What is "the direction of play?"
-
TheBigH
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:06 am
- Rank: OGS 9kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Location: Geelong, Australia
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
I've always thought of 'the direction of play' as encompassing more than just the physical location of the important points, or which area of the board the next fight will spill into. It includes higher-level evaluations of the situation like, is this turning into a big moyo based game, or a series of small skirmishes.
Poka King of the south east.
-
Bantari
- Gosei
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:34 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Universal go server handle: Bantari
- Location: Ponte Vedra
- Has thanked: 642 times
- Been thanked: 490 times
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
Anyways, for Ed and all others who wonder: can Bantari be ever satisfied with any answer? I say: yes, I can. And Shapenaji's post is an example of that.
Tryss' diagram is also a good try, although slightly weaker - the original diagram Bill presented had the 'squishy' triangle's extension stone(s) one line further - which would make both areas exactly same: 43 points. Each subsequent poster conveniently moved the extension stone(s) one line closer, not sure why.
I rejected topazg's numbers and counting because it is uncertain what is the correlation between the size of the triangle with the actual points it makes, so its really not very meaningful - until such correlation is indicated.
To iterate what I asked for: some kind of common sense explanation, does not need to be full, does not need to be 100% correct, just something showing a spark of understanding, something beyond simplistic "just because!" I swear, I *am* reasonable.... mostly.
Tryss' diagram is also a good try, although slightly weaker - the original diagram Bill presented had the 'squishy' triangle's extension stone(s) one line further - which would make both areas exactly same: 43 points. Each subsequent poster conveniently moved the extension stone(s) one line closer, not sure why.
I rejected topazg's numbers and counting because it is uncertain what is the correlation between the size of the triangle with the actual points it makes, so its really not very meaningful - until such correlation is indicated.
To iterate what I asked for: some kind of common sense explanation, does not need to be full, does not need to be 100% correct, just something showing a spark of understanding, something beyond simplistic "just because!" I swear, I *am* reasonable.... mostly.
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!
-
jts
- Oza
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:17 pm
- Rank: kgs 6k
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 310 times
- Been thanked: 632 times
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
I would rather see diagrams comparing the enclosures like so:
I think this shows more clearly what's wrong with Ed's "tray" - to a first approximation* the corners are the same, but the black box is longer than the white tray and contains three more points along the side. Well, can we play Bill's "tray" instead, moving white out a point?
Now the boxy black position and the white tray position have equally long extensions, but the problem seems clear to me - white's extension is too long, and black can (depending on the board) invade or reduce with impunity. But if the two extensions are the same length, how can one be safer than the other? Well, C5 is well-placed if white starts a fight around G3, but Q3 doesn't contribute much to an attack on a black move around R8. Since white is a move behind, the R11 tray is a harder extension to defend than the K3 boxy position.
Or, at any rate, that's how I think the position should be explained. But I don't really see this as being about the direction of play. These are basic ideas about efficiency in the opening. They're not too different from explaining why we finish of 4th line moves with an extension to the 3rd line, but treat 3rd line positions as settled and take sente; or why we use a two space extension along the side to make a base, rather than a two space jump up into the center.
Once we know what sort of moves are likely to be efficient/big in the opening, then we have the building blocks for what Kajiwara describes as the "direction of play" in the book, but only in the same way that the nakade shapes (heh, two solecisms for JF in the same sentence!) are the building block for life and death techniques. Knowing that points A, B, and C are efficient is only the introduction to the topic... it seems to me that whatever direction of play is, it involves using that knowledge to develop a plan for the entire opening (or possibly, more than one plan).
*(In fact I think B's corner should end up better because B benefits more if W probes the B's corner than vice versa.)
I think this shows more clearly what's wrong with Ed's "tray" - to a first approximation* the corners are the same, but the black box is longer than the white tray and contains three more points along the side. Well, can we play Bill's "tray" instead, moving white out a point?
Now the boxy black position and the white tray position have equally long extensions, but the problem seems clear to me - white's extension is too long, and black can (depending on the board) invade or reduce with impunity. But if the two extensions are the same length, how can one be safer than the other? Well, C5 is well-placed if white starts a fight around G3, but Q3 doesn't contribute much to an attack on a black move around R8. Since white is a move behind, the R11 tray is a harder extension to defend than the K3 boxy position.
Or, at any rate, that's how I think the position should be explained. But I don't really see this as being about the direction of play. These are basic ideas about efficiency in the opening. They're not too different from explaining why we finish of 4th line moves with an extension to the 3rd line, but treat 3rd line positions as settled and take sente; or why we use a two space extension along the side to make a base, rather than a two space jump up into the center.
Once we know what sort of moves are likely to be efficient/big in the opening, then we have the building blocks for what Kajiwara describes as the "direction of play" in the book, but only in the same way that the nakade shapes (heh, two solecisms for JF in the same sentence!) are the building block for life and death techniques. Knowing that points A, B, and C are efficient is only the introduction to the topic... it seems to me that whatever direction of play is, it involves using that knowledge to develop a plan for the entire opening (or possibly, more than one plan).
*(In fact I think B's corner should end up better because B benefits more if W probes the B's corner than vice versa.)
-
daal
- Oza
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:30 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 1304 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Re:
Nobody took me up on this one. Last chance!
There you have it in a nutshell.
daal wrote:
Here is a diagram from the book I would like to offer up for discussion (beware, it's a trap):
is ideal. But this betrays thinking about only the local instead of the overall situation. Even if White checks at 
, has little to fear from a attack on his lone stone on the lower edge.
on the right-side star point is an ideal invasion which utterly spoils White's dream of monopolizing the right side. Indeed, 
is now under attack and the initiative has passed to Black. Thinking locally and forgetting the overall position is tantamount to being blind to the direction of play." There you have it in a nutshell.
Patience, grasshopper.
-
snorri
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 706
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:15 am
- GD Posts: 846
- Has thanked: 252 times
- Been thanked: 251 times
Re: What is "the direction of play?"
I find it interesting that the examples given are mostly about expansion of stones of the same color. But there is also the question of whether it is interesting for the opponent to play in the same areas. IMHO, whether or not it is interesting to the opponent takes into consideration not just preventing expansion, but also whether playing there would be playing near strength. A complete isolation of the concept from sente and gote may be wishful thinking.
Think for a bit about the difference between extensions from a low enclosure vs. a high enclosure. The primary and secondary directions of development are the same, but an extension in the secondary direction from a high enclosure has a slight defensive feel of urgency to it that is not so much present for the low enclosure. Extending in the secondary direction from a low enclosure has a sense of overconcentration unless it's pretty far.
Think for a bit about the difference between extensions from a low enclosure vs. a high enclosure. The primary and secondary directions of development are the same, but an extension in the secondary direction from a high enclosure has a slight defensive feel of urgency to it that is not so much present for the low enclosure. Extending in the secondary direction from a low enclosure has a sense of overconcentration unless it's pretty far.