Life In 19x19

Why, again, did mostly everyone stop playing Chinese style openings? Please explain.

I heard many people say things like it is "instantly bad" and other things that sound very exaggerated, and some pros still play their Chinese style opening for example Yamashita Keigo today in his Kisei league S game.

I have not seen any serious player say that the Chinese openings are actually bad. My impression is that they are just not favored by recent AI and so it's not in vogue.

Shibano has a series of lectures in Go World called Joseki Fuseki and he recently went over the mini Chinese opening. I actually don't have the article on the "normal" Chinese opening but that opening is mentioned in the article on the mini Chinese. Shibano notes that the 4-4 attachment against the 3-4 stone is effective against all Chinese openings. Here's a quick summary of what I think was said based on translation.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c The 4-4 attachment.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a b . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . Q 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c White is satisfied and the two black stones on the lower side have low value.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . X . . 6 . 4 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c White can be happy because they have moved out.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . 2 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 4 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c White's position on the outside is good.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 2 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . 7 3 O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . 1 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The article goes on and on. But nothing "bad" actually happened with the Chinese opening.

I am personally less of a fan of the mini-chinese for various reasons, but I remember long time a go that I occasionally played 3 stone handicap games with someone on KGS that would just resign if white made the mini-Chinese framework. A sure win strategy in a way.

The publicly available game record databases tend to either not be updated frequently with new games or have one or another restriction that makes checking opening statistics futile. This search reveals only 65 games with the attachment, mostly ladder breakers, ko threats, time sujis and invasions. Even the games after 2015 there is not much of a pattern, there is a lot of different late opening situations and te same stuff as before 2015.

I don't doubt it is a splendid move.

CDavis7M wrote: I have not seen any serious player say that the Chinese openings are actually bad. My impression is that they are just not favored by recent AI and so it's not in vogue.

Undoubtable true, but for example the Kobayashi seems to have had somewhat of a resurgence even though AI appeared to show us that white can approach the komoku anyway he wants. Closer the better--which completely breaks the rational for this opening.

kvasir wrote:The publicly available game record databases tend to either not be updated frequently with new games or have one or another restriction that makes checking opening statistics futile. This search reveals only 65 games with the attachment, mostly ladder breakers, ko threats, time sujis and invasions. Even the games after 2015 there is not much of a pattern, there is a lot of different late opening situations and te same stuff as before 2015.

The public databases are lacking but I recently realized that a lot that happens in the professional world is simply not public. Almost all professional (Nihon Kiin) qualifying matches are not public. Only the final qualifying stage and the challenge matches are public. A lot of study and in-game trial of new variations happens beyond our view. I have read statements from professionals on positions and joseki but could find no examples myself. If the AI provides a recommendation against a position and a professional can easily agree with the assessment, it is no wonder that such a position does not arise in the final qualifying or championship matches.

Also, I don't mean to imply that the 4-4 attachment is a killer move. It's just good. Shibano also goes over the high approach and both the 2 space high/low approaches. There are ways to achieve a satisfactory result. But again, this is mini Chinese discussion. The Go World magazine is available on Kindle but I don't know which month had the normal Chinese opening discussion. I use Google Translate (OCR) to read the descriptions.

CDavis7M wrote:The public databases are lacking but I recently realized that a lot that happens in the professional world is simply not public. Almost all professional (Nihon Kiin) qualifying matches are not public. Only the final qualifying stage and the challenge matches are public. A lot of study and in-game trial of new variations happens beyond our view. I have read statements from professionals on positions and joseki but could find no examples myself. If the AI provides a recommendation against a position and a professional can easily agree with the assessment, it is no wonder that such a position does not arise in the final qualifying or championship matches.

I read somewhere that the Nihon Kiin does typically not record games unless there is at least on 5p or higher player. I don't know where I read that but it is also my experience with browsing game databases that there aren't many games of lower ranked players at all. Most games are from the tail end of very large tournaments, not much from the lower tiers of the qualification rounds. You can also find certain players who seem to have almost every single one of their games in these databases. It is actually not very representative of the of the whole scene.

I am almost paraphrasing what you said but I would add the nuance that since we don't have the greater part of all the competitive games at the pro level, that maybe it is not that it is not "public", it is just that we have a selection of games that is biased in a specific way. Basically that the lower tiers of large tournaments work as a filter. There is not much chance of seeing an opening that didn't do well in the qualification round in the final, for one thing the players who played these openings would also struggle. It would be very interesting to be able to explore these games and see if it is the case that Chinese-style openings didn't perform well.

Talking about pros, I'd expect some reluctance to give up on an opening that was working for many pros (assuming that has even happened), and therefor there would be game records. Even some game records with disasters when someone gets caught in the latest research.

I am actually, mostly just interested in opinions or perspectives. Those diagrams from go world were interesting, I doubt I'd struggle through a Japanese magazine myself these days but it is interesting.


...And btw Yamashia Keigo lost his game, pretty badly, but they didn't get around playing anywhere close to the Chinese framework until move 90 or so.

kvasir, I was watching Michael Redmond's review of the Alpha Go v. Alpha Go series of games on the AGA channel and I stumbled upon his discussion of Alpha Go playing the Chinese Opening and Alpha Go's response to it.

https://youtu.be/4EvJOtQuDqs?t=795

An interesting point is that Redmond mentions how pros had studied and used the 4-4 attachment against the Chinese Opening long before Alpha Go. To me this confirms that the published professional games are clearly lacking a lot of study material. Redmond suggests that one reason that the 4-4 attachment didn't catch on before is because the tewari analysis makes it look like a bad exchange of moves locally.

