Life In 19x19

This is a pretty easy problem, but how do you successfully counter an opponent who automatically kicks whenever you approach their star point stone? In particular, what is the best way when the players fall back with say a small knight's move, or when they pincer your two stones after you stand up? Is there an alternative play to a simple nobi when the guy attaches?

Sorry that I don't know how to use diagrams in these forums yet.

Thanks.

See viewtopic.php?p=36322#p36322
It will partially answer your questions about kicking, and if you quote it - without clicking 'submit' - you will see how diagrams are done.

Also, a formal definition of diagrams is here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=226

Joaz Banbeck wrote:See http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 322#p36322
It will partially answer your questions about kicking, and if you quote it - without clicking 'submit' - you will see how diagrams are done.

Also, a formal definition of diagrams is here: http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=226

Thanks for the link... so in that case what would be your choice for ?
a,b,c,d,e or something else ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 4 . . 1 2 . . . . |
$$ . . , a . . 3 . X . . . |
$$ . . . d . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . e . b c . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

@ZeroOne
For diagram, you can use that tool : http://hiddema.nl/diagrammer/
and then copy past the result between [go] tags

oca wrote:Thanks for the link... so in that case what would be your choice for ?

The most common move in that situation is actually none of those, but it is discussed in Joaz's link: the attachment. Specifically, Joaz calls it being "stymied" - which is a nice way to put it.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White can follow-up at 'a'
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X . . O X . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . O 4 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 . 1 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ . . . . . a . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

After this sequence the influence oriented 4-4 stone has lost its ability to influence the center of the board and, depending on the rest of the board, the pincer stone can come under attack now.

Thanks, I think that thread helps with my question. How about this position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm10
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

How should I consider playing against this later on as white? I'm still not really following why this is considered bad for black compared to other more common responses to a low approach. (In the thread it's said that the kick ends up compromising the effectiveness of the 4-4 stone, but can that stone develop much in the direction of the white stones after the simple approach anyways? Or are we talking more about center-facing potential?)

Black doesn't have the territory per se until this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Because this is often "the best black can do" : Else White has a lot of aji/can just live in the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W fig 2
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 9 . . . . |
$$ . . 5 . . . 1 2 . 7 . . |
$$ . . , . . . 3 . X 8 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

If the corner territory were too good, white would simply take it.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W fig 3
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 3 1 . . |
$$ . . , . . . . 4 X 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

ZeroOne wrote:Thanks, I think that thread helps with my question. How about this position:

$$Wcm10
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . X . c . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm10
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . X . c . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

How should I consider playing against this later on as white? I'm still not really following why this is considered bad for black compared to other more common responses to a low approach. (In the thread it's said that the kick ends up compromising the effectiveness of the 4-4 stone, but can that stone develop much in the direction of the white stones after the simple approach anyways? Or are we talking more about center-facing potential?)

Compare to:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm10
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . a . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What is the difference of the kick?

Pros for black:
- White can't choose to slide at a to get that small safe group on the side with a bite into the corner, but has to extend on the side.
- White can't enter at 3-3 so easily (though it is still possible) so for now black has a stronger claim to the corner.
- With kick black can 2nd line hane connect later for a big solid corner, and white has some shape problems around the cut after that.

Cons for black:
- The kick extend exchange made white stronger
- It is harder to invade at b/c.
- Black can no longer threaten invasion to grow a centre moyo with moves like d/e.
- The white extension stone will make more ladders good for white.

Usually the cons are bigger than the pros, but the relative value of all these factors depends on the situation. If the left side and centre are boring areas with little development potential and the corner and top side are the interesting ones then the kick can be even or good for black. Be patient as white (I marked some future continuations with letters in the first diagram).

(Diagrams rotated for space.)

ZeroOne wrote:

$$W
$$ --------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . O . . . O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I'm still not really following why this is considered bad for black compared to...

Hi ZeroOne, another very important aspect is we must also look at the whole board situation.
For now, we look at the local board: without the kick exchange, it looks like this (if W approaches high; if low, see Uberdude's post; you see a similar theme):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ --------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . a . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . O . b . O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

W is thinner, and has weaknesses, including (a), (b), etc.
The kick helps W to get stronger -- that's one reason it may not be good for B.

