Life In 19x19 http://prod.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10671 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
I was thinking recently about the nirensei v nirensei fuseki when it occured to me that in the vast majority of cases, we tend to favour the approach rather than an enclosure. Given that approaches and enclosures have an equal weight in the fuseki stage, I'm wondering why is it that we tend to play a instead of b more often. I only used one pro game search, and an approach was listed as #1, followed by sanrensei at #2, and all the way to #8 at 5 out of 68,000 pro games was an enclosure like b. |
Author: | DrStraw [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Well, it is not really an enclosure because the corner is still open. Nirensei goes for quick development and so the enclosure seems contradictory. I am surprised that it is found even once in a pro database. |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
DrStraw wrote: Well, it is not really an enclosure because the corner is still open. Nirensei goes for quick development and so the enclosure seems contradictory. I am surprised that it is found even once in a pro database. So only a 3-4 shimari is a true enclosure? What about the large knight 3-4 shimari where you can live in the corner? |
Author: | ez4u [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:35 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Abyssinica wrote: ... Given that approaches and enclosures have an equal weight in the fuseki stage, ... I'm interested. What makes you think this? |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
ez4u wrote: Abyssinica wrote: ... Given that approaches and enclosures have an equal weight in the fuseki stage, ... I'm interested. What makes you think this? Probably Nick Sibicky videos when I was weaker in the "5 stages of the opening" thing. No, I'm not saying a 3-4 approach has the same weight as a 4-4 approach. Chinese variants and Sanrensei aside, is it wrong to say that, in concept, they're about equal? Why is it wrong? Enlighten me as to why a here is not just as big a move as b. Or c with D or any other combination you can think of. |
Author: | wineandgolover [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
I think DrStraw answered your question perfectly. The 4-4 is played for speed of development. Having a presence in three corners after three moves is consistent with this purpose. 2/3 completing a corner isn't. If you want the corner, a 3-4 opening can do it in two moves, and completing it ASAP is consistent with that purpose. In your second, 3-4, example, I'd agree that approaching and enclosing are of approximately equal value. But, that is different than your original question, right? |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
wineandgolover wrote: I think DrStraw answered your question perfectly. The 4-4 is played for speed of development. Having a presence in three corners after three moves is consistent with this purpose. 2/3 completing a corner isn't. If you want the corner, a 3-4 opening can do it in two moves, and completing it ASAP is consistent with that purpose. In your second, 3-4, example, I'd agree that approaching and enclosing are of approximately equal value. But, that is different than your original question, right? DrStraw did answer it succintly for this exact fuseki, but I'm responding to ez4u at that point. |
Author: | hyperpape [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
I think that the "approach is equal to an enclosure" rule of thumb may be mentioned by Yilun Yang in "Fundamental Principles of Go", but perhaps only with regard to a 3-4 point? The reason is that a 3-4 point wants an enclosing move, so it's often equally valuabel to either make it or prevent it. On the other hand, a 4-4 point is more oriented towards large scale development. So approaching the opposing 4-4 point is very natural, as it aims at staking out a position across the entire bottom of the board, while preventing white from doing the same. There are certainly exceptions to this kind of rule, and it does seem as if pros are putting more value on an enclosure from a 4-4 point recently. One example is White's reaction to the Chinese opening in the following position. However, I think that's still a bit of a special case idea, perhaps. |
Author: | skydyr [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Abyssinica wrote: ez4u wrote: Abyssinica wrote: ... Given that approaches and enclosures have an equal weight in the fuseki stage, ... I'm interested. What makes you think this? Probably Nick Sibicky videos when I was weaker in the "5 stages of the opening" thing. No, I'm not saying a 3-4 approach has the same weight as a 4-4 approach. Chinese variants and Sanrensei aside, is it wrong to say that, in concept, they're about equal? Why is it wrong? Enlighten me as to why a here is not just as big a move as b. Or c with D or any other combination you can think of. Given either the top or the bottom having 4-4 stones instead, I'd much rather take a side point like K3/4 or K15/16 to prevent my opponent from getting there first, since they're big points for both sides. Certainly, if black makes an enclosure on the bottom right, white would prefer to take K3 or K4 to prevent black from getting it if white makes his own enclosure, as it would be a huge point, which may make K3/K4 more sente for black. With all the stones on 3-4 like this, though, the top and bottom are miai as well, so black can give one up to take the other. In this particular position, also, there's an open question of how to treat the left and right sides. Certainly each side would like the other to approach so that they can loosely pincer to build a strong formation from the other corner, but the symmetry again makes everything miai. I'd go so far as to say that if white's not planning on playing mirror go or otherwise to the miai of the situation, ![]() |
