(6) should be at (8), since I can be happy with my approach (7), which develops my top-side position.
On (13), I can choose between the extension and the immediate enclosure at (15). I still prefer the extension.
(14) is certainly a big point, but my enclosure (15) is enjoyable.
(14) should probably have been at (15).
(17) would’ve been a bit more reasonable at Q5, rather than at P5 where it was a little thin.
(18) is interesting in that it doesn’t induce Black to thicken the corner, unlike an exchange O6–P6.
I was very unsure of where to play (19). At first I considered playing it at O8, which I still find reasonable but slightly overconcentrated. Then I thought about a move like Q11, which I did play later on (41). In the end, the game move seemed most efficient.
After White’s photogenic jump (20), I invaded fancily by exploiting the X points.
If I were to play the opening again, I might not be so grasping with (17). The bot suggests that (17)'s value is very similar at P5 and Q5, but Q5 is clearly more solid.
There are essentially four key areas on this board.
Northwest (B & the Xes)
Northeast (C & D)
Southeast (E, the Xes and F)
Southwest (A and similar)
The opinion of the bot is that you should immediately take the invasion C. This is a fine way to play but perhaps a little inhuman as Black can, after concluding play in the top right, proceed to the top left and begin play there. This is what happened in my discussed game against fledermaus.
The idea of enclosing at B or one of the Xes is to increase the “depth” of your left-side formation, which is to say its development potential, and simultaneously diminish the value of the top, which is advantageous since Black can play there afterwards (which, after B, he may not even want to do).
In the southeast, the Xes are the most committal ways of addressing a Chinese formation. In pre-Hypermodern play, they were contrasted with the “non-confrontational” F, but AI-era Go has adopted the flexible attachment E.
In the game, ofc, you played A and lost around 10% WR.
Why is A flawed? Because the top side is more important than the bottom side.
Why is the top larger than the bottom? Because of the position of your komoku. If it was the other komoku at D17, not allowing Black such a pleasant approach, then the top side would not be so urgent.
Consider a similar position, with a sanrensei on the board.
Maybe you can really reconsider the name system which confuse people on a way players play this in some areas of the earth.
Some more poetic neutral names?
Used by who, where? It’s in sensei library once, didn’t notice myself to be an established name of general use. Chinese opening is a adopted name with go historical reference. Manchurian is a kind of not so well inspired name which lead in confusion, and extending that to even more denomination even worse.
Its third-line equivalent is called the runty Chinese on OJE.
In this thread from January, Alex suggested that that third-line variant was called the Vietnam fuseki, and I responded that I called it the South Chinese and that I thought I’d heard Cantonese fuseki before.
Bugcat mentioned above that they are mainly just inspired by linguistic/geographical puns rather than any historical/cultural connections. Like something with a stone “lower” than the Chinese opening might be viewed as “south” (which is lower in the typical north-up map orientations).
However, I agree that the naming seems kind of silly and could potentially cause confusion by implying some sort of cultural connection where there actually is none.
Before this thread, I had only heard of “low”, “high”, “mini”, and “micro” Chinese openings. At least those modifiers make it clear that it might be some sort of modification of the general concept of the Chinese opening.
However, when the community adopts terms like “Vietnamese”, “Manchurian”, “Tibetan”, etc., it becomes quite obfuscated what the original intention was, and it suggests some sort of cultural connection that might not be there.
