The 3-3 play isn't one I'm familiar with, and I've no idea how the above would occur in a game. Why has neither side taken the 4-4 point instead of one of the existing moves?
with the rest depending *very* much on what the rest of the board looks like; White is now building up thickness that makes me want to know what it's facing.
-- \ “Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.” —Mark | `\ Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ | _o__) | Ben Finney
In that case I would expect Black to be consistent: having failed to respond to two out of the three existing White approaches, Black must have valued other parts of the board more than expansion from this corner. I expect Black will happily sacrifice the stone at 1 to get a solid, smallish corner.
Again, this position doesn't seem reasonable in isolation. I wouldn't be able to decide how to play without seeing what the White stones are facing.
-- \ “Ours is a world where people don't know what they want and are | `\ willing to go through hell to get it.” —Donald Robert Perry | _o__) Marquis | Ben Finney
> In that case I would expect Black to be consistent: having failed > to respond to two out of the three existing White approaches, > Black must have valued other parts of the board more than > expansion from this corner. I expect Black will happily sacrifice > the stone at 1 to get a solid, smallish corner.
> > In that case I would expect Black to be consistent: having failed to > > respond to two out of the three existing White approaches, Black > > must have valued other parts of the board more than expansion from > > this corner. I expect Black will happily sacrifice the stone at 1 to > > get a solid, smallish corner.
> How does X live in the corner?
Where are the rest of Black's stones on the board? Again, the situation looks very unnatural to me if Black has left this entire corner of the board alone except that one stone.
-- \ “A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me | `\ at kick boxing.” —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney
> > >In that case I would expect Black to be consistent: > > >having failed to respond to two out of the three > > >existing White approaches, Black must have valued > > >other parts of the board more than expansion from > > >this corner. I expect Black will happily > > >sacrifice the stone at 1 to > > >get a solid, smallish corner.
> > How does X live in the corner?
> Where are the rest of Black's stones on the board? > the situation looks very unnatural to me if Black has > left this entire corner of the > board alone except that one stone.
Why do you keep replying, only to dodge the question? The board is empty, it's a life and death problem. How does X live in the corner?
Mark-T <marktanne...@gmail.com> writes: > On Oct 23, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-s...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > Where are the rest of Black's stones on the board? the situation > > looks very unnatural to me if Black has left this entire corner of > > the board alone except that one stone.
> Why do you keep replying, only to dodge the question?
I've given my reasons: the question is senseless to me without that extra information.
> The board is empty, it's a life and death problem.
I'm not interested in life-and-death problems that don't resemble positions that would arise in play.
-- \ “I think it would be a good idea.” —Mahatma Gandhi (when asked | `\ what he thought of Western civilization) | _o__) | Ben Finney
|
