Clumsy double contact
Path: Mistake · Prev: DontTakeAwayYourOwnLiberties · Next: Dango
Strong players almost never play this way. and
are diagonal contact plays. One such play can be justified if you then attack the opponent's heavy group.
In this case Black is doing well, since affects both White's group on the left, and
[1].
Here, on the other hand, it seems that Black is only interested in immediate territory. Since both a and b are weak points of Black's formation, there isn't much real, secure territory so far. White's stones on the outside have gained greatly in influence, though.
This way of playing by Black contradicts the initial formation's basic nature: stones on the fourth line should be a source of power.
[1] Bildstein: Last night, I was lucky enough to play against a strong Korean player visiting Canberra from the Department of Baduk Studies in Mjung-ji University. I'm ~2 dan Australian, we played with 5 stones handicap, and he did not have much trouble beating me, so I respect his play, and what he said after the game.
Recently, I've been burned by this second approach move (), and I decided I had to learn how to handle it. I came here, and found that this pincer and diagonal splitting attack were the closest to advice that SL had to offer. In my game against my Korean friend last night, I played this way in response to his first to moves. He was quite happy with
, but not
or
.
This is how play continued, locally. Later, White played a to get himself out of trouble.
In future, if I play this way I will expect and
, and I will aim at Black b to put pressure on White. Yet even this line of play gives White something to attack in
.
For reference (and from memory), my opponent suggested at
, which is light,
at c, and continuing with
at b.
excession : I've seen someone explain the line that starts with this to me before - light, as you say.
Jasonred : 5 stones? Ah. One of the problems in playing with handicaps, I feel, is that you learn different tactics than when playing even games. To me, I feel that even a player weaker than computer Go programs can do better than the computer in one of those 20 stone handicap matches against pros. Those handicap stones amount to a fair bit of influence, so isn't paying more defensively and securing teritory the best way to win?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
Light = aggresive = reckless/ risky
Bill: OK, you're wrong. ;-)
Lightness has nothing to do with being aggressive, reckless, or risky. It may be a good response to aggressiveness, or a good way to handle an already risky situation.
Bildstein: I'm not entirely sure that my Korean friend understood the term light the same way I do, so I will clarify slightly. I think in this sense he meant something like easily sacrificed - he went on to show one line of play starting with White attacking, and Black playing tenuki to take a big point, and White attacking again, and Black playing tenuki again, and when White had finally taken all the life from the light stones, Black had made more than enough compensation in the rest of the board.
Bill: Yes, light stones are easily sacrificed. (Light play is related, but not the same.)
But now I'm confused. Sacrificing the top left corner is worth 35 - 40 points or so. That's not exactly a light sacrifice. I can see how the one space jump is a bit lighter play than the kosumi, but both are attacking moves. I would not be planning to give up Black's position in either case.
So, is it easier to defend a fortified position, or to attack using the influence of the handicap stones?
Path: Mistake · Prev: DontTakeAwayYourOwnLiberties · Next: Dango