Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:Do they merely state what is current (Korean) fashion or do they also offer their explanations and, if so, which?

One explanation I remember is, "too slow".

"[White's connection is] too slow" is a bad reason. One might also say "Black's extension is too fast (because it leaves behind too much aji)". Whether an extension / connection [the move type] should be near, solid and slow or far, unstable and fast must be decided by the global context (i.e., what is in the adjacent corners). Judging only locally, one cannot say that a particular (reasonable) extension / connection would be too slow, unless it can be proven overconcentrated by technical analysis tools. The latter is not the case here (tewari just reveals that a faster stone placement is a possible alternative for the white connection), especially since the "too slow" but solid connection has aji I as a good follow-up, which is not so well available in case of a "too far" white connection.

"slow" is what you might call a "traditional" concept, but what do the Korean professionals say about the superior white thickness? Since you call thickness a "major" evaluation concept, evaluation can be complete only if both territory and thickness (besides possibly other aspects) are considered and related.

RobertJasiek wrote:"[White's connection is] too slow" is a bad reason. One might also say "Black's extension is too fast (because it leaves behind too much aji)". Whether an extension / connection [the move type] should be near, solid and slow or far, unstable and fast must be decided by the global context (i.e., what is in the adjacent corners). Judging only locally, one cannot say that a particular (reasonable) extension / connection would be too slow, unless it can be proven overconcentrated by technical analysis tools. The latter is not the case here (tewari just reveals that a faster stone placement is a possible alternative for the white connection), especially since the "too slow" but solid connection has aji I as a good follow-up, which is not so well available in case of a "too far" white connection.

"slow" is what you might call a "traditional" concept, but what do the Korean professionals say about the superior white thickness? Since you call thickness a "major" evaluation concept, evaluation can be complete only if both territory and thickness (besides possibly other aspects) are considered and related.

As I mentioned before, I can't explain like you because I don't know. Maybe you are right, but I don't doubt the opinion of Korean pros and also my memory about what I heard. And I have no need to play a dubious move.

1) Recently I was reading a book on haengma. One problem's answer was an attachment some reading turned up as good. "Yes! The knights move was correct haengma."

2) We need ez4u up in this thread with some statistics.

3) Black 7 is bad.

Concerning the non-joseki everyone is discussing, the way Hwang In-seong would explain it in insei league lectures a couple years ago was via a comparison to the usual 3-4, high approach, attach underneath joseki. He'd claim that comparing the territory for white in both variations showed that the non-joseki was worse.

Redundant wrote:Concerning the non-joseki everyone is discussing, the way Hwang In-seong would explain it in insei league lectures a couple years ago was via a comparison to the usual 3-4, high approach, attach underneath joseki. He'd claim that comparing the territory for white in both variations showed that the non-joseki was worse.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Is this the joseki you mean? Or do you mean the one where Black tenukis after ?

Because this joseki was already known to players in the mid-twentieth century to be flawed. (IIRC, Fujisawa Hideyuki was the one who pointed that out. ) OC, the mid-twentieth century is "traditional" in the context of this discussion. Segoe (if you want to talk traditional!) had a diagram in one of his books that showed this position in all four corners (with colors reversed), with the comment that White had already lost the game.

What were Hwang's, Fujisawa's or Segeo's reasons when assessing BOTH territory and influence and relating them?

Concerning anecdotes: Guo Juan, 1995 at the European Go Congress: On a day, she discussed for 20' with a couple of strong players that the "non-joseki" favoured Black. On the following day, it was her turn for another 20' discussion why it favoured White... (I do not recall the discussion contents, but on both days her reasons seemed more convincing to me, kibitz 3d then, than that of the other high dans in the discussion. It seems that those basic josekis are popular for fundamentals discussions on what is or is not a joseki. Do you recall the old RGG story about Rin Kaiho? Journalist about a 6 moves most basic corner sequence: "This is joseki." Rin: "Oh, really? Interesting!")

Hmm, perhaps "Never get into a joseki debate anywhere" is on par with "Never get into a land war in Asia." Part of the difficulty is that neither "modern thinking" nor "traditional thinking" are monolithic entities. What lovelove has presented to us may be both modern and traditional at the same time, depending on which professionals we are talking to. So I don't think that he is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. He's sort of right, but also sort of wrong.

Professionals have not undertaken a comprehensive and formal organization of mainstream professional evaluation methodology. Professionals take a position and give reasons for why it is good or bad, but they do not take a position and give you a list of questions whose answers directly determine what the evaluation of the position should be. It is not surprising that no one can really agree on what professional thinking is! The pros themselves often cannot agree! I vaguely remember one Baduk TV broadcast some time ago in which Lee Changho was playing. He played a move in the mid-late-opening that the commentator thought was bad. He claimed that the consensus within his research group was that it was a bad move. However! Lee Sedol had played the exact same move earlier in the year. The commentator said that Lee Changho must have agreed with Lee Sedol (or thought that it must be okay because Lee Sedol played it).

Bill Spight wrote:

$$W
$$ ----------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . 8 . . . 4 3 5 . . . |
$$ . , . . . 6 2 , 1 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Because this joseki was already known to players in the mid-twentieth century to be flawed.

If that joseki is flawed, I don't want to be right. I like it too much! I would hope that, even if it is flawed, it doesn't make a difference in amateur games below the near-pro level.

