Life In 19x19

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:43 pm**

My copy of GoGoD has 25 games that began as shown below since Kitani Minoru originally played it against Go Seigen in 1936. Although Kitani once played the large knight's move at 'g' (when Go Seigen turned round and played 5 in turn in another game that same year), he is the only person that has done so. Virtually all pros leave 5 and turn to the right side of the board (see 'a' through 'e'). However, I have to admire Shinohara Masami who immediately attached on top at 'f' in a game against Takagawa Kaku. Sixteen of the games were played in 1936-1941. It then disappeared until 1990 and has popped up occasionally since then.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Continuations $$+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . X f . . . . . , . . . . . e d . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +[/go]

Statistics:
25 matches, Winner B: 40.0%, W: 60.0%
a: 6 times
b: 5 times
c: 5 times
d: 5 times
e: 2 times
f: 1 time
g: 1 time

Edit: Fixed some date errors.
P.S. It is perhaps worth mentioning that in the original '36-'41 period 15 out of the 16 examples were no-komi games. It makes more sense when Black can afford to look for a leisurely game.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:49 pm**

Pippen wrote:
$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . Y , . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . Y , . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
...

Again, tewari analysis makes me uneasy about black's position:

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

Black 2 looks misplaced.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:26 am**

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

Pippen wrote:Well, the idea is this: If White wants to get 5 it has to invest at least two local moves. If White plays this way immediately then Black will get am early lead. If White waits, then nobody knows how the game evolves. Maybe 5 will play an important role. If not, Black can always treat 5 as a "wasted probe", losing just 2 points while keeping sente. 5 serves Black like a mosquito. It is too irrelevant to get after, but it can drive u crazy in certain circumstances. That - for me - is it's value.

You are focused on

. I don't think that anybody is objecting to

. (Although it is not exactly dynamic play.) It is the combination of

and the approaches,

and

that is problematic. At least, this early in the game.

Playing against this combination I would not worry about Black's plans, but would rather think that Black should worry about mine.

In this fuseki

is self-punishing. Black has induced White to weaken it. Now, maybe your opponents worry about it, but it is Black who should be worried.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:50 am**

Pippen wrote: So basically the question is: Is the value of 5 so much lesser than if black plays e.g. a sanrensei instead? (Well, since no pro ever has played that way I know that I am walking on air here^^).

First, nice thread, Pip. It generates the sort of conversations that show L19 at its best. You've had some great responses.

Second, maybe your 5-7-9 aren't ideal, and maybe they cost a few points, but at our level a few early points pale into significance compared to the mistakes we make later. If this opening leads to the sort of game you like, then by all means, try it. If you lose, the opening won't be why. All IMHO, of course.

Go should be fun for amateurs. Let the best pros and manga fret over "the perfect move."

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:05 am**

First of all I agree with wineandgolover. I play this split-fuseki-style, because I am not good when my opponent builds early frameworks. I tend to be too anxious in that case, resulting in overaggressive or overpassive play. Therefore I like to limit that and I wanna have "some stones everywhere" to feel "safer" (because with these stones it at least looks easier to invade/reduce -> makes me feel more comfortable -> better game performance than if you feel "something isn't going right"). So that style just "fits my personality" and so far it helped me. I also think that the higher (ranks) I'd come the more I'd realize the flaws of that strategy.

I am basically convinced you guys were right that my idea is - if we wanna talk Go analysis - suboptimal, but still this tewari method intrigues me.

Here's an example of what I mean:

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

The positon above is a good play from both sides, wouldn't u agree? Now I show you, how I can make Black look foolish, using tewari:

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

Now, 5 suddenly looks bad (at least to me!), because 5 could've occupied a corner. So it seems that tewari is not a reliable way to test a position for it seems to matter in which row moves were played. So how relible is tewari in your opinion?

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:10 am**

4 was a bad move too in your tewari analysis. Tewari, like probability, is a powerful tool but used incorrectly can give you wrong answers.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:39 am**

Tewari requires that you play reasonable moves. I could take a pro game and play it backwards and say that both of the pros are terrible because of all the first and second line moves they play. That, however, would not be a reasonable thing for the players to do.

Really this is how tewari works. First, take the real game:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Real game $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 7 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Then, remove the move numbers:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Real game $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Finally, try to figure out how the position got that way. Basically, guess the order of moves.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Assumption of order $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 7 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now compare and see if there is a way that the game should have gone differently. In this example, white probably shouldn't have played

at C8 and black should probably have taken a corner with

(although I think I saw

in a pro game once - there is no reason black couldn't play that).

