Life In 19x19

Knotwilg wrote:Here's a conversation between Jose Kiteacher, an amateur dan teaching at a club and Davy L'Sadvocate, a beginner with a sharp critical mind.

Jose: "The most common opening move is on the star point. Black plays here, on 4-4".
Davy: "What about playing deeper in the corner: on that ... 3-3 point"
Jose: "That's considered a little slow."
(Davy's critical mind is activated, taking no BS from anyone)
Jose: "The most common next move in that corner is White's 3-3 invasion"
(Jose shows modern joseki)
Davy: "So why is that a good move for White?"
Jose: "Because White gets territory, and Black influence, which is a little harder to play with. And White can do that and be the first to play in another area of the board."
Davy: "So if Black plays on 3-3 to start with, White can't go there anymore, to get this good result?"
Jose: "Err ... yes."
Davy: "So what happens if Black plays 3-3? What's White's answer?"
Jose: "Eh ... White can shoulder hit, for example" (shows traditional joseki)
Davy: "How can that be good? Black can ignore it and play in another area of the board, and still have that good result you just showed me?"
Jose: "Eh ..."

We can't confidently teach traditional or modern joseki to beginners. We hardly understand today's basic patterns ourselves, and since they've been evaluated as superior to old patterns, we didn't really understand those either.

For how it can simultaneously be bad to ignore 4-4 shoulder hit a 3-3, yet also be good to 3-3 invade under a 4-4, well it's not surprising if the person who plays first in the corner has a slight edge in that corner.

* 3-3 invade under a 4-4 is a local slight advantage for the 4-4, but still a good move because it's only an advantage for the 4-4 by about the amount that the 4-4 expected anyways due to taking the corner first.
* 4-4 shoulder hit on a 3-3 is local slight advantage for the 3-3, but can be still a good move because it's only an advantage for the 3-3 by about what the 3-3 expected anyways due to taking the corner first. (And in this case IIRC it's not automatically a good move, you want to delay it until it reduces a moyo or has some other purpose).
* Ignoring 4-4 shoulder hit on a 3-3 is often a loss since you flip from a 3-3-advantaged result to a 4-4-advantaged result, or said another way, you effectively flip from getting a corner-first-move-advantage level of result to getting the opposite.

Having useful knowledge about something and being able to apply it accurately oneself is a fairly distinct skill from being able to verbalize that knowledge, which is itself a fairly distinct skill from being able to introspect and then verbalize the reasons and principles behind that knowledge to justify it. (*)

As an aside, something that annoys me about some "take no BS" people is that some of them occasionally seem to end up in a mode where their goal is to outlogic and prove the other person wrong, rather than having a conversation in good faith. But the ones who are aware of the above (*) and who do consistently go out of their way to repeatedly reinforce and signal good faith even as they challenge, or even to turn their critical thinking towards finding ways your own knowledge can be made justified and consistent rather than only poking holes in it - can be a pleasure to teach or talk with. Those are the ones who can help you even clarify your own understanding, the kind of person who at might at minimum say "What you've said doesn't make any sense to me, but if you're good at the game I can accept that these are probably all still great patterns to get an initial feel for what good moves look like and maybe why they're good is something that's not easy to verbally explain."

lightvector wrote: As an aside, something that annoys me about some "take no BS" people is that some of them occasionally seem to end up in a mode where their goal is to outlogic and prove the other person wrong, rather than having a conversation in good faith. But the ones who are aware of the above (*) and who do consistently go out of their way to repeatedly reinforce and signal good faith even as they challenge, or even to turn their critical thinking towards finding ways your own knowledge can be made justified and consistent rather than only poking holes in it - can be a pleasure to teach or talk with. Those are the ones who can help you even clarify your own understanding, the kind of person who at might at minimum say "What you've said doesn't make any sense to me, but if you're good at the game I can accept that these are probably all still great patterns to get an initial feel for what good moves look like and maybe why they're good is something that's not easy to verbally explain."

For me the issue very often with this (and beginners/casual players/whatever) is that they're trying to get you to explain to them how to run when they don't know how to walk yet. So you cannot ever really give them the logical explanation they're demanding as they lack the experience or knowledge to understand such and these are not things you can easily or quickly impart and are they are also often blind to the need for this experience or knowledge.

In the conversation above, Davy is asking genuine questions. I object to dismissing Davy (it is I, Dieter) as an obnoxious person who refuses to learn and only wants to outlogic the benevolent teacher. I equally object to Jose being portrayed as someone who knows it all and is teaching Davy to walk before he can run. That's the old paradigm of teaching Go, which I'm arguing AI should have humbled us out of. Jose is better at running than Davy but perhaps not because of his deep understanding of how the knee works.

