Using Walls

judicata · Post by **judicata** » Mon May 10, 2010 11:58 am

I'll try to narrow my inquiry to identifiable questions. I don't expect any sort of full explanation; I'm just looking for some general guidance, really. I really appreciate any helpful input - whether 3 words or 3 paragraphs, and whether or not it relates to the specific examples below. I realize that my questions may reveal ignorance about which I am unaware; I appreciate any identification of my misconceptions.

I'm finding myself uncertain about how to use walls, thickness, and influence. I also realize there are differences between influence (as the term is often used) and thickness. I know there is a difference between "thick" and "heavy," and sometimes I feel like my thickness becomes heavy without me realizing it until it is too late. My questions are related because I've tried to use thickness in creative ways (well, to me anyway) recently, and I find myself struggling to save a group of heavy stones

.

I was reading Kageyama's Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go , and he says something like "don't use thickness to surround territory." This really hit me, and it makes sense for the same reasons a 29kyu learns not to start the game by extending one stone after another to surround territory; it is inefficient. But it seems to me that using walls to create/strengthen a framework can be effective; that is, have a nice wall should enable further extensions. Considering this, I guess it is sort of a balancing act. Since reading that, I played a few games in which I determined not to use a wall too surround territory, and I think I went too far in the other direction, which is why I ended up with heavy groups, but maybe I'm wrong.

Using the variations on a 3-3 invasion joseki, here are some questions:

(1) Neutralizing walls: Asumming the marked stones were there before the invasion, was it a good idea for black to build the wall that direction with an aim to attack :ws:

, should black have built up the other direction in order to create a framework, or are both strategies roughly equal? My feeling is to build up the other direction to create a framework, especially if black had a stone at b, making an invasion by white look pretty bleak. If black had a stone at 'a', though, this would seem to really put some pressure on :ws:

. Finally, if white had a stone at 'a', then the wall seems less effective to me, other than for eeking out a little more territory on top. Wrong?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Wall example $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . @ . . . . . a . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . # . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . b . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

(2) I know this is contrived for several reasons (way early for a 3-3 invasion, and there are other big points on the board), but assume black decides to approach :ws:

. Given the wall on the left, should he approach from a or b, using his significant back-up? Or from the other side to attempt to push white toward the wall? I feel like 'b' is best, because it uses the influence on the left, and black can play at 'e' for a nice moyo. Am I wrong here? Could white just pincer an approach and neutralize the black wall?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Wall example - approach $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . e . . . a . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . b . @ . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . c d . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Thanks again for any suggestions or guidance.

daniel_the_smith · Post by **daniel_the_smith** » Mon May 10, 2010 12:07 pm

1) Black blocked the wrong way in the diagram (there might be some rare exception), all the more so because the white stone is high and can escape easily.

2) This looks like a position where (b) is playable, followed by a one-point jump up to make a huge framework. Such positions are quite rare in practice in my experience.

Post by **Joaz Banbeck** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:16 pm

Black in diagram 1 is the wrong way.

In Diagram 2, 'a' or 'b' is the right direction. Move 'a' is more flexible, working with the wall or supporting an invasion of the upper right. Move 'b' commits black to the moyo. It caps the hoshi stone, but at the same time it turns the hoshi stone into a cap. Black should be very sure that this is one of those exceptional situations in which a side is bigger than a corner before he plays 'b'.

Post by **Solomon** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:22 pm

(1) No, it was not a good idea. If B had a stone at 'a' though, then yes a move like M17 could pressure K16. However, it's not hard for White to dance lightly into the center and minimize profit for Black. Also, the joseki on the left has Black in gote, so this is rather idealistic unless B already had Q16 AND White decided to play K16 after the joseki on the right was played. If White had a stone at 'a', then the wall is definitely less effective. Overall, the wall is in the wrong direction.

(2) I will just tell you that, to improve, you must not even consider a move like 'e'. That is a classic example of a move that tries to make territory out of thickness.

Phelan · Post by **Phelan** » Mon May 10, 2010 2:54 pm

I was going to post something, but all the good stuff has been said.

Just a little tidbit: To use thickness to attack, think about making a framework that you're absolutely sure will turn into territory, and that your opponent can't invade. Are you picturing it?

Extend further instead. Still impossible to invade? Extend even further.

To use a wall like that to attack, you want your opponent to either be able to live there while you surround him, to force him to run out while you make profit elsewhere, or, if he's foolish enough, make such a large territory that it might as well be as if he had given up.

So extend as far from your comfort zone as you can.

