![]() StartingPoints Referenced by
|
BQM 28
This is a position from a game I recently played on IGS. I was playing Black, and it is my move. Although I think I come out well for almost all sensible moves, what are the optimal moves? --BlueWyvern
In the actual game, the sequence went Black a, White b, Black c. DieterVerhofstadt (EGF 1k) : Black's upper side, although more vulnerable, roughly compares to White's right side. Black's gigantic double wing moyo, is not nearly matched by White's upper left. Black a and c are the best moves for Black. Whatever White's previous move was (I suspect one of the marked ones), it should have been at a. Actually White was playing rather oddly, here are the last ten moves, but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms. --BlueWyvern
Two consecutive bad joseki choices?
DaveSigaty: First of all, let's go back one step. I guess that the marked stone was White's last play. This is neither urgent nor big at this point in the game. White falls badly behind when Black plays first on the lower side. The marked White stone should have been used at the bottom. A play at a or b instead, for example, would effortlessly expand White's area of influence and leave White in a comfortable position. BlueWyvern: Whee! Once again we get sidetracked from my original question! It's OK though, I enjoy it. For reference I've added the first ten moves, with 8 being the marked stone. Dave: Actually I don't think this is getting sidetracked :-) You asked what are the optimal moves but this is not an interesting question. Are you asking how would Yi Ch'ang-ho or Cho Chikun have played against your opponent? What is the point of that? Better, in my humble opinion, to ask what were the problems with my opponent's plays that I should have recognized and what were the problems with my plays that I should improve. Just my opinion of course! BlueWyvern: I asked for optimal moves mainly because I was hoping for some examples of moves and the reasoning behind them. Most of the time when I am looking for an answer, I am looking for the thinking behind it, so I can see how different people approach problems, and to help synthesize a method of my own. DaveSigaty: What was your thinking behind Black 5 and 7?
The shape with 3 and 5 is one we see in the Chinese Fuseki or the mini-Chinese (Small Chinese Fuseki). However, the power of the formation in those fuseki comes from its relation to a third black stone either on the upper left hoshi (Chinese) or an approach to the upper corner around a (mini-Chinese). Without the third stone the 3, 5 combination is not so forceful. White can approach the 3 stone easily because she can always use plays against 5 (for example plays at b, c, or d) to settle her stones. In this position she does not mind making 5 strong because there is no related black stone in the upper left to benefit from building strength around 5. If Black approaches the upper left after 5 becomes strong, White chooses plays that aim at making Black overconcentrated. If instead of approaching the corner, White plays along the bottom side and Black makes a shimari with something like the sequence White e, Black f, White g, it looks as if Black has chosen to extend from his shimari in the wrong direction and allowed White to outplay him on the lower side.
What was your thinking behind Black 7? It seems too far away, to me. It leaves the choice of how to play in the upper right to White. This should not happen because it is Black that played first here.
White may want to play at one of the a points, turning Black 7 into a pincer that White answered with a double kakari. The point is that White is given the choice of which a point to play, and therefore of the relation between the pincer and the pincered stone. This would not have happened if B had chosen to pincer W 6 directly. Then it would be Black that chose what pincer to use against the approach move already played by White. White might also want to lay back with 8 as shown here. This leaves Black with the problem of bridging the gap between 1 and 7. If Black does so with a play at one of the a points, White has time to turn to something like b on the bottom. If Black plays elsewhere, White then splits 1 and 7 and can look forward to an easy time in the fighting since she has strengthened the right side with 8. In the game, White very kindly forced Black to play an additional stone. This was a real thank you move that solved Black's problem and gave him sente to play at the bottom.
Incidently, I think that after 5 and 7 are on the board White should answer an approach move in the upper left with a large knight's extension (answer c with d or answer e with f). A stone at d threatens to undercut 7 while a stone at f leaves no room for Black to extend from 5. Notice that almost all of the comments on Black 5 and 7 are in terms of what White can do. Why is this an appropriate way of analyzing Black's plays? Because whenever Black plays, White plays next. Hey, we already knew that right? :-) But time and again we forget what that really means - the opportunities that we give our opponents are more important for analyzing our moves than those we build for ourselves, because the opponent always gets to play next!
Looks like everyboday else is dodging BlueWyvern's question. (We call it sabaki, hehe!) I'll just say that Black 1 to 3 would be a good choice. White 2 still leaves the possible of entering the 3-3 point at a, and the invasion at b, although there is no need to play there immediately. Alternatively, Black 1 could be played at c. But Black 1 in the diagram makes the game easier to play for Black as Black already has the upper hand. --unkx80 BillSpight: I second what unkx80 says. :-) As for Dave's advice, I put more emphasis on what I threaten, and worry about my opponent's play later. Just call me Mr. Sunshine. ;-) For example, the two-space extension/kakari at c is big because of what it threatens. (I still play the shimari at 1, though.) This is a copy of the living page "BQM 28" at Sensei's Library. (C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0. |