Taxonomy Test
This is a test page for TaxonomyOfJoseki. Please let me know what you think - would it make sense to add diagrams like this to that page?
4-4 point Josekis (covered in Ishida volume 3):
-
- low extension
- high extension
- large low extension
- large high extension
- Attach-block joseki
- Attach-extend joseki
- Attach-wedge joseki
- One-space low pincer
- One-space high pincer
- Two-space low pincer
- Two-space high pincer
- Three-space low pincer
- Three-space high pincer
- 4-4 point low approach, diagonal contact then pincer, 4-4 point low approach diagonal (the Takemiya kosumi), kosumitsuke joseki, double kakari.
- 4-4 point joseki bad follow-up.
[1] Black attaches: ->
Discussion
Problems I see:
- The bullets don't indent when they're placed next to a diagram
- Subdivisions by follow-up (
) can not be rendered by points
- The taxonomy is not exactly by moves - there are some that share the same
, such as in footnote [1]. Is this by design or could this be changed?
Questions:
- Should we generally represent tenuki by the 1-1 point?
Charles Duplication at the level of indexes need not be bad. But doesn't this repeat what is said at 4-4 point josekis?
By the way, there is now enough material at SL that we can confidently drop references like Ishida volume 3.
A better tenuki convention might be a T-shape made out of square-marked points?
Tapir: Any comments on this request for removal?