Recently I’ve been playing the Amur, but I’m thinking of trying the Argun soon.
In the game, White played the vulgar exchange A–B. One might think that this sequence relies on a ladder and that Black must now play X and not Y, but actually Black can still play Y.
White still loses about 15% WR, but that’s the same as what the bot claims I lost from playing the Manchurian to begin with, so I can’t criticise. It’s only a point or two anyway. In any case, White should probably play C directly.
This ladder necessary for White to capture tightly. The game result looks better for White, though, even if he does have the ladder.
There are some complex bot variations possible, but the game could easily proceed simply like this:
The game continued this way, though, with some mistakes from both sides. I was happy with this, noting that A and especially B are inefficiently placed.
Fun fact: the Manchurian was in Hurt / Heal Fuseki and finished 18th of 24, between the nirensei–nirensei splt and “Hosai’s formation” (which could also be called the “rotated sub-orthodox”).
Manchuria is another name for Northern China or regions in it, developing the name from the high Chinese, which the Manchurian system is based on. That name isn’t mine; as I said, it’s existed for at least twenty years. The pun is that the “high Chinese” is “high”, or north.
“Sino-Tibetan” is a language group containing the Chinese languages. Similarly, the “Sino-Tibetan formations” encompass the Chinese openings.
The Ussuri, Argun, and Amur are rivers in Manchuria.
I stumbled (again) on this eighteen-year-old SL discussion of a 5-4 noseki in the Manchurian.
What I found more interesting, though, is what the OP said he usually played, at IGS 6k in 2003:
As a fairly long-time on-and-off 5-4 player, I’ve never even considered descending with (5). I play (5) as a tiger’s mouth or full triangle connection.
The interesting thing about this (5) is that it seems to be a stronger encouragement for White to play (6) in the corner, although Black is shown continuing locally with (7).
This makes me think: if only the Sino-Tibetan formations with a hoshi are Chineses, that means that the others – like the Manchurian – are Tibeto-Burman.
I played the Manchurian against @shinuito in a komiless correspondence game in the regulars’ handicap tournament.
He hit me with the surprising (16) Q6. I failed to find strong continuations like (17) P6 and (19) N5, instead playing the compliant (although blue) (19) O2, allowing myself to be squeezed.
However, my position would’ve still been fine if I had played away on (21) and permitted White to cleanly squish my cat. I made the spirited blunder (21) O6?, leading into the position on (29).
At this point I thought White would play the light (30) N8 (blue), but he chose the confrontational P8 instead, forcing the game into an exclusively tactical phase after my necessary cut at N7.
Suffice to say I collapsed in the subsequent fighting.
Especially if I had the position again I’d try (19) N5 N3 N8.
On the other hand, Manchu is not part of that language family at all. But I actually like Sino-Tibetan in that context if it just means “related to the area where China and Tibet are”.
We played an anti-avalanche in the top left; I fixed with the thick tiger’s mouth and White invaded the Manchurian at the counter-Chinese point. It was still a 40–50% game.
The bot would like White to play at A here and crawl, but that’s not how I (at least) play Go. The established and human move here is the atari B.
This usually continues wB+ 1 2 3+ Ax, but fleder played the slightly worse wB+ 1 3+? ext. 2. I was nudged above 50% WR, albeit only for a short time. The focal point left above 3 was larger than either of us realised, and wasn’t played for some time.