I think there is an interesting and important question to explore here actually.
I was thinking about the analysis: āC is no longer āIdealā because the AI does not like that moveā
This can be paraphrased as āwe no longer think that C is joseki because the AI does not like that moveā.
BUT I am thinkingā¦
Moves are not ājosekiā. Sequences are. << Right?
This lead me to paraphrase the definition of joseki like this:
āA sequence of moves is joseki if it results in an even position when both players chose joseki moves, and one player would be worse off if they did notā.
With this definition, it doesāt matter if one of the choices of joseki moves is āless favouredā. What matters is whether, after playing that move, the opponent can do no better than āevenā at the end of that sequence.
Based on the current data in our Joseki Explorer, it appears that C meets this criteria. It leads to https://online-go.com/joseki/18487, which is described as āIdealā. That means that if Black plays C, white has to play Joseki moves to stay even, and it does lead to an even position.
By this argument, we would conclude that either:
Curiously, one would think that the latter ought to be true: if the AI thinks that C is worse than A, and A leads to an even position after playing the best moves we know, then how can it be that C does also?
This seems to mean that there is an as-yet unfound refutation of the sequence to https://online-go.com/joseki/18487, or that this position itself is not as even as we thought.