Life In 19x19

In this case though, I would hane on the other side:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Black lets white revert to joseki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 5 4 2 a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This feels more like the 'head' of the two stones, whereas 'a' feels more like the tail. Next, if white 'a', black 'b', and if white 'b', black 'a'. If white pushes at 'c', I think black 'a' puts a lot of pressure on white.

If white plays in the other direction, I don't think any move is as good as black taking 3-3 himself:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 2 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If black plays anything other than 3-3, white taking the 3-3 himself gives him a pretty good result.

I think we need to be careful of falling into the belief that a weird-move-that-surprises-me must be a bad move. That would imply we know more about Go than we do. Another way to end up with the shapes in Dusk Eagle's diagrams is attaching on top of a 3-4 as in viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5145. If Lee Changoho played it then it can't be that bad (though I do wonder if playing an amateur meant he felt he could afford to experiment a bit more than usual)

That was also a board in which his opponent had a Kobayashi/Chinese mutant hybrid position! That doesn't prove it's a good move than we can assume a second move 3-3 point invasion of a 4-4 is good because you see it played later in the game.

What I do think it reinforces is that early in the opening, every move accomplishes something, and the game is about relatively small advantages in efficiency. Later in the game, a move may really be like a pass, or it may be the difference between life and death, but at the very beginning, a move is just more or less efficient. You will get something and your opponent will get something, and you just have to make sure that what you get is a bit better, and you may not be able to do much better than that, even if your opponent plays a bad move.

@hyperpape: I was not using that Lee Changho game as an attempt to prove the shoulder hit to 5-3 is a good move, but to disprove weird-move-that-surprises-me must be a bad move. If someone played that attachment against you on KGS, would (at least part of you) think "What's this nonsense?! Must be wrong. Why are are you trying to trick me Mr Annoying". Part of me would, though less so now than a year or two ago. The shoulder hit to 5-3 will usually be a bad move, but maybe it could be good sometimes, Similar idea is the weird shoulder hit to a 3-4 at c16 in viewtopic.php?p=86453#p86453.

OtakuViking's diagrams seem to show some of this weird=>bad thinking. I think his "black punishes" diagram might be good for white. He dismissed the 2nd diagram as "Black lets white revert to joseki". This implies he thinks white's move was bad and thus deserves to get something worse than joseki. But maybe it's ok and a joseki shape is a fair outcome. Something to note about ending up with the small avalanche shape is black usually only plays this when he has the ladder, or else white can make the r6 extension as in LCH's game. So in fact going to a joseki, which black would not have chosen due to lack of ladder, could actually be counted as a success for white!

@DuskEagle: Agree, in my OGS game I felt outside hane was more important side. But LCH game he haned in corner first and w blocked and then hane outside. I think it probably ends up the same. As you say white blocking at c is probably bad. Hane outside first does give white the option to extend into corner, but then black 3-3 looks good.

When I started the "Greed (33 invasion as the first move)" thread a number of people lambasted me as a somehow rigid minded person while not comprehending at all that I am not annoyed because I may lose such a game but because of the attitude which spoils the fun for me. I can empathize with Tamsin very well. But there is a little truth with regards to rigidity. In all of Tamsin's answer diagrams there is not one, where she calmly takes the corner when offered. Can it be you are very much biased towards influence, and usually take the influence side of an exchange, even if your opponent goes to such length as to offer you a good exchange just to upset your original influence oriented plan? Just take the corner for a change.

You can find plenty of professional games which feature the position after 4-5 stone, 4-4 kick, because quite often the 4-5 stone is played as a kind of ko threat (and ignored) or ladder breaker (and the ladder taken) in the opening. I once made a little page about it: http://senseis.xmp.net/?44Point45Contact

Uberdude: I see what you're saying. It's a good point to keep in mind in theory, though I wonder how much it applies here.

Duskie: If I were playing white in that position I wouldn't choose your a,b or c but I the cut:) I don't know all the variations and I'm not confident enough in my skill to try and make some up to show it's better, but It's my feeling

Also, about trick moves/weird moves. You don't have the right to complain about the moves that you can't 'punish' correctly. That's my opinion:)

OtakuViking wrote:Also, about trick moves/weird moves. You don't have the right to complain about the moves that you can't 'punish' correctly. That's my opinion:)

But if you can punish them correctly, why complain?

OtakuViking wrote:Duskie: If I were playing white in that position I wouldn't choose your a,b or c but I the cut:) I don't know all the variations and I'm not confident enough in my skill to try and make some up to show it's better, but It's my feeling

In that case I would play 'a'. With both a hane at the head and tail of the two white stones, it's hard for them to be happy.

tapir wrote:When I started the "Greed (33 invasion as the first move)" thread a number of people lambasted me as a somehow rigid minded person while not comprehending at all that I am not annoyed because I may lose such a game but because of the attitude which spoils the fun for me. I can empathize with Tamsin very well.

