Marking of continuations from


  1. Option 4 is marked as ideal, but it’s almost never been played professionally (about five hits in Waltheri). Should this even be marked? It’s sourced as Traditional.

  2. Option 3 is marked as ideal. I’ve been doing some research on it today and I think it could be classed as a “situational move” and therefore marked good, since it seems to be rarely played without surrounding stones; but I’m not sure. In either case, it has quite low professional play (about 20-25 games). The source is Kageyama, but what does he actually say about the move?


I removed it. 1.4% in pro play does seem low. I probably added it because it had some pro play and AI evaluated it favorably—weak support given our criteria now.

Check a few moves down. I’ll search the book and see if there’s anything I can quote rather than paraphrase.
EDIT: The end position now contains only the book quote.

1 Like

Hmm. The quote given does say “neither side has anything to complain of”, but the rest of it reads a little flimsily.

Kageyama never

  1. Directly calls it “joseki” or an “equal result”
  2. Says it has seen any pro play

And he sets this sequence explicitly in the context of low-dan games.

I find myself suspicious that the point of the sequence was really just to illustrate some principle about repressing jealousy or improving one’s positional judgement. Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go is well known for technically unsound claims used as “mindset-improvement aids”, isn’t it?

1 Like

While that’s certainly true (in characteristic style), it looks like I neglected the paragraph before, which says “This is an even-game opening pattern . . . against Black’s one-space pincer.” Is that helpful enough? I double checked this with AI and found it sound as well.


Yeah, that’s enough – sorry for being so pernickity…

1 Like