When I started studying Go, I remember I saw, don't know where, about this protection of three stones in a diagonal, like after a double hane. The result was referenced as "good shape".
I ended with a terrible overconcentrated B2 Bomber shape. Today I was thinking a lot about good shapes with 3-5 stones and remebered about this incident. The matter is, there is no way that this is a good defense for a double-hane. Or maybe a should not have to connect after the peeps... I don't know.
So, what is the opinion of the more experienced player. Is this a good shape? There is a something better to do after a double hane? And let me use the opportunity: Is the double hane a good move? More and more a prefer the single hane + extension, like this:
I admit that I am afraid of the extra cut point of the double hane, but maybe is the case that I just don't see the trade-offs (like the bigger territory)... what are the forum's opinions?
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:03 pm
by illluck
I would play as below in your first diagram. The tiger's mouth is good for protecting against cuts, but must consider the possibility of the peeps.
As well as connecting with the tiger's mouth shape you show, solid connect (and there are 2 of them) is another option. This only gives your opponent one peep instead of 2. On the other hand it only locally defends one of the 2 cuts, the other cut may rely on a ladder or net to be captured. Which one is better is a tricky question which will depend on the whole board situation. However, you are right that a downside of the tiger's mouth connection is it gives peeps which, if you can only submissively connect (which is usually the case), lead to an ugly shape.
Your example is too general to make any definite conclusions (and even hane at h15 is another good possibility to consider), but basically if you can get away with the double hane, it is usually better than just extending as it presses the battle further around your opponent.
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:57 pm
by Samura
illluck & Uberdude
Thank you, I liked your sugestions, and they convinced me that the original "double tiger's mouth" shape is just bad when compared with the alternatives.
Now I see that the solid conection is good enough and if the opponent cuts, a lot of things can be done, like:
PS: This example has a shape that I grew fond of and have seen half a dozen times in every game. A shape that I call "the scorpion tail". Anyone know if it has an official name? A think "the hook" would be a fair name too.
Sometimes I'll peep and waste the aji just to force my opponent's stones to look bad and try to gain the psychological advantage.
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:20 pm
by emeraldemon
It depends on the situation. Sometimes the double tiger's mouth is better. One obvious example is when one of the peeps doesn't work, like in this joseki:
You're right that the peeps are a bit of a weakness in this double-hanging connection, but in general W should only get one peep in full force. The first peep threatens to cut and give atari at the same time, but the second one is just a cut, so if necessary you can resist more strongly.
For example. (Whether resistance makes sense or not depends on the situation.)
As to your other question - you can analyze the efficiency of the shape by looking at the following shapes. Where would you add at extra move to make the group maximally efficient?
It obviously depends a great deal on the situation and the position of nearby enemy and friendly stones, but I certainly wouldn't say that as a general rule, the marked space is best.
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:34 pm
by NoSkill
Double hane is good in the race to get ahead. If the opponent tries to peep just extend with the outside stone like this:
I must admit that I would not cogitate your suggested move.
As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones . In your example, the stone played just looks too far to help the group. But seeing your examples I understood the function played by that stone, especially the protection of the eye-space.
I liked it!
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:40 pm
by EdLee
Samura,
Samura wrote:As a beginner, I still struggle with the ideas of playing lightly and (heaven forbid) sacrifice stones
It's indeed very tricky; not just you, but many of us still struggle with it.
One key thing to get from mitsun's variation is the value of stones...
Another thing is we cannot let EVERYTHING die, like every single W stone in the area ( + + ) dead --
that's not a sacrifice; that's just letting everything die.
Re: Skepticism about a certain "good shape"
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:45 pm
by illluck
@Edlee:
To be honest I don't see why those two squared stones are more important. I'd be perfectly fine with giving everything (2 squared, 2 circled) up if I get moves outside in return.
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:52 pm
by EdLee
illluck,
illluck wrote:I'd be perfectly fine with giving everything (2 squared, 2 circled) up if I get moves outside in return.
Yes, we can give up as much as we want, including everything, as long as we can get equal or better in return... depends on the whole board.
One common misconception is "sabaki" means we can give up everything -- that's not true: if we give up everything and get nothing in return, as you know, that's bad.
But you're correct -- I changed the wording to incorporate your ideas. Thanks.
.
is a good light move.
. In your example, the stone played just looks too far to help the group. But seeing your examples I understood the function played by that stone, especially the protection of the eye-space.
