. Please note that it's not easy for white to invade either side (he can get certain profit on top, but never reduce heavily).

In our own variation, White has two clear moves on the leftside (see a and b in my diagram) and also the topside is open. So I think that these two thickness can't be compared.

Edit: To illustrate my points better, I would like to show some whole-board positions:

So if Black wedges with 1. Do White want to force white from the top or the bottom? If whites upperleft is considered thickness, the only logical move is to play from the bottom. After all, you want to push your opponent towards your thickness.

But lets imagine the following:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . O 6 . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 5 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 0 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In this diagram, whites group suddenly becomes quite weak. It does not have a clear eye-space, and it seems quite heavy, while blacks group looks quite strong all of a sudden.

If we compare this to my comparsion to the 5-4 joseki:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 5 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . O . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After 6, does black have any way to make blacks thickness in upperleft weak and floating, and at the same time protecting his own group?

It does not seem that way. So I think these diagrams clearly illustrate the difference in thickness.

Edit ag: Seems switching colors when I made the whole-board examples confused me and I mistook white for black when writing

keysersoze · Post by **keysersoze** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:03 am

I can't figure out how to make a diagram so i'll just have to go with words))

So black plays his trick move low approach, white separates as usual, black attaches to the 2 white stones on the right and now---white makes a jump attachment to the first black stone! Is there a good way for white to continue here?

HermanHiddema · Post by **HermanHiddema** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:35 am

keysersoze wrote:I can't figure out how to make a diagram so i'll just have to go with words))

So black plays his trick move low approach, white separates as usual, black attaches to the 2 white stones on the right and now---white makes a jump attachment to the first black stone! Is there a good way for white to continue here?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 5 . . . . . $$ | . . 2 O 3 . . . . $$ | . . . , . . . . . $$ | . . X 4 . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

is the obvious response, I think

Possible continuation:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm6 $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . 8 X X . . . . . $$ | . 2 O O X . . . . $$ | 6 5 3 7 . . . . . $$ | . 4 X O . . . . . $$ | . . 1 a . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

White will have to defend the cut at a now, I guess, so he gets gote.

keysersoze · Post by **keysersoze** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:05 pm

Thats very nice! Where did you find this trick play? Since its not a standard bookish hamete sequence ...somebody just invented it?
Where can i find other cool trick moves like this one? Any links?

HermanHiddema · Post by **HermanHiddema** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:44 pm

keysersoze wrote:Thats very nice! Where did you find this trick play? Since its not a standard bookish hamete sequence ...somebody just invented it?
Where can i find other cool trick moves like this one? Any links?

I found it in a Chinese go book called 跟吴清源大师学围棋 (gen wuqingyuan dashi xueweiqi) which translates something as "Studying Go with Master Wu Qingyuan (Go Seigen)", I believe (See http://www.bookschina.com/398036.htm for cover picture and some info in Chinese).

The book gives several follow-up diagrams, but since I don't read Chinese I have to judge them by feel. And none of the outcomes really appeal to me (for White)

A Chinese go playing friend has promised to look at it with me in the near future, so I hope to have some answers then.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:11 pm

HermanHiddema wrote:
keysersoze wrote:Thats very nice! Where did you find this trick play? Since its not a standard bookish hamete sequence ...somebody just invented it?
Where can i find other cool trick moves like this one? Any links?

I found it in a Chinese go book called 跟吴清源大师学围棋 (gen wuqingyuan dashi xueweiqi) which translates something as "Studying Go with Master Wu Qingyuan (Go Seigen)", I believe (See http://www.bookschina.com/398036.htm for cover picture and some info in Chinese).

The book gives several follow-up diagrams, but since I don't read Chinese I have to judge them by feel. And none of the outcomes really appeal to me (for White)

A Chinese go playing friend has promised to look at it with me in the near future, so I hope to have some answers then.

Is there a diagram called 正解图 ? Or one with text including the first two characters, or maybe just the first? That's likely to be the solution diagram.

Life In 19x19

Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?

Re: Trick play: 3-5 low approach, 3-2 invasion. Thoughts?