The logic holds if we tewari that the slower opening at 3-3 and the slower shoulder hit at 4-4 are canceling mistakes, reverting to a fast 4-4 opening and a good 3-3 invasion. That's a simple logic but not a trivial one. It needs whole board thinking, rather than local analysis.

This understanding, which is the (AI reinforced) idea that it is recommended to switch to an undisputed corner rather soon than late, is one that I would tutor earlier than any particular joseki.

Now to lightvector's answer and the tewari argument: consider these two openings

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Opening 1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Opening 2
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Opening 2 is as if White played opening 1 as Black, then flipped stone color, except for one stone, took komi and kept sente. Flipping one stone = 2 moves. Komi and sente are one move, so the net result is equal.

For me it is very hard, from these diagrams, to argue that opening two has two small mistakes, which cancel each other out, rather than being two good moves. I know that in this diagram is expected to be a 3-3 in the other white corner. But why, I can't tell.

I think the problem is that you can't evaluate all positions statically (spatial aspect) without information about whose turn it is (temporal aspect).

In this example it is very urgent to play locally, so tempo matters greatly for the evaluation of the position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O . . . .
$$ . . . O X . . . .
$$ . . . . O X . . .
$$ . . . . X . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B black's turn -> great for black
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O . . . .
$$ . . . O X . . . .
$$ . . . 1 O X . . .
$$ . . . . X . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W white's turn -> great for white
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O . . . .
$$ . . . O X 1 . . .
$$ . . . . O X . . .
$$ . . . . X . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

In this example it is not urgent to play locally (capture 1 stone), so tempo doesn't matter much. Tenuki is best for either color in most cases, so this shape can be statically evaluated as even:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . O O O X . .
$$ . . . O X . X . .
$$ . . O . O X . . .
$$ . . O X X X . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Another example where it is not very urgent to play locally.
Black a is a good local move. It gives white a secure group with a decent amount of territory, but black settles his group while making some influence.
White a is a good local move, but it may be a bit slow globally, because black can easily ignore it and tenuki (black is satisfied with preventing a shimari in sente).
So tenuki is an option for either color in many cases and the position can be statically evaluated as about even:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B black's turn -> even
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 1 . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W white's turn -> even
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

tenuki

In the 3-3/4-4 situation it is quite urgent to play locally, so tempo matters and the shape cannot be evaluated statically:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B black's turn -> even
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 X 3 . . . .
$$ | . . O 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 4 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W white's turn -> good for white
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 X . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 3 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

Both openings 1 and 2 have been played by pros, so Davy really shouldn't worry about whether starting with a 3-3 or a 4-4 is better. If Davy is really a beginner, I would expect him to consider moves like

a or b: "Jose, you told me it's easier to make territory near the corners than on the sides or in the center, so I am making territory".

c or d: "Jose, you told me to play where the space is wide open, so I followed your advice".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . b . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . d . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

I've seen moves like a or b in Fox 5k games, so learning josekis is really not a priority for a beginner. On the other hand, josekis are examples of good sequences which can be learnt from, so there are pros and cons about learning josekis as a beginner.

Knotwilg wrote:I equally object to Jose being portrayed as someone who knows it all and is teaching Davy to walk before he can run. That's the old paradigm of teaching Go, which I'm arguing AI should have humbled us out of. Jose is better at running than Davy but perhaps not because of his deep understanding of how the knee works.

I'm more getting at that for a beginner arguing about 3-3 or 4-4 on that board is trying to run before learning to walk. They've far bigger low hanging fruit to tackle before worrying about fraction of a point differences in options for and they're probably not equipped to understand the difference between favouring the corner or side with 3-3 or 4-4 for white yet if they're having this fuseki shown to them. It's not even that one is worse, it's that these lead to different midgames and you may prefer one kind over the other but this isn't really something beginners need to be considering yet. It is not that Jose knows all and Davy cannot grasp it, it's that it's really not relevant information to Davy yet.

My main criticism is Jose calling 3-3 slow rather than saying "that's an option, try it and see if you like it." Even pre-AI, D4 was not prescribed here especially to kyu players.

gennan wrote: Another example where it is not very urgent to play locally.
Black a is a good local move. It gives white a secure group with a decent amount of territory, but black settles his group while making some influence.
White a is a good local move, but it may be a bit slow globally, because black can easily ignore it and tenuki (black is satisfied with preventing a shimari in sente).
So tenuki is an option for either color in many cases and the position can be statically evaluated as about even:

$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

We know from Uberdude's great articles on AI opening gospel that this is the most urgent situation of two stones played in a corner, after the corner invasion and before the approach.

In your post you bring two things in the tempo concept: 1) is it urgent to play here with respect to the rest of the board (which is the temperature concept) and 2) whose turn is it (the sente concept)?

In the evaluation of a corner pattern both aspects play a role of course. Invading a 4-4 is not equivalent with shoulder hitting a 3-3: the difference is exactly sente.

Boidhre wrote: My main criticism is Jose calling 3-3 slow rather than saying "that's an option, try it and see if you like it." Even pre-AI, D4 was not prescribed here especially to kyu players.

Agreed. So maybe that was a strawman.

I'm more getting at that for a beginner arguing about 3-3 or 4-4 on that board is trying to run before learning to walk. They've far bigger low hanging fruit to tackle before worrying about fraction of a point differences in options for and they're probably not equipped to understand the difference between favouring the corner or side with 3-3 or 4-4 for white yet if they're having this fuseki shown to them. It's not even that one is worse, it's that these lead to different midgames and you may prefer one kind over the other but this isn't really something beginners need to be considering yet. It is not that Jose knows all and Davy cannot grasp it, it's that it's really not relevant information to Davy yet.

And this is where I disagree. I'm 2 dan and unable to carry a favorable opening into a dominant middle game. As a 2d, showing joseki and fuseki to a beginner would have me pretend I understand things, while I don't. At any point in time they can choose exposing themselves to openings and corner patterns, and when pressed, I will provide examples of such patterns. But I won't teach them. In fact I might rather talk about the inherent differece between 3rd and 4th line (3-3 vs 4-4).

Knotwilg wrote:Here's a conversation between Jose Kiteacher, an amateur dan teaching at a club and Davy L'Sadvocate, a beginner with a sharp critical mind.

Jose: "The most common opening move is on the star point. Black plays here, on 4-4".
Davy: "What about playing deeper in the corner: on that ... 3-3 point"

That's also playable, as is the 3-4 point.

Jose: "That's considered a little slow."

If I were to comment, which I wouldn't, I wouldn't think that a beginner would understand what I meant by slow. It's also not my preference for describing the play, but it is one way of looking at it.

(Davy's critical mind is activated, taking no BS from anyone)
Jose: "The most common next move in that corner is White's 3-3 invasion"
(Jose shows modern joseki)

Which modern joseki? My guess is this one.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Modern joseki
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 8 . .
$$ | . . 2 4 6 5 . .
$$ | . . 3 1 7 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Davy: "So why is that a good move for White?"
Jose: "Because White gets territory, and Black influence, which is a little harder to play with. And White can do that and be the first to play in another area of the board."

Well, I guessed wrong. Black can certainly take sente here, and usually should. I would not show anything longer to a beginner.

My own preference would not be to talk about territory vs. influence, but about making a stable group, which I think we can say applies to both sides.

Davy: "So if Black plays on 3-3 to start with, White can't go there anymore, to get this good result?"
Jose: "Err ... yes."

Moi: Good point. But the 3-3 is less flexible than the 4-4, more committal. Not that it's bad, in general.

Davy: "So what happens if Black plays 3-3? What's White's answer?"
Jose: "Eh ... White can shoulder hit, for example" (shows traditional joseki)

i wouldn't show the shoulder hit, but say that the two space high approach is the most usual play, with the two space high response being the usual reply. Then I would point out that which side to approach from depends upon the whole board, and White will usually wait to make that decision. I might also point out that, given the approach and reply, the 3-3 stone makes solid territory, but might be considered a bit unenterprising.

I assume that this is the traditional joseki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Joseki
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 7 . .
$$ | . . 1 3 . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 4 . . .
$$ | . 5 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 6 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Davy: "How can that be good? Black can ignore it and play in another area of the board, and still have that good result you just showed me?"
Jose: "Eh ..."

Guessed wrong, again. Maybe Jose stopped after . In that case, my reply:

Black could play elsewhere, but is usually a mistake. If Black plays the keima, , Black not only secures territory, but aims at attacking the weak. floating White group. Better for White to play this turn for .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Variation
$$ ----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 3 6 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 4 . . . 8 , .
$$ | . 5 . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 7 . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

looks inefficient and slow, but if Black plays there, White will be forced into a low position with not much territory. makes a nice group.

is usually not good. Better just to turn, as a rule.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Modern joseki
$$ ----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 3 . 7 . . . . .
$$ | . . 5 2 4 . . . . , .
$$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Each side has made a stable group.

