Questions and answers, part three; the 6-4 point

Hello world! Now I finally found the time to answer to Michi’s query regarding the 6-4 point. Like with normally with the questions and answers series, please write new questions as comments to this blog post!

First off, I compiled an sgf file (updated on 10 November 2011!) with some more normal variations along with my comments. The eidogo plugin in this blog doesn’t show comments for now, so please download the file (the download link is just below the plugin) for the comments.

[sgfPrepared id=”0″]

The following, here, is for whole-board fuseki. Please check the joseki file first!

If black played double 6-4 points, for example like this, I feel that white 8 is a really feasible counter. After white 8, black can practically no longer have a big right side,  which makes black 3 kind of useless. Later, if white gets the chance, he’ll take A. Black can surely make a game out of this, but it shouldn’t be so out of ordinary for white anymore.

If white plays double 6-4 points, black is simple to play as well. There are a few moves I would consider: black A is one, making white 2 rather useless again (black B later, then, given the chance). Black C instead would split the left side, not giving white 4 much to work for. Or, black could also just play his own game with D – there’s really no hurry in making the white stones useless.

As a summary, I do consider the 6-4 point playable, but it is making a player’s intentions painfully obvious (white 2 in the last figure clearly aims for the upper side, and white 4 for the left side). Personally I favor the 4-4, 3-3 and 3-4 points, which give a lot more flexibility to the follow-ups.

You mentioned middle game problems. That sounds great but could you give examples of such problem collections? And when you analyze a pro game how many times do you replay it on a board?

A good sample I can name is Shuko: The Only Move volume 2 (Fighting middlegame collection), which I’ve liked a lot. Another collection which I’ve liked a lot is completely in Japanese – I’m afraid I’m not able to type the book’s name. But I’ve got a picture instead! Maybe somebody else can translate the name. :)

As for the pro game analysis part, I actually review them quite quickly, like one game in 10-15 minutes or so. I don’t personally feel like I can get much out from the games by spending hours analyzing them. A lot of the techniques professionals use are familiar for me, anyway, so I tend to focus on following the professionals’ whole-board plans and positional judgement. I also don’t replay the games on a board – only on a computer, or on my phone.

12 thoughts on “Questions and answers, part three; the 6-4 point”

  1. The book title is 七段合格の中盤戦, which translates to something like “Middlegame to get to 7-dan”. It’s published by Nihon-kiin (i.e. not by a particular author).

  2. This time I’ve got questions about time and space:

    Do you like to play fast games? Do you use a special strategy when playing a blitz or does it just look like you’re playing a few stones weaker in the game record? It seems that professional games are getting ever faster with new tournaments fitted for TV. Is this good for professional go? Some say that in the old days when games lasted a lot longer, go was more harmonious and beautiful. Are people more focused on winning these days?

    My second question is about the size of the board. Do you think that the 19×19 board is somehow special or more balanced than other board sizes? What about smaller boards? Is it good for your go to play some 9×9 now and then? How about giant boards? You can play games on a board up to 38×38 on KGS. Does it add any new aspects to go when playing on such a huge field of war?

  3. Hi Tien,
    first, I have to apologize for my bad english. But I hope, you’ll understand my intention 😉
    I’ve looked about some of your games and realized you like the 3-3(san-san?) opening, so does I for some reasons.
    Could you please explain some principal strategies, the direction of play and something like this with playing this fuseki.
    I’m a weak sdk, so even finding easy tasks like a fuseki I could love, are pretty difficult.
    Btw. nice to see you blogging! I hope to read much more interesting stuff written by you :)
    Best Regards
    Joachim, Germany

  4. Could you show some examples of your game when it is good to play gote? For me it is difficult to know how far I should try to play sente moves that may turn out to be overplay of leave too many weaknesses behind. Is there a term “weak sente” where your opponent may respond or if not then it turned out to be gote?

    1. Thanks for the theme! I now wrote Slow down, you move too fast: http://gooften.net/2011/01/slow-down-you-move-too-fast/

      That should address some part of your gote query. :) For the weak sente question, I don’t think that term holds much importance. When looking at the game afterwards, we can make a clear distinction between which moves were sente and which were gote. During the game, a stronger player will know very accurately which moves will be sente and which will not. Weaker players may want to think more like “I’m not sure if this move will provoke an answer from the opponent”, and think accordingly – I don’t think a new term for this way of thinking is necessary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please confirm you are a human by solving this: