![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Notional links |
||||
An actual link is one where, given perfect play from both sides, a connection can definitely be made. A notional link is one where, even given perfect play on the part of the defender, a connection cannot definitely be made but, at the very minimum, adequate compensation for the severance can be extracted. Hence, in an even game, it makes perfect sense for both sides to treat such a link as actual. However, in a handicap game, although all the framework links are initially notional, White might calculate that Black is not skilful enough to extract adequate compensation and accordingly invade a link. So how is Black meant to effectively respond? The trick is to use the same tactic, ostensibly for the same aims, as when responding to a similar invasion of an actual link. Here, due to the relatively large gaps, an attempt at a short connection sequence would probably be insufficient and merely serve to deepen the framework disconnection. It is highly desirable that the interloper be contained and preferably even killed. But it is very important not to play weak stones and thus allow the opponent to counterattack. In particular, it would be a mistake to neglect the health of adjacent links in an over-eager attempt to isolate the invading stones. Even when the adjacent links are secure, barrier stones should only ever be chased into what would otherwise become significant proponent territory if it is absolutely certain that they can be killed. More often than not, the correct tactic is merely to block the expansion of the invading stones leaving the threat of isolation should White become too bold. Then if Black doesn't play the position as well as White, the cautious approach will minimise White's gain. Given perfect play on both sides, when White invades a notional link the white stones will live but, by following GCS, Black will automatically gain full compensation. This compensation will take the form of solidified territory and firming up of adjacent links as well as an increase in indirect influence over the adjacent areas of the board. Although following GCS solves the problem of deciding when and what to attack, some beginners find it psychologically difficult to attack in a controlled manner. The advice is to think more boa constrictor than raging bull! In particular contact plays, unless having superior liberties or adequately supported by nearby stones, should be generally avoided. The best concept is one of undermining and limiting the opponent's eye space whilst maintaining strength. Strong proponent stones, i.e. ones that can connect to friendly stones, make nearby opponent stones weaker. Weak proponent stones, i.e. ones that are poorly connected, do the opposite. ¨Attacking from a safe distance |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |