Shikiri - the concept of fall back scenarios

[JohnnieDarko]

Today I visited Matsuyama Castle in Matsuyama Japan. It was gorgeous and it has many parts accessible, and there was a great exhibition inside.

The defensive design is interesting. The core castle tower is defended by its design of multiple “fall-back” options.

At first, attacking troops march to the lowest gates, and from peepholes they get shot by the defending troops inside the castle.

If the attacker somehow breaches the gates, then defending soldiers will fall back. The attackers now have to walk another walkway to the next gates, but on that walk, they will again get shot from peepholes along that walkway, from inside the castle.

Repeat this classic tower defense idea a couple of times, making this a very well defended castle. This idea was called Shikiri, which literally means compartmentalising / divide into rooms.

This got me thinking about Go (…of course…). In Go you don’t build a defensive castle, though you might enclose an area in a way that you don’t want it invaded.

Is there a similar concept in Go, or has there been in historic games, where players design a clear “fall back” scenario? Where you aim for goal A, but play in a way that if that fails, that due to a safety net, a clear goal B is nearly certain to happen?

Vaguely this applies for every situation, for example I might want to kill invading stones, but if my kill fails, at least the opponent is weakly on the run. But that is not explicitly designed. I’m wondering if deliberately designed fall back scenarios are or were a part of Go strategy. Many thanks for entertaining this vague question.

[Uberdude]

If you talk about “fall back” in go I think of the situation where you have an emergency back-up plan like a way to connect a group in danger to safety, but in a submissive and bad for points way. So you don’t want to use it and would rather fight and be more aggressive and attack them or live independently, but you can do that safe in the knowledge that if you get in trouble, you can always come back and play that pathetic gote 1st line connection.

[Sadaharu]

@JohnnieDarko

Is there a similar concept in Go, or has there been in historic games, where players design a clear “fall back” scenario? Where you aim for goal A, but play in a way that if that fails, that due to a safety net, a clear goal B is nearly certain to happen?

I think all ideal attacks are that way?
You don’t see a lot of top pros going all-in during an attack.
Instead, they attack such that even if they can’t kill the dragon, they can still gain something along the way and continue the game.

[Groin]

Two cases which contains the idea of shikiri:

position which use the miai concept.

Play on the 4th line: if your opponent invades then you get influence in return.

[JohnnieDarko]

Thanks for the responses, it helps me to sharpen my vague idea. Below I’ll respond to each why I think it doesn’t quite fit my idea. Please don’t see that as criticism but as a discourse to sharpen the idea, or perhaps prove that the idea simply doesn’t fit Go.

@Uberdude

If you talk about “fall back” in go I think of the situation where you have an emergency back-up plan like a way to connect a group in danger to safety, but in a submissive and bad for points way.

This is physically the concept of shikiri (falling back to a lower line or different compartment), but not conceptually, because it incurs heavy loss.

On the contrary, a strategic fall back in a castle is used to move troops back before they are overrun. There they try again, at close to full strength, while the opponent keeps incurring losses.

This isn’t what I originally asked. So you do answer my question, but it made me realise my actual idea/question is a little different from what I asked.

@Sadaharu

Instead, they attack such that even if they can’t kill the dragon, they can still gain something along the way and continue the game.

This is conceptually it, use of an alternative fall back strategy that leads to a desired outcome, but doesn’t physically use the idea of compartments.

It might though, a pro might have certain “sector lines” (as described in EZ-Go by Wilcox) as compartments in mind, as they chase a dragon.

@Groin

Two cases which contains the idea of shikiri:

position which use the miai concept.

Play on the 4th line: if your opponent invades then you get influence in return.

Both are great examples, it’s both a physical concept and conceptually and equal alternative. However, it is also the trivial answer as all of Go is kind of like: you do A so I do B, or vice versa, and both outcomes are equal (Assuming perfect play).

—-

In summary: I am looking for something that’s recognisable on the board as a compartmentalised fall back, as if looking at a map or a floor plan, yet the fall back leading to a close to equal outcome.

Considering that stones don’t move in Go, yet the whole concept of falling back is about stones (troops) moving, it might be far fetched to find a well fitting game situation.

[Counting_Zenist]

Go was really like planning for cities and towns (city building), or alliance forming that neutral territory can switch side if they got “cut-off” from trade. Military troop analogy is really not that fitting.

[Groin]

@JohnnieDarko

However, it is also the trivial answer as all of Go is kind of like: you do A so I do B, or vice versa, and both outcomes are equal (Assuming perfect play).

I don’t think so. There are sometimes no choices at all. Or more as 2 choices. The concept of miai has its usefulness.