Thanks for the comments. I can understand your rationale about the probe. In regard to the following comment:
Magicwand wrote:... his style is 100% point oriented game. it will fall apart like janga once it reachs the critical point. right now i dont have any point pressure because i know i will get compensations out of my influence. but i think he is starting to feel influence pressure.
even his corner defense i didnt like. if i was black i would play other marked point. he will need to tradeoff his points for thickness orelse this game will not last too long. ...
I do not know if my own style reflects it, but I must say that I feel more comfortable with more points - so I can understand someone that likes a "point oriented game".
But you said that you don't have any point pressure because you know you "will get compensations out of my influence".
How can you be certain that you will get compensation? Also, even if you know you will get compensation, how do you quantify it and know that it will be enough to counter the points that black has?
i used to be point oriented also. i know how import the point is. but lee changho changed the point oriented game into thickness oriented game. if you go after the point you might reach a point where you can not streach your points no more. then you will lose points here there everywhere and lose.
but thickness oriented game is different. you are comfortable as long as you maintain the point balance upto certain degree. then you must be able to tell howmuch your thickness worth. which will come when you reach next level up.
one good example: my recent game against topazg is a perfect example. i think i maintain the balance of point and thickness up to certain point. and i got greedy try to distroy his whole bottom. but actually it was a mistake on my part. i was winning playing thick and didnt need to invade. i am trying not to make that mistake in this game.
for your question: experience will tell you if your thickness is enough. most professionals in korea will try not to comment who is better. they usually say "if this part is settled then we can get accurate count". i think that is exactly the situation here. it all depends on who gets sente and how does one gets sente. i already explained what is big and where is urgent and i know my opponent is thinking samething. as of now i dont think i am losing.
Re: 98. Araban vs. Magicwand
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:59 pm
by cyclops
@araban
You say it will cost him 7 stones to secure the TL corner. 6 already played and one still to be added. That is not efficient, you say. Shouldn't you subtract the two stones you are going to loose in this calculation?
Re: 98. Araban vs. Magicwand
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:40 pm
by Solomon
Kirby wrote:@Araban:
My main question is, if white's response to the 3-3 does not affect the life/death status of your group, why do you need his answer via a probe right now? Why not simply save the aji for later and immediately enclose the corner?
gaius wrote:@ Araban:
Like Kirby, I don't really understand the value of the "probe" at 3-3...
Also, could you explain why you rejected this move?
Locally, I'd say that white does not really have a satisfactory followup, but black does. 'a' is out of the question for white: he'd get terribly overconcentrated, and the corner would still be open. But something like 'b' feels pretty overplayish too, because might be sente now (at least, I hate below, but tenuki also doesn't feel right to me...):
I'm so tempted to write a long-winded defense on why my probe was fine...
...but after some much-needed sleep and thinking more clearly about what I played, I'm pretty sure that is not the case and that the probe was really a mistake, although a minor one. Nonetheless I'll try to explain the thought process behind why I played the probe.
Usually, direct benefits can't be seen from a probe. They are often played to "test the waters" and get a sense for what the future holds (e.g., what the opponent has in mind so you can do as much as you can to prevent it.) In my case, there were two reasons I chose to play it:
I figured the direction that MW chose to block would give me additional information on what he had in mind. Like how a probe in SC2 gathers minerals, a probe in Go gathers information.
More importantly, it seemed to my benefit that it'd force him to make a decision now that may be a decision he may not have wanted to have made in the future.
So basically I wanted to make the future more certain for myself. However, as nice and dandy as these reasons may sound, there are problems behind it.
Regarding the first reason, the direction he chose to block doesn't really give me any additional information because there is really no reason why he'd want to block the other way. It'd kick my F17 back from the dead, give me an easy corner, and he'd enclose a side that's not even guaranteed territory yet.
Following what I said earlier, there are hardly any possible/realistic scenarios in the future where he would have said "Damn, if only I had played C16 instead of D17, then surely I'd be better off.". The worth of a probe is entirely dependent on how probable this sort of scenario is, where the opponent, had he chosen move Y over move X when the probe was played, would be better off.
So overall I gained very little, if anything at all. And what did I lose? I think the most glaring loss is that I lost the possibility of playing at D17 instead of C17, which could have been more appropriate in the future than a direct corner invasion depending on what was going on at the top and the status of my center group. This isn't severe, but the loss is greater than the gain, therefore the probe was bad.
TL;DR: I got a bit carried away probing, threw away the opportunity to play D17.
To gaius: the suggestion for the mini-mini Chinese (is that official terminology yet?) is not bad at all and your sequence looks fair. However, the mini-mini Chinese doesn't make any guarantees at the top. Also, while F17 still has plenty of aji left as you illustrated with , I'd rather not use it to simply make a two-space extension at the top. In your diagram, White only has 1 group to take care of, while I have 2.
cyclops wrote:@araban
You say it will cost him 7 stones to secure the TL corner. 6 already played and one still to be added. That is not efficient, you say. Shouldn't you subtract the two stones you are going to loose in this calculation?
Indeed, another mistake on my part. Nonetheless, the jist remains the same.
it is pretty much one way street but i will hold my trigger and play each move.
Re: 98. Araban vs. Magicwand
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:14 pm
by Magicwand
i think he is losing his cool. imo he must trade off his points for thickness but he is giving me more thickness to gain more points. i predict that he will soon have to invade my growing influence and either get killed or lose by few points.
was i surprised? no.. i took few minutes to verify that move before. i expected that and didnt think he would play that.
Re: 98. Araban vs. Magicwand
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:28 am
by Loons
Hey Magicwand:
You can look at all of my last post. What are you planning for my ? How do you think it stacks up against one of the more normal joseki ?
Re: 98. Araban vs. Magicwand
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:12 am
by Magicwand
Loons wrote:Hey Magicwand:
You can look at all of my last post. What are you planning for my ? How do you think it stacks up against one of the more normal joseki ?
to Loons:
you are very strong to comeup with that variation. but one comment: your 5 & 6 exchange..is it really necessary? reason why i ask this question is...if it is not a good move for your opponent to play then it is not necessary for you to play it. if black plays 5 instead and you extend..there is nothing that is beneficial to black. so i would save that exchange for ko threat or some other use.
edit: what i meant by some other use : it will be better for you not to exchange that incase he is able to cut at "a" and you have to sacrifice that stone.
good lesson?
$$Wcm1 Ladder at 'a' works for white $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . a 1 5 . | $$ . . . . O O X 2 . | $$ . . X 7 . X O 6 . | $$ . . . 3 X 4 O X . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
might be sente now (at least, I hate 
below, but tenuki also doesn't feel right to me...):
? How do you think it stacks up against one of the more normal joseki ?