Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Post by **Solomon** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:00 pm

Magicwand wrote:
entropi wrote:...

((((!!! Please god, no more replies like "if you cannot punish it it's not a mistake" !!!)))

IF YOU CAN NOT PUNISH IT IT'S NOT A MISTAKE!!!

shapenaji wrote:However, even assuming it was intentional, to mess with you and throw you off. It is still a valuable lesson to learn to counter. If you get angry at moves like this, you are too emotionally invested in your game, and it means you need to learn to step back during games.

That emotional attachment is the same kind which makes you hold on to worthless stones, or try unreasonably hard to kill a stone because it entered your framework, or pick a 20 point capture over a 30 point territory move.

This is one of the things I love about Go compared to other games. You don't need to trash talk in chat like most games to tilt the opponent, the moves will speak for themselves sometimes.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:21 pm

Whilst I think we all agree 3-3 invasion under a 4-4 on move 2 is not a good move, the timing of 3-3 invasions is an incredibly deep and difficult subject and one I suspect some people may have a misplaced "that must be wrong" attitude. I know I certainly did when I was weaker. The standard 3-3 invasion joseki is one of the first many people learn, and we also learn that on an empty board the thickness is better than the territory.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Good for Black $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

However, I think I took this advice on board too much, because as I got stronger, say 5k to 2d, one of the things I noticed was it was a good move to invade at 3-3 earlier than I had previously thought. For example, one principle is that if the hoshi stone makes 2 low far extensions, it is often a good idea to 3-3 right away (if black gets to play another move to secure the corner you can no longer easily get an alive group in sente in black's framework, but will get a weak group that gets attacked for profit). This is because whilst one of the extensions ends up decently placed, the other ( :bc:

) is badly placed.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Good for White $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . X . X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , B . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

If the extensions are high, it's probably not so bad for black:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Good for White? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . # . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . B . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

This confused me for a long time, and still does a bit to be honest. "Doesn't invading at 3-3 when black already has an extension in place make it even better for black than on the empty board?" I wondered. But the answer is no, not if that extension is inefficient and too close. In the diagram above, :bc:

is rather poorly placed as it's undercut, and whilst :bs:

is in the right direction from the wall, there is an argument to be made it is too close to the wall. (All these discussions are based on white not passing but actually having some efficiently placed stones on the other half of the board, which does of course affect things a bit). If black got to make an extension after white had taken the corner, one line further would be better.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c More efficient extension for black $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . B , . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

This one line further idea I was taught by Guo Juan 5p. However, when I told it to Charles Matthews 3d (some may know him from being a prolific contributor to Sensei's Library in years gone by and as an author of a few Go books, he spends most of his time on Wikipedia now) without saying "Guo said so" he was rather dismissive of the idea. I do think Guo is right and one line further is better, in fact maybe even further away is better. Using the proverb "extend one more space than the size of the wall" we can imagine the wall is 6 high and, on average, probably on the 4th line:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Extend 7 spaces from a wall 6 high $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . B . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

If there is a friendly 4-4 stone in the parallel corner to the wall, Guo said :b1:

is a nice shape which makes an efficient extension from the wall and has a good relationship with the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c More efficient extension for black $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O . . | $$ | . . . X . . 1 . . , . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

So back to tapir's game, let's imagine the following happened and it is now black to play:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Good for Black $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . b . . a . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 3 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Maybe black would play a and think "Haha! it's like I made a san-ren-sei and you played the 3-3 too early you fool, good for me!". But in fact maybe a, whilst a good move, is not the best and b would be better so as not to play too close to the wall. Of course some move like an extension or approach on the left is another option.