Now, just because your assumption isn't correct doesn't mean the players did anything wrong. On the contrary, many identical positions can arise from multiple starting points, especially in joseki, without either side making a mistake.

Tewari is subjective, but so is a system like SWOT and many businesses swear by that. When used incorrectly, a SWOT analysis can be horrible. When used properly it can be fantastic.

The reason tewari can work so well in go is that the board does not really have a memory of move order. In chess it matters because previous moves define where you can move. In go, the only thing a previous move does is prevent you from playing there with a later move.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:44 am**

Pippen wrote:
$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Now, 5 suddenly looks bad (at least to me!), because 5 could've occupied a corner. So it seems that tewari is not a reliable way to test a position for it seems to matter in which row moves were played. So how relible is tewari in your opinion?

But

is also bad. The two tend to cancel out.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:13 am**

Uberdude wrote:4 was a bad move too in your tewari analysis. Tewari, like probability, is a powerful tool but used incorrectly can give you wrong answers.

Ah, ok. Is tewari commonly accepted as an analyzing tool or are there discussions about its validity? One would need to try to find a fuseki where everybody played good moves and then find a tewari where one of those moves looks misplaced to basically disprove tewari. Don't have the time now, maybe I'll try later, just so the sake of curiousity.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:41 pm**

Tewari is commonly considered a good tool, but it is also agreed that it requires judgment to use properly. So I think your refutation will not quite work.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:07 pm**

Move 5 isn't horrible kind of gote, but white 6 and 9? Nah.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:04 pm**

Pippen wrote:
Uberdude wrote:4 was a bad move too in your tewari analysis. Tewari, like probability, is a powerful tool but used incorrectly can give you wrong answers.
Ah, ok. Is tewari commonly accepted as an analyzing tool or are there discussions about its validity? One would need to try to find a fuseki where everybody played good moves and then find a tewari where one of those moves looks misplaced to basically disprove tewari. Don't have the time now, maybe I'll try later, just so the sake of curiousity.

Yes tewari is an accepted analysis tool. It is sound, but easy to misuse. Dosaku developed it and he was one of the strongest players to have ever walked this earth; I don't think you'll prove him wrong. You are applying the tool incorrectly. If you stick a blowfish, some yeast, sugar and orange juice in a blender and then stick it in the oven and die when you eat the resulting horrible sludge you didn't just prove that cooking is crap, you did it wrong.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:45 pm**

Pippen wrote:
$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
The positon above is a good play from both sides, wouldn't u agree? Now I show you, how I can make Black look foolish, using tewari:

$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Now, 5 suddenly looks bad (at least to me!), because 5 could've occupied a corner. So it seems that tewari is not a reliable way to test a position for it seems to matter in which row moves were played. So how relible is tewari in your opinion?

I agree,

is bad in this diagram. I also agree that the position after

is roughly even. What conclusion can we draw from that? Well, given that

is fine,

must be bad, too. Just about as bad as

. Tewari works.

Tewari is a technique for honing your judgement. But it requires judgement to use. There is a virtuous cycle to using tewari. If your original judgement is unreliable, then your tewari will be unreliable. But it will still be better than your raw judgement. So your judgement will become more reliable. And so will your tewari. And so on.

Your example does highlight one potential problem with tewari. It does not make sense to permute plays that have substantially different values. The 6-3 extension from the 4-4 is sufficiently worse than the 4-4 in an empty corner that if you simply assume that the two positions formed by permuting the two plays are equivalent, you can go wrong.

-----
BTW, I think that there is an interesting lesson in your example.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Roughly equal $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If this position is roughly equal, then switching the colors should make another roughly equal position.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Roughly equal $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now let's number the plays.

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

But we have learned from your example that

is not so good. True, there is no open corner, but why approach a corner where your opponent has already made what would be a reply? So if

is not so good, then

is not so good, either.

But haven't the pros started making such enclosures?

My hidden response:

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

If you are going to make one of those enclosures right now, this is the way to do it, right? You want to develop towards the opponent's stones and stifle their development. The other way is a form of overconcentration.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:07 pm**

Needless to say this as been tried at least once...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm5 Xu Ying 3p - Jian Ying 2p; Chinese Individual Championship (Women); 1991-09-15 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 3 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Posted: **Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:51 am**

Thanks, Dave.

Note the placement of

.

Life In 19x19

How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea

Re: How do ya like this fuseki idea