The Finger Tesuji
Does this have a real name? I chose this name because of the "hand" formed by black and white stones, and also because it actually does make some kind of finger.
The idea is atari then double atari.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/35/d2c651e6c4d341ee8bf61f24363ee261.png)
[7] "The Finger" - The Solution
Was expecting a funnier page.. ;P Reuven
Crimson : There is an off-board tesuji under the same name, I believe. But the end result does indeed give you the finger, no?
Robert Pauli: Germany's finger . . .
tderz I expected to see here some kind of sleeve-tesuji.
Actually, Black would refrain here from making voluntarily two empty triangles resulting in two cut groups (
,
).
The term tesuji is reserved for very efficient, good local (combination) techniques, which are often classified by their shape. Tesuji can also be simply a technique.
Some very splendid moves (perhaps not classifiable?) are called miaoshou.
Now let's check whether white played efficient and got adequate resistance from black:
As I'll show in [6],[4] below, the double atari in [7] is quite ordinary.
You could classify it as double-atari-tesuji , however black can resist in several ways and white still has to reflect at every step what she is doing. In effect, the ,
single atari(-tesujis?) might be a better strategy sometimes.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/23/25560f465d9b267255385516970bc5ec.png)
white's ponnuki separates 2 empty triangles!
Is this a good result for black?
White's ponnuki separates 2 empty triangles!
The disaster happens when the two - equally large & eyeless - groups are cut by a ponnuki. Black must do better.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/25/7fb1eb05bb30b2bbb0192309dcfbcbdf.png)
[3] ponnukis + 3 moves
Letting white have two or even three ponukis (tenuki-ing twice) instead of only one does not make any difference to white's strength. Hence, you do not see her the strength-equivalent of 30+30+30=90 points white points! Therefore, having 3 moves in succession somewhere else on the board might be much more useful for black! (than playing empty triangles in useless, cut-apart groups)
or
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/26/60d06ec7f5c10f8a695bc385fa2d1bce.png)
[6] Geta
Now, serious, black should connect once at , but then extend at
pulling out one stone.
White will make a ponnuki, yet Black should capture
in geta with
. That's already one eye and some influence in gote.
Imagine the sequence
. That's some influence for Black, isn't it? Black is still threatening to hane at a. Will white follow docily again?
White on the other hand is not threatening much with (white a is captured by black b); a and b are miai.
White c can be coped with black a.
White might be gote!.
Consequently the continuation [1] is more likely to happen than this [2], which in turn could indicate that Black's position is good!
How come that White had sente and 4 cutting points to chose from - and still ends with an unsatisfactory result [1]??
Perhaps it could indicate that White should not always go for the ponnuki.
One should try to figure out before where to cash the notorius ''30 points''.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/12/5cdeb7a9906628f63184e3e1d5b54f30.png)
[4] large scale attack?
If white gets (or could get later) (which should be supported by some white troups z, she could try these ataris white
-
and connect somehow with a, b, c, d or else (perhaps the cutting point b is defended indirectly by something around m) .
This could lead to a large scale-attack.
Now, if Black dislikes this result in return, he could opt for the complete tenuki option [3] above and make two free moves somewhere else on the board.
... now if White in return dislikes this ...
she wouldn't cut to start with?
(rather unlikely)
Because in that case white had the option to cut with White , black tenukies locally - and white does not continue with
in dia. [4]. (Go is not an abstract, retroactive, recursive competition not to play - a cut is quite active and valuable because it is in line with perhaps the most fundamental principle of Go: divide and conquer - unify and be strong).
Conclusion: the original (wrong) sequence still proved useful for demonstrating an idea or two.
![[Diagram]](../../diagrams/6/e2b84136d4705712465ca622c2b3e772.png)
[5] another idea?
Another common playing idea with a large-scale attack for white
(premise: white support in the m- and z-region)
does not prove useful after Black creates cutting points x and y in white's position. Black has joined forces, White is cut.
Furthermore, if there was this white support in the m- and z-region, then cutting with as in [4] and [6] above is simpler and stronger.