In conclusion, whilst I can understand the annoyance of someone playing odd moves, particularly in a blitz, I would caution against thinking you have nothing to learn from such games and it is quite likely you will make some mistakes too yourself in the unusual situations that result.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:47 pm

P.S. What do you think of the timing of this 3-3 invasion? Is this a despicable way to play showing lack of respect?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Is white a noob? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . 6 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . 9 . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This

was played by Kobayashi Koichi vs Cho Chikun in the 47th Honinbo title match (commentary in Tournament Go 1992 book). It was criticised as premature, but Kobayashi said "I wanted to invade. I just felt like invading". But it wasn't that premature; The game ended up as:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wcm22 The game $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . 2 , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X X O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X O O O . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The reason :w10:

was considered premature was that after getting the wall in the lower right corner, black felt able to play one to the left of tengen. The recommended way for white was to play the left side hoshi first, black might then answer at tengen, and then white could invade the corner (which still seemed early to me as a 5k!) and black's moyo would be one line smaller. If black played one to the left of tengen in answer to :w1:

it's a rather odd shape so white would not invade at 3-3 giving black thickness, but instead play another way to exploit the thinness.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Better for White $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . . 2 . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X 4 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8 6 5 3 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

jts · Post by **jts** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:48 am

I thought of this thread around move 13 of this game. I wasn't trying to be obnoxious, I... it just sort of happened.

hyperpape · Post by **hyperpape** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:06 pm

I would never play :w3:

and

, but I don't look at them and think "this guy is yanking my chain." And the 3-3 invasion is (as far as I know) makes total sense when Black has those two extensions.

I'd wager that everyone, even the people who think move two as a 3-3 invasion is fine and a lot of fun to play sees the difference. We just disagree about how it matters.

amnal · Post by **amnal** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:50 pm

is okay.

feels a little slow, though, I think it's more interesting to approach the corner.

Making the shimari also appears in several professional games, though again I can't find a game with an immediate extension from it - that's quite slow.

balmung · Post by **balmung** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:11 pm

3-3 invasion on second move of game is very generous. tapir overall it seems rude, but he is hurting himself, so who cares.

Time · Post by **Time** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:33 pm

Players like tapir are far more rude than players who play theoretically unsound moves.

If I am losing to such moves, it would be absurd for me to be mad at my opponent for showing me a weakness in my play (apparently I am losing to horrible moves!)

If I am beating those moves, but am somehow the same rank as my opponent, then clearly he is far better than me at something, and it would be equally absurd to be offended.

FWIW: For every opponent you play that plays 3-3 invasions and other "greedy" moves that you think are bad, you're probably messing up L&D that that player thinks is trivial. How many 3d and stronger players have I played on Tygem who don't even correctly know, for example, J group related L&D.

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:52 pm

I think that this is the "typical mind fallacy": Generalizing from one example. The fact that you can't imagine a way that your opponent could play those moves while still being respectful is a fact about you, not about your opponent. The stuff going on inside someone else's head is likely to be very different than you expect, even taking this into consideration. Don't think ill of your opponent on account of your own lack of imagination.

Of course, if you don't like that sort of game, there's no reason to play the person more-- I'm not arguing that you shouldn't add them to your block list. Just that calling their moves disrespectful seems to make an awful lot of assumptions about them.

entropi · Post by **entropi** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:58 am

This thread is based on a severe misunderstanding.

For clarification, let's look at these example arguments:

1) Would you like to play soccer with someone who continuously makes fouls? If not, why not? According to rules, you have the advantage because you get the ball every time. His attitude should provide an easy win for you. If you cannot win against him, then it's your fault, you should be able to punish his mistakes.

2) Would you like to discuss on a given topic with someone who repeatedly uses swear words (even if you are not addressed by these words)?
Why not? His words deteriorate the quality of his own arguments. He is less convincing and you will win the dispute at the end. If you cannot win, it's your fault. It means that he could provide much much more convincing arguments than you because he was more convincing despite his bad attitude.

Do these arguments make sense to you?

AGAIN::: ((((!!! Please god, no more replies like "if you cannot punish it it's not a mistake" !!!)))

tapir · Post by **tapir** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:04 am

Time wrote:If I am losing to such moves, it would be absurd for me to be mad at my opponent for showing me a weakness in my play (apparently I am losing to horrible moves!)