<-disclaimer: my rank is not much better than yours.

judicata · Post by **judicata** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:01 pm

Thanks for the replies - all very helpful. Since the answers are the same as mine, maybe I've just been over-thinking this.

Araban: I meant to ask if black at 'e' after the joseki is the sort of move Kageyama warns against, and you answered anyway - thanks

. Also, I realize black ends in gote, I just grabbed the first example of a wall I came across for illustration-admittedly not the best idea.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:46 pm

judicata wrote:Using the variations on a 3-3 invasion joseki, here are some questions:

(1) Neutralizing walls: Asumming the marked stones were there before the invasion, was it a good idea for black to build the wall that direction with an aim to attack , should black have built up the other direction in order to create a framework, or are both strategies roughly equal? My feeling is to build up the other direction to create a framework, especially if black had a stone at b, making an invasion by white look pretty bleak. If black had a stone at 'a', though, this would seem to really put some pressure on . Finally, if white had a stone at 'a', then the wall seems less effective to me, other than for eeking out a little more territory on top. Wrong?

$$Bc Wall example
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . @ . . . . . a . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . # . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . b . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Wall example $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . @ . . . . . a . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . # . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . b . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Wall example 2 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . # . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . @ . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If we compare these two diagrams (It was easier to switch two stones than the corner), we see that in the second one :bs:

is further away from the wall, and :ws:

is closer. In addition, and probably more important, Black can expand his framework easily in the second diagram, but not in the first. That is because the wall is facing the Black stone in the second diagram.

Note: It is difficult to neutralize a wall that is this strong. This is mainly about potential for expansion.

(2) I know this is contrived for several reasons (way early for a 3-3 invasion, and there are other big points on the board), but assume black decides to approach . Given the wall on the left, should he approach from a or b, using his significant back-up? Or from the other side to attempt to push white toward the wall? I feel like 'b' is best, because it uses the influence on the left, and black can play at 'e' for a nice moyo. Am I wrong here? Could white just pincer an approach and neutralize the black wall?

$$Bc Wall example - approach
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . e . . . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . b . @ . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . c d . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Wall example - approach $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . e . . . a . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . b . @ . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . c d . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Thanks again for any suggestions or guidance.

I prefer "c", myself. But the difference is slight.

As Araban says, don't even think that "e" makes a nice moyo.

Dusk Eagle · Post by **Dusk Eagle** » Mon May 10, 2010 3:51 pm

'e' is trying to make territory out of thickness, which is very bad. However, playing 'a' or 'b' is more like aiming to create a moyo with your thickness, which is fine.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Proper use of walls $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O O O X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X X O . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . X . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Here's another example. White has played :w1:

. What is the proper way to utilize black's influence - 'a' or 'b'?

ChradH · Post by **ChradH** » Tue May 11, 2010 2:07 am

I must admit I find this a bit confusing, too:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc Blocking the right direction $$ ------------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . a 9 0 . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 2 . b . . . # . $$ | . . 3 X . . . . . . . $$ | . 5 4 . . . . . . . . $$ | . 7 6 . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . @ . . . . . , . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

It is considered right for black to block like this.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Wall example - approach $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . e . . . a . . . . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . b . @ . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . c d . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

But it's wrong for black to play 'e'.

In both cases, black ends up with the same wall plus extension, but once it's called good, once bad. And in the good case, black does make territory from thickness, doesn't he?
Is it simply that black 'a' or 'b' in the second example are using the wall more efficiently? And if so, what happens if white invades at 'e'? Now black has to make more profit in the upper right by driving white 'e' into his wall, right?

[edit] Oops, I realize Dusk Eagle's post already answered the questions.

Violence · Post by **Violence** » Tue May 11, 2010 3:03 am

I've always hated that expression, "Don't make territory with thickness," because it seemed so vague to me every time I read it. I mean, if you have a huge amount of thickness, and your opponent also has thickness around it, making territory with the thickness might not be a bad plan.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Bad plan? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . 1 . O . X O O X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . X . O . O . , . . . . O O X X . | $$ | . . . . X O . X . O . . O . O X . . . | $$ | . . . . X X O O . . . . . O X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think it always depends on judgment. You can make territory with thickness, but making territory which is too small often ruins the potential of the thickness, which is something you don't want to limit. Making a lot of territory with thickness, however, is something I'm sure pros have no objection to, as long as the territory is just large enough.

tj86430 · Post by **tj86430** » Tue May 11, 2010 3:21 am

Violence wrote:I've always hated that expression, "Don't make territory with thickness," because it seemed so vague to me every time I read it. I mean, if you have a huge amount of thickness, and your opponent also has thickness around it, making territory with the thickness might not be a bad plan.

$$Bc Bad plan?
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . 1 . O . X O O X . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . O . , . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . . X O . X . O . . O . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X O O . . . . . O X X . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Bad plan? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . 1 . O . X O O X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . X . O . O . , . . . . O O X X . | $$ | . . . . X O . X . O . . O . O X . . . | $$ | . . . . X X O O . . . . . O X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think it always depends on judgment. You can make territory with thickness, but making territory which is too small often ruins the potential of the thickness, which is something you don't want to limit. Making a lot of territory with thickness, however, is something I'm sure pros have no objection to, as long as the territory is just large enough.