Yes, it is the attitude that I am complaining about.

Actually, I have been learning a lot from opponents' "anti-joseki" recently, and that satisfies me, even I do not always enjoy the experience.

In the end I see anti-joseki and hamete as both being essentially self-defeating: anti-joseki represent a deliberate choice to resort to inferior moves because you don't know the better ones and don't want to study them; hamete may not always be so bad, but they are not the Highway.

But, once again, it is the attitude that irritates me. It is a bit like "coffeehouse chess". It's the taking of refuge in murky, shadowy places in preference to standing in the light. As for me, I want to stand in the sunshine, even if it does make me look a bit outworn and ragged.

I think your expectations for your opponents are too high :p I don't know 3-4 joseki because in my opinion studying them is boring and I play ridiculous moves because I think they are fun. I play Go because it's fun, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

illluck wrote:I think your expectations for your opponents are too high :p

Yes, you're probably right there! Maybe I just take it all too seriously.

Anyway...it's not just joseki deviations I was complaining about. It's just the general focus many players of around my strength, including ME all too often, have on not allowing the opponent to have anything instead of being creative.

I have two broad thoughts.

Thought the first:
Speaking as a primarily wbaduk player who also plays on KGS, I typify KGS players (around 1k-2d) as primarily focusing on all-in supermoyos which feel to me like they're just hoping I'll wait till it's too late to invade or reduce. Followed by trying desperately to kill my invasion or reduction.

Thought the second:
I think trying (inappropriately) desperate/greedy tactics is symptomatic of poor (or absent) counting, a shamefully common vice (I'm trying to shake it).

Bonus thoughts:
A lot of moves I think are crazy-strange, strong players later explain to me as very normal.

As for (whom I view as) anti-joseki and over-invasion players, I just enjoy those games thoroughly. The golden rule of joseki is to know why the joseki is joseki; the golden rule of extensions is to be content with your plan for invasions (otherwise I guess one believes oneself too thin?).

Tami wrote:

tapir wrote:When I started the "Greed (33 invasion as the first move)" thread a number of people lambasted me as a somehow rigid minded person while not comprehending at all that I am not annoyed because I may lose such a game but because of the attitude which spoils the fun for me. I can empathize with Tamsin very well.

Yes, it is the attitude that I am complaining about.

Actually, I have been learning a lot from opponents' "anti-joseki" recently, and that satisfies me, even I do not always enjoy the experience.

In the end I see anti-joseki and hamete as both being essentially self-defeating: anti-joseki represent a deliberate choice to resort to inferior moves because you don't know the better ones and don't want to study them; hamete may not always be so bad, but they are not the Highway.

But, once again, it is the attitude that irritates me. It is a bit like "coffeehouse chess". It's the taking of refuge in murky, shadowy places in preference to standing in the light. As for me, I want to stand in the sunshine, even if it does make me look a bit outworn and ragged.

I don't get it, you're mad at people because they need to study? Should we study everything before we play our first game?

Maybe they don't get games reviewed, or even talk to anyone about the game. Maybe they only started playing this year. Plus, the point is to win, not end in a tie. You gotta chill out!

Tami wrote:My biggest bugbear is what I think of as "negative go"...

First, especially in the run-up to shodan, I am noticing most people focus on destroying and not on creation...

In fact, like many a bad thing, this kind of negative go is only a distortion and shadow of something good.

Another type of negativity is practised by the anti-joseki specialist.

Anyway, I am frustrated with negative go in its various forms, and largely because I am not very good at playing against it.

Back to go, you might like to play anti-joseki of various kinds, even the quite good ones (I do believe Go Game Guru carried an article about easy ways to handle the 5-4 joseki), but, ultimately, are you not simply avoiding the effort that is absolutely necessary to get stronger?

Tami,

I find your post fascinating. I admire your enjoyment of go theory and appreciation of go as an art. But others see go differently, they see it as a fighting game. I have a strong Chinese friend who is amused at the time Westerners dedicate to principles and theories. She says to me, "Your theoretical understanding is excellent, now I will kill you." And she can.

It sounds to me you need the exact same thing I need. Less theory, better reading. This is probably true of 90% of the board denizens. Better reading helps us win the fights where we are locally stronger, as we inevitably are when the opponent is "negative". Poor reading makes all our theory good for naught when our cutting stones die.

You can either seek out like-minded players, and enjoy go as art and theory, or embrace these "negative" players for the education they give you, albeit sometimes painfully. Contrary to your last sentence, I suspect the latter is the best approach to true strength.

I mean no insult, and I wish you all the best!