Author: | Uberdude [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:11 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Something to note about hyperpape's white enclosure against the Chinese opening (Gu Li likes it, it's my usual move too) is that this move is thwarting black's most valuable development direction of his Chinese framework from the 3-4 corner. For this reason black often approaches there first. Also answering when your 4-4 stone is approached is more urgent than answering when a 3-4 is approached: 4-4 double approach is more severe. Another example of the sort of place you see it is here against a white Chinese opening: Ye olde opening theory might suggest taking the right side hoshi (or 3rd line), but then white approach is rather nice and black's moyo is just one one side of the board and has plenty of invasion points (marked). It's probably playable, certainly at out levels, but particular among modern Korean pros they seem to prefer getting some real territory over a nebulous moyo. A common theme here is the knight's move is played not only for building yourself, but because you want to prevent your opponent from approaching there if it's a good direction for him. You could say the same for a 3-4 shimari, but as I said above approaching a 4-4 is more sente so it's generally easier to ignore the 3-4 approach. So the 4-4 knight's move has a reverse sente feel to it. |
Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
The idea that approaches and enclosures are equal can be derived from the idea that the opponent's best move is my best move. And if they are gote, the average gain from playing either one is the same. However, the approach is more likely to be sente, and in general a sente should be played before a reverse sente. And even when it is not sente, it is generally better to make a play with a good follow-up than a play without one. You also have the global question of overconcentration or lopsided development, which is more of a danger with the enclosure. All of which indicates that if you are unsure which to play, the approach is generally better. I have proposed a heuristic for helping to decide between two gote plays, which is to treat them as miai and assume that if you take one, your opponent will take the other. (You do not have to play on the exact spot in the fuseki.) Let's try it with your examples. ![]() First, let's look at the enclosure. Well, we have an equal position. With the double approach, the position is equal, but Black has a nice pincer with ![]() First, let's look at the double enclosure. With the double enclosure ![]() This position is more complicated, with no obvious advantageous play for Black. Here the heuristic suggests the enclosure. ![]() |
Author: | ez4u [ Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Abyssinica wrote: ez4u wrote: Abyssinica wrote: ... Given that approaches and enclosures have an equal weight in the fuseki stage, ... I'm interested. What makes you think this? Probably Nick Sibicky videos when I was weaker in the "5 stages of the opening" thing. No, I'm not saying a 3-4 approach has the same weight as a 4-4 approach. Chinese variants and Sanrensei aside, is it wrong to say that, in concept, they're about equal? Why is it wrong? Enlighten me as to why a here is not just as big a move as b. Or c with D or any other combination you can think of. 71%! Of course YMMV! ![]() |
Author: | oca [ Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:48 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
hyperpape wrote: I think that the "approach is equal to an enclosure" rule of thumb may be mentioned by Yilun Yang in "Fundamental Principles of Go", but perhaps only with regard to a 3-4 point? I'm currently reading that book. Given the rules he give in its book, (and from what I undertstand of the book at my level)... I think the most valuable point would be a or b... (but saddly I think I cann't tell more why I think of that as that would mean I would then need to post copyrighted content ![]() |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:52 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Shouldn't "a" be on the third line if anything? |
Author: | oca [ Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:07 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
Abyssinica wrote: Shouldn't "a" be on the third line if anything? Sure that's possible too, what's important is that it take a point that is a large extension to both white hoshi. |
Author: | paK0 [ Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nirensei v Nirensei: Approach or enclose? |
I think I watched a game that Redmond was commenting where he said that splitting on the 4th line was more modern style, but not really better or worse. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |