Life In 19x19

Hi everybody,
From my studies of high-level games, I've noticed many recurring relationships that I don't know the correct name for.

For now, I call them scissors shapes (because that's how they look to me), but if you know an existing name for them, I would like to know it please. Otherwise, please do use my neologisms

(You can quote my post to see how to embed SGFs.)

I don't know of any names for those shapes of three stones. I assume you're not referring to their specific relation to their respective corners.

Thanks DuskEagle. Yes, it's the relationships between each group of three stones I'm interested in, not the corners.

From looking at many joseki and high dan games, I notice that these "scissors shapes" seem to be lurking as a theme, but I am surprised that so far I have never seen them named anywhere. They look like the "dog's face" and "horse's face", but with a diagonal orientation. For now, I'll give an example of an old-fashioned joseki and an exchange in a game by DaoCe.

[sgf-full]http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?mode=view&id=1091[/sgf-full] (Why is this "invalid"??)

Going further, I'd say that these shapes exemplify something of John Fairbairn's I read, concerning haengma, noting that tight shapes often take turns with loose ones, e.g., the "big scissors" is a kosumi (very tight) plus ogeima (quite loose). Anyway, call me unobservant, but until I read his comment, I didn't have any framework for understanding these common shapes, but once I read it, these patterns seemed to show up everywhere I looked. And this is why I would love JF to write a strategy book one day, because he seems to have the knack of providing entrees into concepts and thinking that you wouldn't necessarily get from the already available literature. Again, his brief remarks about 3D shapes (立体) made me see a lot of things in high-level games with new eyes.

Anyway, if anybody does know a proper term for the shapes (or should that be haengma?), then I would very much like to know.

Try reading the section "Detailed steps for adding SGF files as attachments" here. Your link is close, but not quite right.

[sgf-full]http://lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=1091[/sgf-full]

Instead of inventing, learning and memorizing dozens of thousands of shape names, I suggest to forget them all so that your mind gets free room for useful and mighty terms like "direct connection" (cannot be cut) and "indirect connection" (cutting does not give an advantage). If your shapes occur in a reasonable positional context, then each shape is a direct connection of its stones!

"Cutting does not give an advantage" seems difficult to ascertain (with precision) 100% of the time.

Kirby wrote:"Cutting does not give an advantage" seems difficult to ascertain (with precision) 100% of the time.

Yeah, but "Hard to cut" works for those shapes in general, and does it really surprise you that you have to read them to check for exceptions? "Read it to check" is basically tacked onto any go advice ever, no matter how hard it is to verify.

Kirby wrote:"Cutting does not give an advantage" seems difficult to ascertain (with precision) 100% of the time.

Go is not an easy game, have you just discovered?;)

Some things do depend on tactical reading and positional judgement. Indirect connection is such a thing. Nevertheless, it makes finding moves of that kind easier than before because previously different shapes of that kind were considered different specialised tesuji. This gave such moves an even harder impression to discover and you would have no chance to find them at all unless you already knew every specific tesuji kind. Unifying them under indirect connection makes it at least easier than before.

That string, direct and indirect connection occur in well chosen other definitions and in principles is an indication how good and useful this classification of connection types is. So you better accept reality of some difficulty of reading and evaluation rather than neglecting both where they are needed.

Hint: In many practical cases, it is good enough to make a visual estimate whether a connection is direct or indirect.

RobertJasiek wrote:Hint: In many practical cases, it is good enough to make a visual estimate whether a connection is direct or indirect.

Surely a visual estimate is a bit like recognizing a pattern?

Whether or no Robert's way of thinking is correct, all I was asking here was "does anybody know what these shapes are called, if they have recognised Japanese/Korean/Chinese names"?

Personally, I find it very helpful to name patterns, but I accept that not everybody's brain works in the same way. I would say, though, that getting to know shapes appears to assist me with reading, rather than substitute for it, but again, I can't speak for other people.

But do these shapes have names???

Not that I'm aware of, and certainly nothing super-widespread and adopted. If it's just for your own purposes (rather than for the ability to conveniently discuss them) then it'd probably be easiest to just make your own names!

But do these shapes have names???

They don't have names, and I think looking for or expecting a name means you may be on the wrong track. You are apparently treating these as (static) katachi. They are not. They are suji or haengma shapes. For the same reason, considering them in terms of connection is also flawed.

The point is, when you give a shape a name it is because it is the shape that is important. But with a suji/haengma move it is the (dynamic) move that is important. It is therefore the move (the third one here in each case) which determines the function of the shape and so requires the name. The shapes shown can't really be considered out of context, beyond perhaps saying that with a given two-stone shape, the set of possible good third moves is usually limited within a fairly tight range.

Tami might find it useful to think of katachi as a chord, and suji/haengma as a melody. The stones here would (in context) be playing a melody. You can probably usefully add arpeggios to the mix if you like the analogy.

I'm going with scissors, which is a good reminder to think about whether it can be cut.

daal wrote:I'm going with scissors, which is a good reminder to think about whether it can be cut.

I liked "Jumps from diagonals". =D

To me this looks more like a pair of scissors:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . O . . . O . .
$$ . . . O . . . . .
$$ . . O . . . O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Chew Terr wrote:I liked "Jumps from diagonals".

Yes, I also see them all as jumps from the kosumi shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . W . . . Q . . . . W . . Q . .
$$ . . . W . . . . . . . . W . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . Y . . . . . . . Y . . .
$$ . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . .
$$ . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

And then there's Mickey:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . X . X . .
$$ . . . O . . .
$$ . . . . . . .[/go]