Thursday, February 6, 2014

Rosario and Manga





Yukigami here~



I came to a pretty obvious conclusion just now while studying for my 6pm Fantasy and Horror midterm.

I should read the Rosario and Vampire manga! Even though I had the conclusions spoiled for me, they sound like what I'd wished for for the story as a continuation of the dissatisfyingly inconclusive anime ending.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

That famous (infamous...) old debate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Bill Nye debates with Ken Ham over the question,
"is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?"




My thoughts:

For those of you who would take the Ken Ham (pro-Creationism) side of the debate,
please forgive me.

Here is what I think after watching the first 60-70% of the debate (I will finish the video and edit this post sometime soon, maybe when I get home from classes).

Mr. Ham spends a great portion of his time showing some examples of Creationists who happen to be great scientists, that Creationism doesn't stop some people from being great scientists. The debate, however, was not about whether or not Creationists can function as scientists! The debate is about the validity/viability of the Creation model. Denying this model is not equivalent to denying the ability of Creationists to function as scientists. In fact, just as Ham says, aside from when it comes to finding the age of living things, objects, and materials we find on the planet, it's probably true that Creationism won't really get in the way of successful scientific thinking.

He does, however, point out (admit) that although we may use the same evidence in our studies, we will come to different conclusions. Mr. Ham believes in the story of Noah's Arc - that two of each animal were all collected and boarded onto a huge, enormous wooden boat created by eight normal people that out-sizes any boat we've ever been able to build up to now, even with a great number more people with a great deal more expertise. Somehow, two of every animal (Bill Nye states that Ham is claiming 14,000 animals in total here) were boarded on an unrealistically huge wooden boat in order to survive a huge, huge flood...for a year! Nye cleverly remarks later, using Kangaroos as an example (Ham is Australian), about the location of all the animals after the biblical flood, and how there is absolutely no physical evidence at all of Kangaroos having traveled from that location to Australia, nor a bridge of land across which to travel to it.

Let me add this - does that mean that before then, there were only exactly two of every animal, and they had never reproduced, died, or anything? But I don't know much about the bible, so I'll just continue on with the nutshell summary.

Nye adds a bunch of examples of things we find lying all over the place there are definitely older than Ham's bible claims the Earth to be; Mr. Ham believes the Earth itself is a mere 6,000 years old. I'm sorry, but that is just funny. Nye explains using ice and rock layers and natural wonders such as The Grand Canyon as examples with which to refute the arguments of Ham. He also explains by mentioning the huge number of different species that exist. This point is effective because Ham denies evolution. Nye shows through basic math that, in Ham's model that alots humans a mere ~4,000 years of history, there would have to be 11 new species every single day on average in order to meet today's vast plethora of world species.

Ham uses a lot of points against Nye's case that in all truth could be easily reciprocated by Nye at will; Ham fervently argues that our terminology, particularly the words "science" and "evolution" have been "hijacked", and continues also that when referring to our scientific statements about the past, our scientific "observation" is not so because some things were not directly "observed", and thus redefines it as "historical observation". Or something...

He complements this by stating that Creationists like him are more than willing to admit to their belief as, well, "belief"; Ham also refers to Creationism - "God's Word" - as "historical observation". He concedes that.

Well of course you concede that. The system is based on a book...

Mr. Ham in the video can't help but laugh when displaying in his presentation how Creationism and science are constantly termed as separate (or even opposite) things. But well, Creationism is based on a book.

A book.

Creationism is based on The Bible, a book full of supernatural events, supernatural power, hard-to-believe tales, and, well, let's not forget that it leaves no room for other religions or things like homosexuality. Ham himself implies/brings up to the supernatural-ness of Creationism.

Secular science is all based on direct physical observations, and everything based on more "indirect" observations  are based on strong  physical evidence and sound logic. Additionally, Because the fields of study under the name of (secular) science are all unified and synergistic, every major advancement in one field tends to expand and increase confidence for every other field. Natural science has the advantage of that kind of synergistic solidarity.

Ham very passionately wishes for the secularists to admit that some of their "observations" can be considered "belief", as some of it is not directly observable. But I think a lot of us can argue with fair power that a lot of our "indirect observations", such as the age of a given fossil, transcend the status of mere "belief" in that there is strong enough physical and logical evidence to call them "facts" with a large confidence margin. In fact, science is interesting and believable because facts and concepts from most or all of the secular scientific fields of study tend to interconnect like giant spider webs.

