Life In 19x19

chef wrote:Thans guys. If defending this joseki is really obscure in which situation is it appropriate to use?

I'm not quite clear what you mean by this, but the thread title reveals a probable weakness in your attitude. If you are only thinking about defence when white plays this invasion then you are looking at it from the wrong perspective: you should also be thinking about attacking!

And as Kirby says, playing the kick of when the left side is open is rather unusual as you make white's stone stronger and it can make a full 3-space extension on the side (instead of which is an overplay if immediately played; my comments about the possible responses where just considering the local situation in the corner). There are rare occurrences where playing this kick with an open side is a good move, but it is only something I, as a 3 dan, am beginning to appreciate (it seems a rather modern Korean idea, contrary to traditional Japanese theory most of us in the West are raised on) so as a 14k I would dismiss it from your Go repertoire for now.

The sequence I showed is the "easy defense" and a good illustration of how the kick by itself does not so much "take a big corner" as some erroneously believe.

The point of the 4-4 wasn't the corner territory in the first place.

Uberdude wrote:There are rare occurrences where playing this kick with an open side is a good move, but it is only something I, as a 3 dan, am beginning to appreciate (it seems a rather modern Korean idea, contrary to traditional Japanese theory most of us in the West are raised on).

I have nothing against modern Korean ideas. I think that they are reinvigorating the game. However, this is not one of them, nor is it contrary to traditional Japanese theory. I could say that about a number of supposed Korean joseki. Perhaps they are more popular now, but that is in way of a revival, not a break.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . .
$$ | . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Sometimes when compelled to play handicap stones, I will do this. I even used this strategy against a 9dan during a multiplayer exhibition, the 9dan even pointed out at the end that two or three moves from the end I would have won if I hadn't made a certain mistake. Though most non-dan club players will say this play is bad, I am not sure there is a specific refutation.

There isn't a specific refutation, but the problem is that if you had just played the 3-4 point instead, you could have accomplished basically the same thing, and white wouldn't have as much influence from

speedchase wrote:There isn't a specific refutation, but the problem is that if you had just played the 3-4 point instead, you could have accomplished basically the same thing, and white wouldn't have as much influence from

I have heard this argument, however the 3-4 point still leaves the corner vulnerable to an approach from the other side, whereas if white tries a double approach after black 3-3, black can attack.

SmoothOper wrote:

speedchase wrote:There isn't a specific refutation, but the problem is that if you had just played the 3-4 point instead, you could have accomplished basically the same thing, and white wouldn't have as much influence from

I have heard this argument, however the 3-4 point still leaves the corner vulnerable to an approach from the other side, whereas if white tries a double approach after black 3-3, black can attack.

I don't see what you mean. jumping up in your diagram is still better than approaching a 3-4 stone.

SmoothOper wrote:

$$W
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . .
$$ | . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 2 . . .
$$ | . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Sometimes when compelled to play handicap stones, I will do this. I even used this strategy against a 9dan during a multiplayer exhibition, the 9dan even pointed out at the end that two or three moves from the end I would have won if I hadn't made a certain mistake. Though most non-dan club players will say this play is bad, I am not sure there is a specific refutation.

It is self-refuting.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Vs.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Vs...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

SmoothOper wrote:

speedchase wrote:There isn't a specific refutation, but the problem is that if you had just played the 3-4 point instead, you could have accomplished basically the same thing, and white wouldn't have as much influence from

I have heard this argument, however the 3-4 point still leaves the corner vulnerable to an approach from the other side, whereas if white tries a double approach after black 3-3, black can attack.

A little tewari :

Would you play like this :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . .
$$ | . . . 2 . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Or like this :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . .
$$ | . . . . 2 .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Top right: De-handicap-gaming the situation for clarity, we get something like this.

Later, if white gets a stone on 'a', it seems awkward for black to play 'b', so white may get to play around 'c' which starts raising questions like "is there more than one eye in the corner".

Also, 'l' is not forceful against white's base. White could even play 'm' to expand the base locally if necessary.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . a . b c . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . m . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Bottom left, we have the generic situation where the 3-3 is played as a splitting attack; stopping white from dodging away into the corner.

Loons wrote:Top right: De-handicap-gaming the situation for clarity, we get something like this.

Later, if white gets a stone on 'a', it seems awkward for black to play 'b', so white may get to play around 'c' which starts raising questions like "is there more than one eye in the corner".

Also, 'l' is not forceful against white's base. White could even play 'm' to expand the base locally if necessary.

$$Bc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . a . b c . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . m . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . a . b c . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . m . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Bottom left, we have the generic situation where the 3-3 is played as a splitting attack; stopping white from dodging away into the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . a . 5 c . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . 6 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . 2 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

This degenerates to a pretty standard joseki.

5 and 6 in your diagram would not be played.

Some related joseki:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . 2 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . 5 . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 1 . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]