To summarize Redmond, this is the old way to approach the Chinese opening. This is working well for black. White does not have much room, barely enough to live. And White would have no base if black instead responded at the marked points .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The 4-4 attachment against the normal Chinese opening. Redmond states that the attachment helps make a base. White has more room and has the option to make two eyes on the right side. There's also the ko, which is big so White needs a good ko threat. This is the same sequence that Shibano discussed.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Speaking of Redmond, I often hear him say, during his commentaries, something to the effect of, "The AI thinks this sequence is better, and I knew that... But I don't like playing that way."

This suggests that pros can be willing to sacrifice a few percentage points in the AI analysis to play a game they are comfortable with.

Therefore, if the Chinese opening is something that brings you to a board position you like, it's worth playing. If you repeatedly review your games and find that the opening isn't working for you, then maybe it's time to move on.

CDavis7M wrote:kvasir, I was watching Michael Redmond's review of the Alpha Go v. Alpha Go series of games on the AGA channel and I stumbled upon his discussion of Alpha Go playing the Chinese Opening and Alpha Go's response to it.

https://youtu.be/4EvJOtQuDqs?t=795

Very interesting commentary, I have been following Michael Redmond's channel myself.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The game had this shape and then alphago played A but Michael Redmond was "itching" to play B

But this also highlights something else, the attachment wasn't played very early, I also checked and alphago seemed to have played the Chinese opening a few times which would suggest it is legit.

I though I share that KataGo suggested a micro-Chinese move at as the best move in my game couple of days ago. It is a revers-komi game and I was white and played the high enclosure at a maybe wanting to be provocative, but this was about the only move in this area that KataGo did not like (-1.3pts). I think it is possibly the "best" move could change to the right side with more playouts, I did 10'000 but the moves on the right side only had 100-200 visits even though they actually had better score (+0.3 and the micro-chinese was 0.0).

Anyway, it is one example were it was pretty good.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . , . . . . a , O . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X O . . . . . . . X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X O . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . X X X O . . . , . . . . . X X . . |
$$ | . O O O X O . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

That's neat. And in Alpha Go's games, it will sometimes play an outdated joseki depending on the circumstance.

-----

Just adding a bit more because I just received Shibano Toramaru's new book "Fuseki Revolution" (布石革命). This book is published by the Nihon Kiin and I believe it's a collection of his previous series of articles in monthly Go World.

Anyway, the introduction to the book starts off just like this thread "Have you ever thought: "what ever happened to the Chinese opening?" or "even cosmic Takemiya doesn't play 3 star points..."

Here's more thoughts from Shibano.

Playing this way is better than playing the 3-3.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . a . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . 9 . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black is overconcentrated, white has good shape. This is good for white.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . 5 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 1 . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . 4 Q 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . 8 . . 2 X 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

But White can just play the 4-4 attachment immediately. No matter what black does, the marked point is inefficient.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . 4 Q 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . 2 X 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Shibano also gives the same shape discussed above against the mini-Chinese.

There's a move number 5 too many in one of the diagrams. I assume the pincer shouldn't be there.

Knotwilg wrote:There's a move number 5 too many in one of the diagrams. I assume the pincer shouldn't be there.

I'm not sure how to do move numbers 11+, but that 5 up there is move 15. There's the double hane at black 11 (1) and 13 (3), white should extend at 14 which gives black sente to play 15 (5) on the upper side.

Shibano doesn't specifically mention 15, just that white reinforces with 14 (4).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . 5 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 1 . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . 4 Q 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . 8 . . 2 X 5 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I was doing some studying since I was writing things for Sensei's library, but I suspect that AI sometimes views the micro-chinese more favorably in part because it also likes the two-space low pincer (in response to the high approach). In the board position that kvasir showed, White also has a double wing formation, which would make things very profitable on the sides if Black jumped into the micro-chinese pincer.

The 4-4 attachment to the Chinese is often not played immediately by AI. Approaching the 3-4 point in the Chinese fuseki is no longer urgent since Black already played a move in the area, so further enclosing it is slow (humans also don't want to enclose the corner because it defeats the purpose of the fuseki). I find that in my review of professional games with AI, AI will often wait to play the 4-4 attachment closer towards the midgame, which makes sense because there would (A) be more ko threats, and (B) the whole board position could influence the way Black responds to the attachment.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

There is also this way in addition to the once mentioned above, now the marked stone looks like it is in a good place.

My observation from searching http://ps.waltheri.net is that this attachment isn't played much and when it is played it is later in the game (this also appears to be the consensus here). The attachment even appears more likely to be played when there was no Chinese opening, just directly against the komoku. That said there are cases of immediate attachment, see http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/78238/

Then there is also this way now (and it looks exciting).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

kvasir wrote: Then there is also this way now (and it looks exciting).

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Some recent history about the opening meta game.

AlphaGo Lee preferred the Chinese opening, which revitalized interest in this opening in 2016.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 5 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 4 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

At the time, the pro consensus seems to have been that black A was optimal, but Alphago Lee always played B. So in 2016 you find pros following that. But in 2017, pros started playing C.

Then the Chinese opening lost popularity again under the influence of AlphaGo Master in 2017, preferring and popularizing this opening (perhaps this could be called the modern orthodox opening):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . 5 . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Recent youtube video by Cho Hyeyeon 9p (Aug 20, 2021): https://youtu.be/qozyiQiVmt0?t=7246

She doesn't go into detail, but she shows the ko/reduction variation and says "the chinese opening is not that popular because of this attachment"