dumbrope's holistic study journal
- Knotwilg
- Oza
- Posts: 2433
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:53 am
- Rank: KGS 2d OGS 1d Fox 4d
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Artevelde
- OGS: Knotwilg
- Online playing schedule: UTC 18:00 - 22:00
- Location: Ghent, Belgium
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 1021 times
- Contact:
Re: dumbrope's holistic study journal
In my opinion
is not the issue in that sequence. I pointed to an alternative
before, which handles the situation with good shape. Of course, any move can be subject to discussion but it's
that creates bad shape, not 
-
Uberdude
- Judan
- Posts: 6727
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:35 am
- Rank: UK 4 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: Uberdude 4d
- OGS: Uberdude 7d
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Has thanked: 436 times
- Been thanked: 3718 times
Re: dumbrope's holistic study journal
@Knotwilg; For sure your table shape for 50 is better and avoids the problem of the cut. I would also think about solid connect of c6 as, although it's weaker around e6, I don't want to give black b7 for maximum attacking possibilities on the c9 group (b10 shape attack for example). If black does cut white at e6 it's not a big deal as the b4 slide and b9 attach give white eyespace inside. I think the point about white not wanting to connect on dame is an important one though, as white's outside group is healthy and there's space inside (and indeed taking away black's corner territory is nice).
Here is my plan to deal with the cut, should black stubbornly persist with that idea (he's do better not to!). Not only does white live, but black's left side group is dying.
Here is my plan to deal with the cut, should black stubbornly persist with that idea (he's do better not to!). Not only does white live, but black's left side group is dying.