Playing GCS as White

Playing as White in a handicap game is tricky - especially at the beginning of a game. Should you play moves that rely on your opponent to make mistakes? Or should you play moves that assume your opponent will respond correctly? The ideal solution is to select moves that are valid if answered correctly but, not only severely test the skill and knowledge of your opponent in order to invite mistakes, but also facilitate exploitation of those mistakes. Few amateur players have the skill or indeed the temperament to follow this ideal strategy. But GCS can help!

The analysis below examines the start of a nine stone game played between two equally strong amateur players, both following GCS. Consequently Black does rather well! However by studying the correct responses it is possible to see the principles in play. Against a weaker opponent and if the handicap were right, despite Black's adherence to GCS, White would be able to gradually erode Black's framework enough to stand an even chance of winning the game.

Invade!

Faced with twelve notional framework links what is White supposed to do? With no framework of his own he might consider playing a framework barrier - but because the framework links are notional, if played correctly, Black would gain from the exchange. White has no option but to invade!

White 1 is one way. It creates a presence in the centre of the board and indirectly provides strength in order to threaten the nearby framework links. Black's best response is to strengthen the corner framework stone. The game continues with similar exchanges up to white 9. This is another invasion, this time of the side, partly in order to occupy more of the board. Directly creating a framework barrier would be a little premature at this stage, so White has set Black a test! For example if Black next wrongly plays at
A then White could create the framework barrier with a stone at B.

Patience!

Black 10 is the correct response so White must remain patient for a little longer. With the sequence up to white 21, White defends his side stones. Any direct attempt to connect to white 1 would leave White open to an attack starting with undermining the side group's eye space.

Note that the white 15-17 sacrifice has achieved three things. First it allowed white 19 in sente (aiming at connection to white 1). Second it made Black's approaching of the white stones from
C impossible and from D gote. Third it leaves the possibility of the endgame play at E. (Black could have played differently but then different features would be exploited.)

The simplest continuation for Black is probably at
F. Then any attempt to break through below black 10 can be countered by threatening to cut through the white 9-21 link. But what would happen if Black should attack straight away with G?

Maintain flexibility!

Unpromising as it might seem, White could still connect all his side stones by responding to black 22 at H. This would lead to a long complicated sequence ending with the white stones being firmly hemmed in and two black side framework links solidly established. White wants to live but also wants to retain the possibility of forming a framework barrier or two. So with white 23 he offers Black a sacrifice stone. Should Black accept by playing black 24 at white 25, then White, by starting with a stone at H at least can make a more profitable life than otherwise possible. So black 24 denies White this option and after white 25, Black blocks White's route to the nearby centre white stone. White does not give up hope but, with white 27, has to come back to safeguard his side group. Black has options, but black 28 is perhaps the most secure. Next White settles his weak group in sente, and then sets the next test for Black with white 33. This utilises his now isolated single stone on the side, threatens to form a framework barrier, and in the longer term has the cuts at J and K to aim at.