tapir: old discussion subpage (2009-12-02 15:41) [#6652]

rubilia: Isn't it somewhat oversimplified to call a middle game joseki plainly unacceptable whenever it leads to misplaced friendly stone? Captured stones for example, are often quite misplaced, I suppose. And even a not captured one, weirdly sticking to an opponent's wall, doesn't outrule a sequence necessarily, does it? I mean, there may become more opponent than own stones rather useless. Perhaps the criteria is something like an "(unfavorable) abandoned stones tally"?

Bill: How well a play harmonizes with your previous plays is a good indication of how good it is. That is a general principle. If it does not, you need compensation, such as your opponent's bad shape. Particularly in the opening, when much is unformed, it may be the best indication of the value of a play. By the endgame, it is much less of an indicator, but by then direct calculation comes into play. In the middle game, there are exceptions, but it is still a very powerful indicator. IMX, relying upon it alone for positional judgement in the early and middle game is quite good enough up to dan level. And I know not a few dan players who would do well to be mindful of it.

As for captured stones, the general method is to pair them off with your opponent's ill-placed stones, in particular the stones played to make the captures. See Tewari.

When you talk about necessity and absolutes, of course, you are right. A play may be right even if it leaves one of your stones misplaced, when the compensation for that inefficiency is not obvious. But that does not diminish the value of the principle.

rubilia: I don't doubt the use of "tewari thinking". Bill, your last paragraph is quite my point. I am aware of the tewari concept (which unfortunately doesn't mean I could make optimal use of it), and that is why the term "unacceptable", being even particularly emphasised, feels too strict to me.