Life In 19x19

I think that I have identified something that I am confused about sometimes.

In particular, it is the idea of playing a move X because it "goes well with my influence" vs. playing a move X because it "counters my opponent's influence".

Consider the following sequence:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 9 5 1 . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . 0 6 4 7 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 2 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I have heard arguments for whether this is good for white to play, based on the color of what is on the left.

But it doesn't totally make sense to me, because I feel like you can justify your action with either color.

Example 1:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 9 5 1 . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . . . . 0 6 4 7 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 2 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Above, the white wall builds up influence and has a good relationship with the marked white stones. Because the marked white stones are there, the influence builds up nicely. The wall is complementary to the influence already present on the left side.


Example 2:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 9 5 1 . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . 0 6 4 7 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 2 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The marked black stones, above, have good relationship with one another, so they radiate some sort of influence. By playing as above, the white wall provides a counter to black's influence, so it's an OK way to play.


---

These two examples show two different board positions where I played the same sequence in the top right - but for different reasons.

It doesn't seem to matter what color the stones on the left were - I could justify my play either way.

---

Are one of the justifications mentioned above inaccurate? I suspect the second one is more questionable, but I wonder why that is...

My opponent's move is my move?

I don't understand strategic implications of the second picture. Moyo is a space between your stones that, when invaded, you can defend fiercely to build territory elsewhere. When you look at the second picture again, white's joseki choice would neutralize black's hopes of having effective wall facing along top side... so black doesn't want wall facing top.

Here, black "a" is very poor move, as white will invade corner and black will get a wall facing top. Black "b" looks better, but perhaps black wants to stabilize group first with move like c. If it's white's turn, then I would sever the loose connection right of "c" and aim to invade at direction of "a".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . b . c . X X X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . O O O X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

As per the GoGoD database, White's shape is played by pros with either a white stone or a black stone in the top left, but are about four times more likely to do so when a white stone is there.

I have two broad comments. First, You can't easily pin the tail on the donkey while the donkey is still moving. What seems to be characteristic of this shape is that it tends not to have much direct effect in the game for a rather long time. In the course of that wait, White has a major problem/decision as regards converting his influence into thickness. It takes extra moves which he can ill spare, and early in the game there is hardly likely to be an obvious Black target on which to use this thickness. Likewise it is too early to say whether it will instead be used as moyo fencing. Black, on the other hand, sees that the White shape has weaknesses and would like to turn it into a heavy group, but again it is easy to be premature, as Black has no allies in the centre. Also, any attempt to attack it may either just make White strong or else trigger the aji in the corner. Further, it is not uncommon for White (a la Go Seigen) to use this group (or more usually part of it) as bait. Because it is in the centre, it takes Black a lot of moves to capture there.

Since it will not be known for a very long time which way this White group will evolve, it is therefore too early to talk about countering its influence, or perhaps ist even having influence. It does have some effect, obviously, because at the very least it acts like a Chernobyl group and ensures that no play takes place in its centre environs for a long time, but rather than having influence, it might therefore be better to say that it shifts the focus of play elsewhere.

In real-life terms it is perhaps like buying a piece of real estate that does not yet have planning permission. You want to make money out of it, but until you can find something you are allowed to build there, you make nothing - and you may end up making nothing anyway.

Second point is that the sanrensei (like similar Black trilithic arrangements on the left) is, again, not really influence. It is rather a sphere of influence, which has a rather different set of attributes. In particular, it is less urgent to counter it in the same was as using a stone to blight a wall's outreach.

(PS Example 1 is missing a Black stone)

I see that John Fairbairn has beaten me to the punch. I have a somewhat different take, but I see from his note that the pros are much more likely to choose to make a White wall when White has a stone on the left than when Black does.

In the examples shown, with sanrensei of different colors on the left. I would certainly build a wall to work with them if they were White, but would jump into the 3-3 if they were Black. The point is, as I said, the wall would work with the sanrensei if they were the same color. However, that is not so if they are opposite colors (obviously). Then the wall might (?!) support an invasion, but the sanrensei is invadable, anyway, and the extra value from the wall is dubious.

As for countering influence, you might end up with a wall if you make a reducing play, but the reduction is logically prior, the wall is the result. But suppose that Black started, not with sanrensei, but with a wall. Then jumping into the corner and letting Black build another wall is dubious. Then is the time to counter wall with wall, influence with influence. (BTW, I think of influence as a Western term, not the same as atsumi or gaisei or seiryoku, etc.)

That said, I think that there is a misunderstanding on the part of many amateurs, particularly in the West, about the ability of single stones to counter or "kill" influence. I think that it is instructive to look at some of the ancient games of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Players then were more territory oriented than now, yet how often were they willing to make walls that seem to be ineffective -- and, indeed, often to do nothing obvious with them. Most peculiar, mama!

But that is a different question from the one posed by these examples. Here I think that a wall would not be much help against an opposing sanrensei.

As for the question about the opponent's move being my move, the two walls are not comparable. Black's wall is further from the sanrensei, and in addition, the 6-3 stone threatens to run.

Thanks for all of the explanations.

John Fairbairn wrote:...

Since it will not be known for a very long time which way this White group will evolve, it is therefore too early to talk about countering its influence, or perhaps ist even having influence. It does have some effect, obviously, because at the very least it acts like a Chernobyl group and ensures that no play takes place in its centre environs for a long time, but rather than having influence, it might therefore be better to say that it shifts the focus of play elsewhere.
...

That's a good analogy. It makes sense that it is hard to predict what will happen with the shape. Maybe instead of using an example, to get to the root of my question, I am curious if there is a preference toward building influence vs. "countering" the opponent's?

John Fairbairn wrote:...
Second point is that the sanrensei (like similar Black trilithic arrangements on the left) is, again, not really influence. It is rather a sphere of influence, which has a rather different set of attributes. In particular, it is less urgent to counter it in the same was as using a stone to blight a wall's outreach.
...

I think the last sentence makes sense here in that sanrensei might not be as urgent to counter as other arrangements of stones. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology here.

I'm not really sure I understand the difference between "influence" and "sphere of influence", however. Is "sphere of influence" simply some stones that have a loose relationship with one another (as opposed to that which we should call "influence")?

Toge wrote:I don't understand strategic implications of the second picture. Moyo is a space between your stones that, when invaded, you can defend fiercely to build territory elsewhere. When you look at the second picture again, white's joseki choice would neutralize black's hopes of having effective wall facing along top side... so black doesn't want wall facing top.

Here, black "a" is very poor move, as white will invade corner and black will get a wall facing top. Black "b" looks better, but perhaps black wants to stabilize group first with move like c. If it's white's turn, then I would sever the loose connection right of "c" and aim to invade at direction of "a".

$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . b . c . X X X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . O O O X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . b . c . X X X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . O O O X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Do you mean that the strategic implications are poor for black or white?

IMO,

influence by itself is useless.
but they seem to grow exponentally when two influences meet or opponent's weak group is near.

kirby's example of countering black's influence doesnt seem to work too well because it is lonely and not solid influence.
white influence is not thick enough to do anything IMO.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . b . c . X X X . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . O O O X . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . B . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

but in second example.. influence agree with triple star point on left.
good fuseki for white IMO.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 9 5 1 . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . . . . 0 6 4 7 . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 2 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . W . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Bill Spight wrote:...

Is it accurate to conclude that a wall is useful for building "influence" when there are other stones of the same color around, but not as useful for countering influence unless the extent of the opponent's influence is great enough that something must be done about it?

This is the general gist I am getting from the responses, but perhaps I have misinterpreted some people's intents.

Magicwand wrote:IMO,

influence by itself is useless...

Your response makes sense to me. I can kind of feel how influence is useful when the stones are of the same color, as in the second diagram you copied.

Is there such a thing as "countering" influence? When does this become a good strategy?

I'm late to the party, but a quick trip here shows that pros have a very clear preference. So clear that I would go so far as to say that you should not play this to counter the opponent's influence, that the opponent's influence makes this thin: http://dailyjoseki.com/browse/bwpwxibxg ... ewwibxcwvl

Edit: There's a little more to the story. Compare this (very rare) position: http://dailyjoseki.com/browse/bwpwxibxg ... ewwibxcwwm

Edit 2: oops. links no worky, sorry! See my next post.

Helel wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:http://dailyjoseki.com/browse/bwpwxibxg ... ewwibxcwvl

http://dailyjoseki.com/browse/bwpwxibxg ... ewwibxcwwm

I'm following your links but I only get the empty board... I'm using opera by the way.

Moi aussi. I'm using Safari.

Kirby wrote:Do you mean that the strategic implications are poor for black or white?

- By strategic implications I mean that I couldn't formulate effective strategy for either player based on stones that are already on board. White's stones look awkward, but perhaps that's because black has many more stones on board . White's influence doesn't neutralize black's sanrensei, but it does affect direction of play. Fighting in the center should be good for white now, because he has supporting stones.

Oh dear, it seems I broke my links. Well, I'll fix it soon. In the meantime I guess you'll have to play it out, sorry. My two positions were comparing white G14 next vs N16 next.

I think that it is instructive to look at some of the ancient games of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Players then were more territory oriented than now, yet how often were they willing to make walls that seem to be ineffective -- and, indeed, often to do nothing obvious with them. Most peculiar, mama!

Bill, I agree and I suspect what you are saying also covers the very popular sort of joseki shown below.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Old joseki
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , . . . . 3 .
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . . .
$$ | . X . O . . . . 2 .
$$ | . . X O . . . X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ ---------------------[/go]

When I began go, White 1 here was the sort of play that left me dumbstruck. Over the years I became convinced that if I could ever get to understand this move I might then claim to know a little about go. I still don't really understand it. Black's positions look perfectly satisfcatory. White looks thin and attackable, and even if he shores his position up, what is doing bar running away? Yes, White has one move less, so you'd expect him to be worse off. Yes, he gets to run away to safety. But these are "best of a bad job" evaluations. The classical players, however, seemed to choose this sort of move with a "good job" evaluation. They liked it. They sought ways to play it. But why? Such moves don't seem to have much effect on Black on either side, so what positive thing is this White move doing?