I'm only lowly 8k, but a couple of alternatives seem tempting to me (in no particular order):
- around F6 building a larger (?) moyo on the left while reducing white's possibilities in the lower side
- around R9 taking territory on the right
- something like O15, strengthening the lonely stone with a possibility to attack white later

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Tue May 11, 2010 3:33 am

Violence wrote:I've always hated that expression, "Don't make territory with thickness," because it seemed so vague to me every time I read it. I mean, if you have a huge amount of thickness, and your opponent also has thickness around it, making territory with the thickness might not be a bad plan.

I think it always depends on judgment. You can make territory with thickness, but making territory which is too small often ruins the potential of the thickness, which is something you don't want to limit. Making a lot of territory with thickness, however, is something I'm sure pros have no objection to, as long as the territory is just large enough.

QFT. I was going to post something very similar. Now I don't have to

Harleqin · Post by **Harleqin** » Tue May 11, 2010 4:12 am

I think that the point is not that you should not make territory in front of your thickness (that's what moyos are threatening, no?), but that you should not defend territory in front of your thickness---this would imply giving the opponent something for this territory, and he can most likely use the edge, which does not cost moves.

In other words, this is OK for Black:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

but this is not:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , O . X . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . O . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . X X X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . O O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Phelan · Post by **Phelan** » Tue May 11, 2010 4:29 am

tj86430 wrote:
Violence wrote:I've always hated that expression, "Don't make territory with thickness," because it seemed so vague to me every time I read it. I mean, if you have a huge amount of thickness, and your opponent also has thickness around it, making territory with the thickness might not be a bad plan.

$$Bc Bad plan?
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . O X . X . . . 1 . O . X O O X . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . X . O . O . , . . . . O O X X . |
$$ | . . . . X O . X . O . . O . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X O O . . . . . O X X . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Bad plan? $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X . . . . . . . . . O X X . . | $$ | . . O X . X . . . 1 . O . X O O X . . | $$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . X . O . O . , . . . . O O X X . | $$ | . . . . X O . X . O . . O . O X . . . | $$ | . . . . X X O O . . . . . O X X . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I think it always depends on judgment. You can make territory with thickness, but making territory which is too small often ruins the potential of the thickness, which is something you don't want to limit. Making a lot of territory with thickness, however, is something I'm sure pros have no objection to, as long as the territory is just large enough.

I'm only lowly 8k, but a couple of alternatives seem tempting to me (in no particular order):
- around F6 building a larger (?) moyo on the left while reducing white's possibilities in the lower side

That still leaves an open skirt at B14, so the moyo is not as big

tj86430 wrote:- around R9 taking territory on the right

I think that one is good, but it's gote, and doesn't have as much potential.

tj86430 wrote:- something like O15, strengthening the lonely stone with a possibility to attack white later

The thing is that that stone is already very weak, so why not sacrifice it anyway?

The thing about Violence's move is that it's sente by threathening to pull out (or connect under) O17, and start an attack on the white group, which seems over concentrated.

Also consider what happens if white manages to play J17. :-?

Once again, I add a disclaimer to my post:
<---

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Tue May 11, 2010 4:36 am

Phelan wrote:
tj86430 wrote:- something like O15, strengthening the lonely stone with a possibility to attack white later

The thing is that that stone is already very weak, so why not sacrifice it anyway?

The thing about Violence's move is that it's sente by threathening to pull out (or connect under) O17, and start an attack on the white group, which seems over concentrated.

Also consider what happens if white manages to play J17.

Once again, I add a disclaimer to my post:
<---

And this is the sort of reason I didn't like the simplicity of the original "don't make territory from thickness" thing. Most of the traditional problems with moves that are doing this are a) they limit the potential of the thickness too much, and b) they are single purpose moves.

Part of the advantages of moves such as Violence's is they make that territory, but also really increase the aji of all the moves around O18, O15, M18, and M16. Suddenly White has lots to worry about, and Black picked up some territory at the same time.

Life In 19x19

Using Walls

Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls

Re: Using Walls