Alakazam is back!

[Alakazam]

I agree that you have provided strong arguments.

I didn't go through any variations before I said anything I've said - even my blog post about the Joseki was done from my head without any caution.
I would really like to see some actual variations for the complicated clamp thing, as then I could learn and then teach them rather than (apparently) teaching something that seems may be incorrect.

I suppose I will read those out/play those out sometime when I have time, unless someone else does this first.
I was taught by someone pretty strong in the past that the descend was the correct punishment and that the hane was a failure to punish, so I guess I assumed from memory and shallow analyses that this was the truth.

Now I have to reconsider. I do agree that that variation you showed is not clearly worse for black and that black is surprisingly thick.
Perhaps we could say that locally it looks even-ish (maybe it's even better for black??), but perhaps the reason the descend *might* be considered correct is because if black cut off white's invasion from the approach move originally in the Joseki, he didn't have what he needs in order to justifiably place emphasis on the right side of the board? I mean, maybe in the end, black gets a wall facing a side that has white stones or at least no black stones?

If this were the case, I could understand people saying the descend is correct - it could be correct due to the whole board situation in which it would logically arise.

But...

If this variation *is* better for black than the usual double knight move wall variation, it could mean then that black should purposely pretend to cut white off and go for the bottom side, but then do the "dubious" hane and get a wall facing the right after all. This is pretty interesting...

Of course it wouldn't be so simple as that, but I can't help thinking to myself, "yes Alakazam, this looks revolutionary, but don't hold your breath! You're probably being stupid!"

Anyway...interesting!


P.S. I call the "double knight move wall) joseki the "Cattle Wall" joseki because you get a wall and the shape looks like a cow and is of course black and white. The knight moves shape out a head, the horizontal stones (wall and some corner stones) make the body/back of the cow, and the vertical white stones are front legs.

[Uberdude]

<snip/>

If this variation *is* better for black than the usual double knight move wall variation, it could mean then that black should purposely pretend to cut white off and go for the bottom side, but then do the "dubious" hane and get a wall facing the right after all. This is pretty interesting...

Of course it wouldn't be so simple as that, but I can't help thinking to myself, "yes Alakazam, this looks revolutionary, but don't hold your breath! You're probably being stupid!"

Anyway...interesting!

Yes, I thought this too. If you know your opponent thinks the correct punishment for the hane is descend and you want the wall on the right hane could be a nice trick to get a thicker wall. But if you play me you'll get this result (or the clamp and fight or crude push result) and I'm happy enough:

$$Bc
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . X O . . |
$$ . X . O . X O . . |
$$ . . . . 4 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . X O . . |
$$ . X . O . X O . . |
$$ . . . . 4 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

I suppose it gets more complicated with a shape like this in which the marked stone alters the dynamics of the clamp fight so black might answer the hane connect:

$$Wc Black wants the wall facing the right side
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ . , . . . . . X 5 . . |
$$ . . . 2 . 1 0 4 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 8 7 9 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Black wants the wall facing the right side
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ . , . . . . . X 5 . . |
$$ . . . 2 . 1 0 4 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 8 7 9 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------[/go]

Then a is answered with b as black can escape from c with the d clamp, and e is answered with c (and the 2nd line crawl is ok thanks to the marked stone) so black seems ok at a glance.

$$Wc contd.
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . d . |
$$ . . . . . . . . e c . |
$$ . . . . . . . a 1 4 . |
$$ . . . . . . . 3 X 2 . |
$$ . , . . . b . X O . . |
$$ . . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc contd.
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . d . |
$$ . . . . . . . . e c . |
$$ . . . . . . . a 1 4 . |
$$ . . . . . . . 3 X 2 . |
$$ . , . . . b . X O . . |
$$ . . . X . O X X O . . |
$$ . . . . . . X O O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------[/go]

And if white wants to avoid this fight she could hane on the 2nd line instead of clamp which is usually miserable but maybe not so bad here if it can make the marked stone inefficient, or do the descend but then we get:

$$Wc Descend
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . , . . . 6 . X O . . |
$$ . . . X . O 4 X O . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Descend
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . , . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 2 X . . |
$$ . , . . . 6 . X O . . |
$$ . . . X . O 4 X O . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 3 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ----------------------[/go]

Probably we'd prefer the marked stone to be high now (but if it were it doesn't help the clamp fight nearly so much so white would hane not descend) and maybe not so close to the wall, but black looks reasonable here.

There's a lot beneath the surface of even simple looking joseki!

[Alakazam]

I guess I am inclined for now to agree that the descend seems worse. I agree that the improved connect under variation for white that you said was enough for you is better for white.
It's...WAY better for white. It is why I suppose the descend may be worse after all.

[Uberdude]

Thanks for being receptive to reason. I improved my understanding of this situation too with this discussion.

[Alakazam]

Haha of course, there's no point discussing anything if we aren't willing to learn or admit being wrong. I defended the descend only until it was all too clear. I would like to know more though, I hope we can uncover the entire truth about it.

Perhaps I ought to include this alteration in one of my next "Joseki Explained" articles.