One-Two-Three example 2
Keywords: Tactics
An example for the principle at One-Two-Three, from a recent article I wrote for the American Go Journal.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/14/87673c364f9cc34c34ba9974996bda9b.png) | Just escape |
Here White must get out to the centre. But it is better simply to play , than to play atari on .
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/11/1f92c81c9623f0cb232103fb2df9acaa.png) | Not needed |
here is poor style. White has lost the chance of a ladder with White at , and still must play .
Additionally, has forced Black to strengthen . The two stones + are much stronger than the single stone was.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/42/f40c015a4a60cc907753d150489bed2e.png) | Black's mistake? |
here looks like a possible mistake of the same type. Omitting and simply playing at is normally better style in attacking.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/34/5c3d392f172dd3c72b95ccef7f11efa6.png) | A tewari diagram |
Using the tewari technique, we can ask: would Black really play here? There seem to be many better points, such as a to d.
Charles Matthews
This is a copy of the living page
"One-Two-Three example 2" at
Sensei's Library.
2003 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
|