# An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? [#493]

chipuni: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-20 23:53) [#1729]

I created a problem at " http://www.goproblems.com/prob.php3?id=8729&psetid=2226848". About seven people playing this problem gave an unusual suggested move for black:

Not a joseki

However, I don't have the knowledge to say why this isn't joseki. Can anyone help?

X
Bill: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-20 21:32) [#1731]
Joseki

Ishida Yoshio said, I have heard, that there are no star point joseki. Maybe he meant that the rest of the board is a bigger factor in deciding on a move that with other initial corner plays.

I call this a joseki, but maybe it is play that depends upon circumstances. Still, what play does not?

chipuni: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-20 23:47) [#1734]

I agree completely that your position is more usual. In fact, there are two good pages on this topic at 44PointLowApproachLowKnightsMoveBlock and BQM146 on that topic.

My question is different. What would happen if black were to make the move in my diagram? How could black be punished for moving at

Joseki

AndyPierce: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-21 02:09) [#1737]

AJP: Black's move in the context of an otherwise empty board is slack, not wrong. White can "punish" it by simply playing an efficient game.

69.104.143.166: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-21 06:03) [#1742]

My question is different. What would happen if black were to make the move in my diagram? How could black be punished for moving at

Joseki -- Not!

Maybe he can't. That is to say, is a passive play. The damage may already have been done.

Double approach

However, an approach from the left side looks good. After does Black have anything better than ?

Joseki

By comparison with this joseki, Black looks more than two points worse off.

71.202.43.87: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-21 17:53) [#1747]

Thank you for the excellent response!

Remillard: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-21 08:00) [#1744]

Depends on the rest of the board, but the punishment may be as simple as white jumping out one space and that move being somewhat sente. If black does not respond, any of the move options (and probably more besides) are going to be painful for black while also white's top side is possibly very big. So as long as the top side makes sense for white to do this, white gains a lot of profit in sente.

Joseki Elsewhere

An similar but alternate idea is the following (2nd diagram, can't seem to get this comment to show up between boards.):

Alternate Sequence

Now A is not as painful for black if white did this instead of 3. The corner is more secure. The hoshi point is still not happy, the growth on the side is stunted, but according to the whole board situation, this might be done to gain momentum elsewhere, or if the area is not interesting.

71.202.43.87: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-21 17:54) [#1748]

Thank you for the excellent analysis!

Bill: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-20 21:25) [#1732]

BTW, you should be aware that joseki nomenclature here is peculiar to Sensei's Library. Knight's approach is standard, as is knight's move response (not extension, although extension is OK).

Bill: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-20 21:30) [#1733]
Tenuki?

Also, here you might consider the simplest continuation to be tenuki. It is fairly common these days.

chipuni: Re: An alternate move for the 4-4 low approach? (2006-06-20 23:42) [#1735]

Sadly, the diagram that you give has little to do with my intended question.

In my intended question, black not white has moved at the marked square:

Tenuki?

What should white's response be?

AndyPierce: confusion (2006-06-20 20:08) [#1730]

AJP: Heh heh heh. I thought it was white to move and picked what turned out to be thinking it was going to be , the keima slide from the white stone. My guess as to why it's not joseki is that it doesn't protect the corner particularly well, and neither does it put a lot of pressure on white. The footsweep or contact plays would seem to be better choices, but I don't think is totally unplayable, given the right circumstances.

X
chipuni: Re: confusion (2006-06-20 23:56) [#1736]

I figure that if I repeat the diagram enough times, people will realize that the piece at D18 really is meant to be black, not white?

Would the diagram be clearer if I wrote it as:

An alternate way to write the moves?

EDIT: I've edited the main question to use move numbers. I hope that this is clearer.