Knotwilg wrote:And this is where I disagree. I'm 2 dan and unable to carry a favorable opening into a dominant middle game. As a 2d, showing joseki and fuseki to a beginner would have me pretend I understand things, while I don't. At any point in time they can choose exposing themselves to openings and corner patterns, and when pressed, I will provide examples of such patterns. But I won't teach them. In fact I might rather talk about the inherent differece between 3rd and 4th line (3-3 vs 4-4).

Yes, I'm not trying to imply that a 2 dan can. Or the teacher can ever answer the question asked. It's more about the need to gently guide people away from the the questions they don't need to be worrying overly about and towards the ones that are more relevant to them. It's not the teacher withholding knowledge but bumping the student away from things that'll waste their time overly. Like I said, I think the problem is this is all being induced by the 3-3 being called slow begging the student to go down a line that invites them to run even if the teacher is themselves only barely managing a brisk walk.

Knotwilg wrote: Opening 2 is as if White played opening 1 as Black, then flipped stone color, except for one stone, took komi and kept sente. Flipping one stone = 2 moves. Komi and sente are one move, so the net result is equal.

Not quite equal. Obviously if you did an analogous operation in a position where somehow sente was worth literally nothing, it would be unequal and the side that gained sente at the cost of moves on the board with real value would be sad. And on the flip side, if you did it in the middle of a hot tactical situation as gennan showed, or a big midgame fight, the side that gained sente in exchange for other things of fixed value equalling that of a non-urgent big opening move, would be happy.

Your instinct (not just from book learning, but also unconsciously gained from fighting experience) should be shouting at you that the shoulder hit / 3-3 situation is a moment where play is more urgent than normal, i.e. the value of sente is higher. To the degree you trust that instinct (and ultimately, you have to trust *something*), then you can also guess that flipping the colors at this point as you did is probably not an equal trade, even if the difference is pretty small.

Knotwilg wrote: For me it is very hard, from these diagrams, to argue that opening two has two small mistakes, which cancel each other out, rather than being two good moves. I know that in this diagram is expected to be a 3-3 in the other white corner. But why, I can't tell.

Right, you can't argue it from the diagrams alone. You need the additional information that's not part of the diagram, which is your instinct telling you (agreeing with the vast majority of other experienced players' instincts, and for good reason) that this is a time where moves are a bit more urgent than normal, and therefore swapping sides at the trade of a normal move's worth in value might not be a fair swap. And of course you can't always conclude exactly which move or moves in which diagram were mistakes from things like this, only that the final results are unfair. But knowing that gives you at least a diffuse belief over which moves might be dispreferred, relatively speaking, between the two diagrams, and you can let that be one more fuzzy data point for building your intuition, and move on.

Knotwilg wrote:Here's a conversation between Jose Kiteacher, an amateur dan teaching at a club and Davy L'Sadvocate, a beginner with a sharp critical mind.

Jose: "The most common opening move is on the star point. Black plays here, on 4-4".
Davy: "What about playing deeper in the corner: on that ... 3-3 point"
Jose: "That's considered a little slow."
(Davy's critical mind is activated, taking no BS from anyone)
Jose: "The most common next move in that corner is White's 3-3 invasion"
(Jose shows modern joseki)
Davy: "So why is that a good move for White?"
Jose: "Because White gets territory, and Black influence, which is a little harder to play with. And White can do that and be the first to play in another area of the board."
Davy: "So if Black plays on 3-3 to start with, White can't go there anymore, to get this good result?"
Jose: "Err ... yes."
Davy: "So what happens if Black plays 3-3? What's White's answer?"
Jose: "Eh ... White can shoulder hit, for example" (shows traditional joseki)
Davy: "How can that be good? Black can ignore it and play in another area of the board, and still have that good result you just showed me?"
Jose: "Eh ..."

Here's another vote for gently guiding Davy away from that precipice. We can argue about how, when and if we should teach joseki to beginners but I don't see any use in pontificating on the minute differences between various more or less common corner moves until ... well, I don't think any of us will ever be strong enough for this to become much more than a philosophical discussion.

I'd also advise Jose to add this very useful phrase to his teaching arsenal: "I don't know." Admitting that you're a bit clueless about something is often better than trying to conjure up an answer out of thin air.