Important factors mentioned so far in this thread:

• Must consider both the local and global situations;
• Must consider the pros and cons (trade-offs);
• Must read;
• "auto"-anything is usually bad.

ZeroOne wrote:how do you successfully counter an opponent who automatically kicks

The answer is we must look at the exact board to decide what to do --
it's perfectly OK to study and read up on all the good materials on this topic;
at the same time, don't try to look for a one-size-fit-all general solution.

moyoaji wrote:

oca wrote:Thanks for the link... so in that case what would be your choice for ?

The most common move in that situation is actually none of those, but it is discussed in Joaz's link: the attachment. Specifically, Joaz calls it being "stymied" - which is a nice way to put it.

$$W White can follow-up at 'a'
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X . . O X . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . O 4 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 . 1 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ . . . . . a . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White can follow-up at 'a'
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X . . O X . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . O 4 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 . 1 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ . . . . . a . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

After this sequence the influence oriented 4-4 stone has lost its ability to influence the center of the board and, depending on the rest of the board, the pincer stone can come under attack now.

I have been squeezed after approaching. I never considered attaching before. This looks really nice. Thanks for posting the link, Joaz Banbeck. (Amazing how much excellent material exists here at L19 and at SL!)

ZeroOne wrote:Thanks, I think that thread helps with my question. How about this position:

$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

How should I consider playing against this later on as white? I'm still not really following why this is considered bad for black compared to other more common responses to a low approach. (In the thread it's said that the kick ends up compromising the effectiveness of the 4-4 stone, but can that stone develop much in the direction of the white stones after the simple approach anyways? Or are we talking more about center-facing potential?)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 . 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X 2 . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is a thing. I don't know much about it.

Abyssinica wrote:

$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 6 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 X 2 . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . a X . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 6 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 X 2 . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . a X . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is a thing. I don't know much about it.

It's only effective if black can't ladder with 7 here, in which case he usually compromises with 5 at 6 instead which allows white to hane at a and sneak into the corner a little.

moyoaji wrote:

oca wrote:Thanks for the link... so in that case what would be your choice for ?

The most common move in that situation is actually none of those, but it is discussed in Joaz's link: the attachment. Specifically, Joaz calls it being "stymied" - which is a nice way to put it.

$$W White can follow-up at 'a'
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X . . O X . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . O 4 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 . 1 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 3 b . . |
$$ . . . . . a . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White can follow-up at 'a'
$$ ------------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X . . O X . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . O 4 X 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 5 . 1 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . 3 b . . |
$$ . . . . . a . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

After this sequence the influence oriented 4-4 stone has lost its ability to influence the center of the board and, depending on the rest of the board, the pincer stone can come under attack now.

In this kind of game, if you avoid a you doubtless will see Black cutting, if you play it Black will extend. This is still all viable for White, but it is far from clear (even more so at "auto-kick"-strength) that this is good for White. You probably won't even see this result as Black will play B4 elsewhere most likely at b - even if he shouldn't do that .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . 5 X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 3 O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is an idea I play often. You play the usual kick joseki that is considered slighty better for white, because white gets a comfortable group while black still didn't enclose the corner. Then you play 1. It threatens to split white, so often white will protect and you will get some forcing moves to not only gain a full corner but also keep sente and a white group that is still not settled with 1 having still aji. IMO white cannot tenuki after any play till 6 or otherwise it leaves back terrible aji for later.

That group actually looks very settled for white to me.

But i don't think it would be outrageous for white to tenuki at 6.

If black tries to connect 1, white can get thicker. And it's not like he's making very many points by preventing black from connecting.

I feel like a tenuki at 6 is less severe then a double approach to a corner stone. If I were to attempt to measure it. I could be way off though.

Unusedname wrote:That group actually looks very settled for white to me.

But i don't think it would be outrageous for white to tenuki at 6.

If black tries to connect 1, white can get thicker. And it's not like he's making very many points by preventing black from connecting.

I feel like a tenuki at 6 is less severe then a double approach to a corner stone. If I were to attempt to measure it. I could be way off though.

If White tenukies before 6 its group is virtually not alive. That'd be a severe deficit throughout the game, esp. after black gets a big corner and is strong there. Even with 6 white is not settled. If 1 begins to run and has help from nearby stones it can escape and bring white in trouble, so even with 6 white might still need another move to finish 1 off for good and god knows if white gets such a move naturally.