Page 1 of 2
Handling approach on both side
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:35 pm
by oca
Hi,
I'm really not confortable when there is an approach on both side.
Let's say for example :
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
What to do if white play
here instead of 'a' or 'b' ?
- Doing a pincer at 'c' doesn't appeal me much because the top/left corner is white (:w2:)
but maybe that's the right move ?
- or should I play near 'd' ? looks difficult
doesn't look that weak to me
Any help very welcome...
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:17 pm
by EdLee
Hi oca,
Locally:
If
hane and
connects, you're almost alive --
( W is not settled on either side. )
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
If
hane and
tenuki, you capture at least
with
--
( if
connects at (a), you kill all with
(b) )
$$B :w2: tenuki
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B :w2: tenuki
Re: Boidhre's search,
kosumi is a big shared vital point:
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Boca wrote: I'm really not comfortable when there is an approach on both sides.
One solution: study it, play it (die horribly many times), review it -- rinse and repeat.
Realize that if your opponent double approaches
and he has
two unsettled groups,
then you only need to take care of one group, whereas he has to take care of two.
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:26 pm
by Boidhre
From a quick pattern search:
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
The most common pro responses for black, a 15 games, b 8 games, c 6 games. Not a big sample. (Naive weak reading) a seems to say you're happy to fight on either side, b seems to say white has a presence on the bottom and you want to get into the centre, c says you want to start a fight on the bottom. My interpretation is undoubtedly wrong but the moves might be of interest to you.
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:48 pm
by Unusedname
I remember having that discomfort, but it's hard to learn without trying and failing.
Your reason for not liking the counterpincer at c is good.
But consider this other reason.
Can you imagine what white will play after c?
So knowing this you can start to consider Boidhre's diagram.
At least that's what I think I know.
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:03 pm
by oca
Thank you all for your replies, my problem with 'a' is that I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups...
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:21 pm
by EdLee
oca wrote: I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups...
Hi oca,
Locally, you have spent 4 moves on 1 group; W has also spent 4 moves, but split between 2 groups.
Neither of W's groups is settled.
To begin to understand the meaning of
kosumi takes a lot of study and experience.
And many horrible deaths, that goes without saying.
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:26 pm
by Uberdude
There are actually quite a few reasonable local choices (of course global position can affect how good or bad they are), but I would recommend coming out with the kosumi for your level as it is simple and clear. It keeps your group safe and not surrounded, and white can only help one or other of his side groups so you can hurt the other one next. This is a very common idea in double approach situations, come out and you make miai to either side. Of course what follow-up you then do on the sides can be tricky, and you do have to be wary of playing softly and not severely enough and getting a bit of a duff snake not doing much through the middle, but if you aren't surrounded at least you aren't going to die.
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:06 pm
by Boidhre
oca wrote: Thank you all for your replies, my problem with 'a' is that I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups...
Consider the difference to this diagram:
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:30 am
by oca
Boidhre wrote: oca wrote: Thank you all for your replies, my problem with 'a' is that I don't want white to have both side and me just having a kind of snake spliting two alive groups...
Consider the difference to this diagram:
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
Sure this is really different, and in the same time only one more stone... well but it will be black's turn now and that also change things a bit... If that was white turn, that would be more difficult...
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:41 am
by oca
Here is another position that occured in a 6 stones handicap I played last week in my go club (no sgf...) :
I failed to handle that situation and my top/right group died...
The annoying move was
but I think I did the mistake later...
When I just look at the position now, that looks easy for black, but in the game, white surrounded me... and I noticed too late... not that much too late, maybe only one move, but that still make a group live or die...
$$W
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$W
I played
at 'a' which I think is correct and then I don't exactly remember what I did...
something like that I think, but I'm not sure this was the exact
. I remember I played
$$Bm10
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bm10
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:19 am
by EdLee
oca wrote: Sure this is really different, and in the same time only one more stone
Hi oca, W has
two more local stones, one for each of his two groups.
( W 6 local stones vs. B 4 local stones; W has 2 more. )
That's one thing Boidhre's diagram illustrates:
W needs
two more moves to settle both his groups.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:26 am
by EdLee
oca wrote: The annoying move was
Hi oca,
is a not annoying at all.
It's a big thank-you move.
You are happy to connect with
.
W gets a broken shape.
is a bad move.
If your UR corner died, it's your mistakes later, not
.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:33 am
by EdLee
oca wrote: $$Bm10
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$Bm10 Hi oca,
For example, instead of "running away" with
,
did you consider the hane
?
$$B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B
If W plays like this, he is helping you so much on the right side:
$$B Variation A
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B Variation A
If W makes the empty triangle,
then you can consider the 2-space jump & pincer:
$$B Variation B
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$B Variation B
The hane
should be a first feeling:
You block W, making it harder to get out;
You are ahead of W;
You are on the outside (control of the center), useful;
W is on the inside (neutral points, not very useful).
If you read that
hane doesn't work, then you consider other options.
Your
feels like "running away" from a fight,
like taking a holiday when you're in the middle of a battle.
The current fight is upper right -- urgent.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:12 am
by EdLee
oca wrote: $$W
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$W Hi oca,
The attach
and
descent in the game feel heavy for White.
Instead, W has the option to counter-hane:
$$W
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$W
Or, W can take 3-3 directly:
$$W
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$W
Or, double approach (high or low):
$$W
Click Here To Show Diagram Code [go]$$W
Re: Handling approach on both side
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:14 am
by Bill Spight
Some ideas about the 6 stone position.
here instead of 'a' or 'b' ?
doesn't look that weak to me 
hane and 
connects, you're almost alive --
with 
--
connects at (a), you kill all with 
(b) )
but I think I did the mistake later...
at 'a' which I think is correct and then I don't exactly remember what I did...
. I remember I played 
and 
descent in the game feel heavy for White.