This is turning out to be pretty successful so far
I've already committed to that group, so that is indeed sente.
Edit: Also, thank you!!
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:55 pm
by Bill Spight
Kirby wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote:A different example might be:
In this case, I might be inclined to take my chances with white...
With an 8 stone handicap, why not?
I already mentioned to Joaz that I was simply illustrating purely "3rd line vs. 4th line", and suggested that you can add the 8 stones in the middle if you'd like:
$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
[go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Anyway, I think the point still remains that getting territory on the third line can be comparable to having influence.
Your hoary example was debunked in the middle of the last century. By, IIRC, Fujisawa Hideyuki. Yet it refuses to die.
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:13 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Kirby wrote:... I'd be willing to try to play white here on the forum with this board:
@Mezzanyne: There is so much lurking just below the surface, even within the first dozen moves.
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:17 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Kirby wrote:...
$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
[go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X X . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
...
I'd prefer my 8 stones here:
$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
[go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:46 am
by Kirby
Bill Spight wrote:... Your hoary example was debunked in the middle of the last century. By, IIRC, Fujisawa Hideyuki. Yet it refuses to die.
And here I thought I had a unique idea.
I still haven't really seen any debunking, though. We are talking about 3rd line stones vs. 4th line stones, so I simply constructed a board with 3rd line stones vs. 4th line stones.
I agree that outside influence is useful, but I also think that an example with an empty board having only one wall does not give fair justice to territory, because it is on empty boards where influence really flourishes. The closer you get to the end of the game, the less useful your influence is.
Furthermore, the more third line territory you grab, the harder it is for your opponent to catch up with his influence, since the end of the game gets closer and closer.
Do you happen to recall Hideyuki's argument?
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:49 am
by Kirby
Joaz Banbeck wrote:...
$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
[go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Not really fair, is it? You are going for influence, not territory. Let's compromise:
$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
[go]$$Bc $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . X X . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . | $$ | . . O X X X X X X X X X X X X X O . . | $$ | . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Anyway, again, this example was originally constructed to show the difference between 3rd line and 4th line.
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:58 am
by hyperpape
In a real game, we do not construct walls that stretch for 13 stones or more.
Given that fact, the burden of proof is on the people putting these contrived board positions up. They need to show that there is any reason whatsoever to think that these board positions demonstrate anything about the value of any stones in an actual game.
hyperpape wrote:In a real game, we do not construct walls that stretch for 13 stones or more.
Given that fact, the burden of proof is on the people putting these contrived board positions up. They need to show that there is any reason whatsoever to think that these board positions demonstrate anything about the value of any stones in an actual game.
Thanks, hyperpape. That's a very interesting discussion. I also agree that some of these examples are a bit contrived. I do still contend that getting territory has as much merit as getting a wall in many cases. A number of joseki couldn't be called joseki otherwise.
If it's sente once, it's sente again, and perhaps moreso. By the way, I had a quick glance at the book I keep referencing: it seems that we're nailing this joseki. I am pleased with myself for it (my joseki memorization is astoundingly attrocious, typically). However, I think it's really commendable that you've been constructing everything from first principles. This board position is almost identical to the one shown in the book. In that position, Mr. Yang said that black might have a very small advantage because of an edge in territory, but it was small and the game had transitioned from a moyo game to a territory one. That said, I prefer the 3-4 placement in our game to the 4-4 in the example game.
Long story short, you're doing great! If you can pull this off in a real-time game, you'll be playing quite reasonably against sanrensei.
For what it's worth, this is my plan for next. In the book, it was recommended for black to take 'a' next to reduce white's potential. However, that was with two left-side star points. With the 3-4, I'm considering playing the high approach, to work on reducing potential where more of it exists. Also, heads-up: this is about halfway through the '30ish' moves we had discussed playing. We'll probably wrap that up, or until all of the big points are taken, and then discuss and end this. Might or might not be up for another, after.
Like I said, this corner area and the left side are both large, and I picked this one.
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:30 pm
by Mezzanyne
Ahhhh that stings...just heading out for a quick errand, then I'll respond. My first instinct is f16...or e15? But then again I don't know how that works out, I'll read it out then
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:39 pm
by Redundant
I think black's last move is a mistake. After the two space high pincer or the like, the L16 stones are very useful in the following fight. It somewhat reminds me of how one is not supposed to approach closely against the Kobayashi.
I would have preferred a two space approach to this corner.
Re: Chew vs Mezzanyne: Opening Practice
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:21 pm
by Solomon
This pincer feels uncomfortable for Black, because the marked group is strong and such a pincer forces Black to run head-on towards it if he wants to run.
I don't like the two space high here since there are apparently a lot of ladder variations (that I lose,) and the one space low means he could settle himself comfortably. The two space low, though...might work.
