Marcus wrote:Shaddy wrote:$$Wcm5
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . a . . . 1 c . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . b , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm5
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . a . . . 1 c . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . b , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
I don't often see this approach/invasion. Is there any thoughts attached to this, or is it considered a common approach that I can look up myself?
This approach isn't particularly common, because it cedes the corner without really trying. White would normally play like this if he has some particular non-corner goal in mind. In this case, he wants to make a strong group on black's upper side, and judges this to be worth more than the territory loss.
I think this is actually not such a great plan, it is too scared of a moyo or a fight (in fact, I think this is very often the case when amateurs play it - I often see it in handicap games against my 5-3 point, as the opponent fears me).
To accomplish the same goal, I would personally prefer a or b. a splits the side without settling the corner, so it leaves more aji to exploit. b is a standard 5-3 approach designed to make a strong group, but it leaves white more centre strength. c also seems possible - it goes along with black's plan a bit, but this isn't a bad thing, and I'm sure white can do fine out of it if he wants to.