Well, I wish you would at least bother to read my posts before you declare me rude. I stated it several times in this thread that I would never have started it, if I had lost the game in question. If I lose I might be angry at myself, but not at my opponent. The question of gamesmanship in blitz games, which is the main point, because it only ever happened to me in blitz games, seems to escape most comments.

shapenaji · Post by **shapenaji** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:08 am

To shed a little light on just how strong you can be with this kind of strategy,

there is a Tygem 7d famous for employing this strategy, as black he plays tengen, then invades all corners immediately, then lives in the center, it was quite effective, it took a pro to prove him wrong.

A person who plays this way has great confidence in their ability to live, It may be "wrong" but none of us are at the level to reject it out of hand as unplayable.

The reason people get angry at this is that they don't like thickness, they don't feel confident using it and feel happy that there exists a consensus that this is bad, since it keeps people from playing it against them.

If someone is inclined to test your ability to make use of thickness, take the lesson in stride, don't start yelling "heresy"

EDIT: and entropi, both examples you gave are of people breaking the rules of the "game", fouls have punishments, intentional and repeated fouling gets you red carded.

This is hardly bad language, it's just a simple corner pattern.

This does not violate the spirit of the game, it merely is not the kind of game that you want to play, and I have no sympathy for that intractability.

amnal · Post by **amnal** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:26 am

entropi wrote:1) Would you like to play soccer with someone who continuously makes fouls? If not, why not? According to rules, you have the advantage because you get the ball every time. His attitude should provide an easy win for you. If you cannot win against him, then it's your fault, you should be able to punish his mistakes.

Fouls are against the rules. I think it's more like an opponent who you don't think is running as fast as they can.

2) Would you like to discuss on a given topic with someone who repeatedly uses swear words (even if you are not addressed by these words)?
Why not? His words deteriorate the quality of his own arguments. He is less convincing and you will win the dispute at the end. If you cannot win, it's your fault. It means that he could provide much much more convincing arguments than you because he was more convincing despite his bad attitude.

It isn't obvious to me that the use of swear words is necessarily an indicator that the person secretly believes they're wrong. It also isn't obvious to me that all people would find all use of swear words to deteriorate the quality of arguments.

entropi · Post by **entropi** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:03 am

shapenaji wrote:EDIT: and entropi, both examples you gave are of people breaking the rules of the "game", fouls have punishments, intentional and repeated fouling gets you red carded.

This is hardly bad language, it's just a simple corner pattern.

This does not violate the spirit of the game, it merely is not the kind of game that you want to play, and I have no sympathy for that intractability.

I am not talking about simple corner patterns. Neither am I talking about wrong moves. As a player stuck around 2-3k I make a lot of wrong and meaningless moves myself. The bottom line is that I try to accomplish something on the board and not in the confused mind of my opponent.

I am talking about moves that at our (me and my opponent) level make no sense and merely try to trick the opponent.

Ok, they are still not against the rules but for me they are clearly against the spirit of the game!

EDIT: That being said, there have of course been times that I didn't understand the meaning of my opponents move and thought "again trying to create a mess". But then the move turned out to create some aji somewhere he could make use of or to accomplish some other task. In such cases, I have no problem in apologizing from my opponent (in my mind of course because such things are rarely pronounced anyway)... I am talking about moves like the example I gave above some posts earlier.

jts · Post by **jts** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:37 am

amnal wrote:
entropi wrote:1) Would you like to play soccer with someone who continuously makes fouls? If not, why not? According to rules, you have the advantage because you get the ball every time. His attitude should provide an easy win for you. If you cannot win against him, then it's your fault, you should be able to punish his mistakes.

Fouls are against the rules. I think it's more like an opponent who you don't think is running as fast as they can.

What do you mean, "against the rules"? The rules say that if the ref determines you do X, Y, or Z, you get cautioned, and if you do P, Q, or R you get sent off the field. They don't say "people who do X, Y, and Z are very naughty." Personally, I think anyone who doesn't like to play against soccer teams who have a fouling strategy are just sore losers. It's the players who whine and vilify people who bravely commit fouls who are really the rude ones. What's that, you say? They only adopt this strategy when they think the ref doesn't have a good view? Well, ref management is a critical part of the game. You can't win if you don't pay attention to the ref and adapt your strategy accordingly.

Life In 19x19

Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)

Re: Greed (3-3 invasion as first move)