Knotwilg wrote:We can't confidently teach traditional or modern joseki to beginners. We hardly understand today's basic patterns ourselves, and since they've been evaluated as superior to old patterns, we didn't really understand those either.

Knotwilg wrote:And this is where I disagree. I'm 2 dan and unable to carry a favorable opening into a dominant middle game. As a 2d, showing joseki and fuseki to a beginner would have me pretend I understand things, while I don't. At any point in time they can choose exposing themselves to openings and corner patterns, and when pressed, I will provide examples of such patterns. But I won't teach them. In fact I might rather talk about the inherent differece between 3rd and 4th line (3-3 vs 4-4).

If we only ever taught things we fully understand then nothing would ever get taught. After all, the AI revolution in go has also shown that even top professional players were clueless and even worse: wrong, about many aspects of the game.

lightvector wrote:

Knotwilg wrote: Opening 2 is as if White played opening 1 as Black, then flipped stone color, except for one stone, took komi and kept sente. Flipping one stone = 2 moves. Komi and sente are one move, so the net result is equal.

Not quite equal. Obviously if you did an analogous operation in a position where somehow sente was worth literally nothing, it would be unequal and the side that gained sente at the cost of moves on the board with real value would be sad. And on the flip side, if you did it in the middle of a hot tactical situation as gennan showed, or a big midgame fight, the side that gained sente in exchange for other things of fixed value equalling that of a non-urgent big opening move, would be happy.

Your instinct (not just from book learning, but also unconsciously gained from fighting experience) should be shouting at you that the shoulder hit / 3-3 situation is a moment where play is more urgent than normal, i.e. the value of sente is higher. To the degree you trust that instinct (and ultimately, you have to trust *something*), then you can also guess that flipping the colors at this point as you did is probably not an equal trade, even if the difference is pretty small.

Knotwilg wrote: For me it is very hard, from these diagrams, to argue that opening two has two small mistakes, which cancel each other out, rather than being two good moves. I know that in this diagram is expected to be a 3-3 in the other white corner. But why, I can't tell.

Right, you can't argue it from the diagrams alone. You need the additional information that's not part of the diagram, which is your instinct telling you (agreeing with the vast majority of other experienced players' instincts, and for good reason) that this is a time where moves are a bit more urgent than normal, and therefore swapping sides at the trade of a normal move's worth in value might not be a fair swap. And of course you can't always conclude exactly which move or moves in which diagram were mistakes from things like this, only that the final results are unfair. But knowing that gives you at least a diffuse belief over which moves might be dispreferred, relatively speaking, between the two diagrams, and you can let that be one more fuzzy data point for building your intuition, and move on.

This is a very profound and satisfying answer to my quibbles with the topic. Worthy of study and repetition. Thanks.

schrody wrote: If we only ever taught things we fully understand then nothing would ever get taught. After all, the AI revolution in go has also shown that even top professional players were clueless and even worse: wrong, about many aspects of the game.

It depends on how you define teaching and what your objective is.

If teaching is exposure to a subject by an experienced person, things can hardly go wrong, even if the expert doesn't full grasp the subject matter themselves.

If teaching is distinguishing right from wrong, or worse, not showing things because the student is incapable, while you are incapable yourself, I find more fault with it.

You are exaggerating my point. I'm talking about the opening and joseki, which I think are not only unsuitable to teach in that second manner because the student is unready, but moreover the master is unready on many occasions. You can show things, whether they are modern or traditional, giving some background, or some arguments, but please don't teach the traditional patterns because they are "easier to understand" for a beginner. At best they are giving the teacher some comfort because they have been believing these were "true" for decades.

This doesn't apply to all aspects of Go. I can confidently teach how a capturing race unfolds, differentiating between eye vs no eye etc. I can show the vital point of a bulky five. I can explain it's valuable to know the status of an L-group. Ain't no AI ever gonna prove me wrong there.

Knotwilg wrote:

gennan wrote:

$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

We know from Uberdude's great articles on AI opening gospel that this is the most urgent situation of two stones played in a corner, after the corner invasion and before the approach.

Yes, black's approach was quite urgent. It has rank +2 in The Opening Gospel.
But white responding at a is less urgent, at rank +3.5.
Black pressing at a has rank +3.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ whose turn is it?
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ -------------------[/go]

But in the 3-3/4-4 situation above, continueing locally has rank -2(!), making it more urgent than all of the above opening moves.
It is even more urgent than than taking an empty corner at rank +1.
The only higher ranked move (at rank -3) is responding to a black press at a.