Forum for Middlegame joseki

Merge or not? [#1702]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

kb: Merge or not? (2009-01-08 16:36) [#5611]

"Side joseki" and the more general-looking "side patterns" could use a merge, or maybe it shouldn't and they should be more distinct. I'm referring to the difference between an invasion of a shape versus the same invasion of a shape inside a larger formation.

What do you think?


HermanHiddema: Re: Merge or not? (2009-01-08 16:42) [#5612]

I created the distinction because side joseki can occur anywhere along the side (ie, you can invade a very large knight move anywhere along the side and expect the same kinds of general sequences to apply), while side patterns only apply to specific positions along an entire side. So in my opinion, side joseki fall under the header of "Joseki", while side patterns fall under the header of "Fuseki".

Bill: Re: Merge or not? (2009-01-08 19:31) [#5613]

I agree with Herman. :)

However, particularly in Korean thinking, the idea of joseki (jeongseok) is becoming broader, so that the distinction between side fuseki patterns and joseki is becoming fuzzier.

(Later.) I forgot that side in the side patterns page has a different meaning from side on the side joseki page. So merging makes no sense.

HermanHiddema: Re: Merge or not? (2009-01-08 19:39) [#5614]

To clarify, side patterns are things like:
nirensei, sanrensei, low chinese, mini chinese and kobayashi fuseki (lower side).

While side joseki are things like:
shoulder hit, capping play, three-space extension invasions and defending a base on the side.

Perhaps the terminology would be clearer if we renamed "side patterns" to "half-board patterns"?

Bill: Re: Merge or not? (2009-01-08 20:21) [#5615]

That would be clearer for me. :)

BTW, in their The World's New Joseki Jiang Jujo and Rui Naiwei show a number of joseki that have a wider scope than traditional corner joseki. Sometime maybe I can post some examples. :)

kb: Re: Merge or not? (2009-12-02 17:45) [#6654]

Do things like nirensei and mini-chinese warrant a name like "side patterns"? They're traditionally just called fuseki. Leave them classified under "fuseki" - unless you suggest another distinction there? That way we avoid the nomenclature problem entirely.

HermanHiddema: Re: Merge or not? (2009-12-02 18:16) [#6655]

They are definitely classified under fuseki, but there are multiple kinds of positions that are classified under fuseki. There are whole board patterns (eg: Cross hoshi, Regulation fuseki) and half board patterns (Chinese, Sanrensei). You might even consider some to be three-quarter board fuseki (eg: Kobayashi, Mini-Chinese).

I think that half board patterns are particularly useful, because they are so important in judging joseki in context. Each joseki is usually involved in two half board patterns (one along each side), and when choosing joseki, you mostly judge the final result based on those two patterns.

kb: Re: Merge or not? (2009-12-02 18:33) [#6656]

My feeling is that these kinds of classifications is just overdoing it. (Just my opinion). Maybe this is the right place to classify all the way out this way. I'm just trying to avoid things like the systematic joseki pages, where all of the patterns are spread out over so many pages it's impossible to maintain or even look at anything. Re: Merge or not? (2009-12-02 23:44) [#6657]

This is a bit Off Topic but if I recall correctly someone started a "systematic fuseki" project (eek) which may have died an earlier death than systematic joseki. -- Bob McGuigan Re: Merge or not? (2009-12-02 23:47) [#6658]

This is a bit Off Topic but if I recall correctly someone proposed a "systematic fuseki" project (eek) which may never have gotten started. -- Bob McGuigan

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

Forum for Middlegame joseki
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Login / Prefs
Sensei's Library