RobertJasiek wrote:Concerning anecdotes:

Those are some fantastic anecdotes, Robert.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . O . X X . . . X . . . X X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

To my objection, showing White 1, that Black would not have any territory at the top, Saijo explained that the purpose of the black shape was not (necessarily) to make territory but to make influence, with which to support a huge black moyo on the lower half of the board. I: "So it is not a territory moyo but an influence moyo?" Saijo: "Yes!"

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

When I construct such black opening shapes, the idea is the same: to make an influence moyo. Kobayashi Chizu did not understand this when saying "White has already won!";) Such an opinion arises from evaluating only territory but overlooking influence. My thinking: "White has only 25 points (including a komi of 7 points). It is (I am an optimist) easy to make (or reduce from White) more than 25 points more than White with the influence box."

Bill Spight wrote:

Redundant wrote:Concerning the non-joseki everyone is discussing, the way Hwang In-seong would explain it in insei league lectures a couple years ago was via a comparison to the usual 3-4, high approach, attach underneath joseki. He'd claim that comparing the territory for white in both variations showed that the non-joseki was worse.

$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . 4 3 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . 6 2 , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Is this the joseki you mean? Or do you mean the one where Black tenukis after ?

Because this joseki was already known to players in the mid-twentieth century to be flawed. (IIRC, Fujisawa Hideyuki was the one who pointed that out. ) OC, the mid-twentieth century is "traditional" in the context of this discussion. Segoe (if you want to talk traditional!) had a diagram in one of his books that showed this position in all four corners (with colors reversed), with the comment that White had already lost the game.

A cute demonstration of course. However, I don't recall where he published the demonstration of the joseki that could be repeated in all four corners and win the game! So should we conclude that the flaw is shared by all joseki?

I remember Hwang In-Seong once telling something like: "there is no joseki anymore in the third corner"

lovelove wrote:What I meant is that the modern pros think more practical in a go game, "mainly" focusing on territory and thickness. For example, like, 'If I make a B2 bomber, and still make a lot of territory, that's okay.' Or also look at the diagram below.

$$Wm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White 1 doesn't make sense in the traditional opening theory, but that move has become quite obvious in this position, because, regardless of any other concepts, this gives white a lot of territory from the beginning, and black can have a hard time to catch up komi. The next diagram is how it usually continues.

Did you actually bother to look up a database how often this position occurs and where professionals play in this situation?

In my database the vast majority unsurprisingly plays on the top side (approach or star point) at least until recently (missed the latest updates), the "modern" move which you call obvious is in fact astonishingly rare in professional play in the given situation (if this didn't change rapidly in the last year at least). The first occurrence in this exact position known to me is 1988 by Ma Xiaochun and another case 1997 by Cho Hunhyun, but the line between tradition and modernity is somewhat fuzzy, I reckon.

tapir wrote:Did you actually bother to look up a database how often this position occurs and where professionals play in this situation?

See viewtopic.php?p=125950#p125950

Looking up in a database doesn't tell you want modern opinion of a shape is. Pros used to play that fuseki, but if black rarely does anymore it may well because that invasion is good for white, but this information of things that didn't happen is impossible to search for in a database. Similarly you probably won't find many kills of a bulky five at the vital point in pro games because they don't get themselves into that bad situation, but if your opponent does make a bulky five then it's good to know how to kill a bulky five even if the pros never actually have to.

Uberdude wrote:

tapir wrote:Did you actually bother to look up a database how often this position occurs and where professionals play in this situation?

See viewtopic.php?p=125950#p125950

Looking up in a database doesn't tell you want modern opinion of a shape is. Pros used to play that fuseki, but if black rarely does anymore it may well because that invasion is good for white, but this information of things that didn't happen is impossible to search for in a database. Similarly you probably won't find many kills of a bulky five at the vital point in pro games because they don't get themselves into that bad situation, but if your opponent does make a bulky five then it's good to know how to kill a bulky five even if the pros never actually have to.

Well, it is possible to look for things in a database that did happen before but stop to do so at a certain point. But even the positives can often tell you, that the innovation is around for quite a long time and professionals often need some time to chew on the new insight before it becomes fashionable. It is also the reason why it is still reasonable to study "traditional" games because most "modern" insights occurred first in them and as an amateur you can sometimes watch the development retrospectively in your database instead of making up stuff how different people think nowadays, but all this while discounting the actual innovators as "traditional" thinkers. Also, I can't fail to notice that ez4u's final post in the linked thread was ignored. I can't resist quoting:

This strikes me as a typical amateur discussion of fuseki. AFAIK it is pretty much all unsupported by actual practice.

To add something more: I can indeed find that B7 in the diagram was played considerably more often between 1990-1997 than after 1998. And you readily find this kind of information in a database. But when indeed the analysis is that the immediate invasion is too good for White (I have seen it presented as a viable, good to know line of play (joseki) by Koreans teaching in Europe not as better for White), it is quite surprising that in post-1997 games where Black plays into this situation White does not bother to play the invasion more often than before. So in all cases Black didn't know the current analysis White happened not to know as well. Seriously? And look at the names of the players who still played into this situation and those who ignored to invade after 1997. In fact, when these moves occur until B7, it is often White who later deviates by not invading at the 3-3 point in the top right as often as White did earlier - why the hell are they doing this when the analysis is that it will end in a situation good for White?

tapir wrote: I can't resist quoting:

This strikes me as a typical amateur discussion of fuseki. AFAIK it is pretty much all unsupported by actual practice.

Go Seigen likes the invasion. He's not an amateur. One may dismiss his thoughts as the idle pontifications of an old man as he doesn't have to back them up in practice in tournament play, but I still think Go Seigen's insights are worth taking note of.