Catenaccio joseki
Charles NB this page now unifies contributions from various other pages, and needs an edit.
As a first step, I've put all follow-ups at Catenaccio joseki - follow-up plays.
AvatarDJFlux: Wow! I have just discovered this page and I feel flattered to learn that a joseki has been called after the Italian name of an Italian (despicable?) way of playing football, i.e., when losing 0-1, keep all players behind to defend the small disadvantage... (catenaccio, for those of you who do not speak Italian, means lock).
Charles, my admiration to you for your football culture! [1]
Moved from discarded joseki;
This catenaccio joseki used to be considered joseki for Black, but it has now "been deleted from the joseki books". Dinerchtein says that it is too low.
Charles Hmm, it seems to have been played in a Korean game in the past 12 months. Not an extinct joseki; and not a superseded joseki for which a clearly better line has been found; but a joseki that is being differently judged by some experts. Sometimes these lines survive as niche joseki, for some special contexts.
Last bit: Kitani Minoru invented [2] a nifty little joseki that removes the possibility of the Black play above. He played at the 3-3 point (see diagram below). It appeared in Kitani-Shimamura, 1956 2nd Top Position Tournament league and I found it in Kogo's joseki dictionary. Like the black play above, it is uncommon (at least among the crowd I play with) and, thus, has the advantage of surprise. (The element of surprise is not trivial for amateurs. The player who has studied in advance the weaknesses and strengths of a line of play that is unfamiliar to one's opponent is at a large advantage, possibly a decisive one.)
After , White plays at the circled point.
The effect of White's three stones that include is to create bad aji for Black's stones on both sides. Note Black cannot attach immediately at a and there are other dangers if black tries too hard to capture White's stones. I've played this only once so far as White and had a good experience. I'll likely try it again. I'm most puzzled about what to do if Black plays just below
with his next move.
Charles Had some popularity in the 1970s; much less fashionable now.
By the way, is supposed quite generally to be bad shape, once
is played.
Indeed, Yang Yilun teaches that either should be at a or
should be at b. a and b together are also bad shape.
There was an old Go World article about this by Kato Masao, but I can't say I understood the point at the time.
Maybe up to simply makes
redundant.
Fhayashi: Is redundant the right word here? Redundant to me sounds like overconcentrated, while here is made to look like a bad move.
Charles Not doing enough serious work?
[1] Charles Not my name - introduced to SL by Stefan?
Or maybe borrowed...