It seems like Ham has come not to debate about the viability of the Creation model, but to plea for the legitimacy of scientific work by creationists, a second look at our terminology, increased scrutiny and suspicion toward the education system, and for us to admit that there is sometimes a certain degree of "belief" attached to our scientific claims.

Sure, maybe some of our scientific facts or ideas that are not-quite-100.0%-proven can thusly be reduced to the status of "belief", they're still made pretty believable and logical using vast and concrete evidence and logic, are not supernatural, and furthermore are more than mere passages from a single glorified bundle of human-written pages (that's right, I didn't say man-written, so take that, too!). If we are to reduce our science to belief - that is, reduce it down to the same level at which Ham himself concedes that Creationism stands - what would stop us then from considering the prospect of our own nonexistence, of our own consciousness or... What is there to prove to us that we're not all inside of a videogame? Maybe it's God's videogame? I'm sure it's not PG-13.

Ham also directly stated that he wishes for us to believe in the supernatural as much as the natural. He has also thereby implied that our scientific methodology is "natural", then, and that Creationism is not. He implies this even despite his adamance in having us question the very "natural" quality of our "science."

Even if God exists or existed, I doubt he'd be as righteous as the Bible and its advocates make him (or her!) out to be. With all the horrors, tragedies, and misfortune in the world, wouldn't it be more logical and rational to assume that this "God" is a more neutral being? If he created everything and not just humans, I hardly think he/she should be so well-conformed to our most "good" virtues and ideals. This is a whole other debate I guess, but let me just put it out there that perhaps "good" and "bad" as absolute virtues are exclusively human thoughts - or if not, exclusive to a small percentage of the total number of species on the planet, even excluding micro-organisms. If Creationism wants to be a science too, well then, for starters it should probably take a more neutral stance when it comes to these virtues and how they pertain to God him/her self. But I guess to them, even that notion is rubbish since I used the word "her."

One more thing, something I have to bring up because so many Creationism advocates so illogically do so:

"If the universe originated from a single cell (or atom, or however their wish to quote us Big Bang-believing seculars), where did that cell come from?"

They may use this same example in arguing the origin of humanity.

Well, this may happen to some people in debates when their emotions and/or sheer blindness and refusal to admit even a hint of the possibility of their beliefs being proven false, but...

Can't...we...say the same thing back to you? Where did God come from, who or what was it that created him?? He can't just go "poof!" and suddenly appear in the middle of, what for the sake of his own awesome poof!-ness, must be the center of all nothingness. If Creationists even think of making that silly claim, then they should not dare to call this religion a "science", and nor can science be infused with it. This is what I mean when I mentioned how Ham doesn't get into any concrete explanatory details about this Creation he so adamantly advocates. It's not as though the silly, easily-countered question about the single cell is something necessarily representative of Mr. Ken Ham and his claims, but it is a very common (but very illogical and pointless) attempt by many casuals to defend the Creationist paradigm.

I have nothing personally against Creationism, but despite being the over-imaginative writer and dreamer that I am, I in this case tend to be more inclined to believe what I see. I find Ham's arguments lacking in concreteness - and they are. So far, Ham has done nothing to concretely explain the logistics of the bible's, well...
Outrageous tales.

Please don't hate me.

I look forward to watching the rest of this video!

If you find anything I've said harsh, please take note that everything I've said is based on a rational approach to this debate - and debates, by their rational and hopefully unemotional virtue, are a fun thing for me in either watching or partaking in.

So what I mean is... If you want to prove things, if you want to deny things, if you want to argue things... If you wish to engage in and properly carry out an intellectually oppositional discussion - i.e. a debate - you need to temporarily become as emotionally removed as possible. There is little room for emotion in an intellectual debate - nevermind a scientific one.


Thanks!


~Yukigami 


P.S. 


BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL-Bill Nye the Science Guy~~

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Trinity Cross and High Volume

You really need some good, high volume to really experience all the instruments (incl. voice) ~ ! !




From Youtube:
Rosario + Vampire: Ending 2 - Trinity Cross

Full Song: 
Trinity Cross (Full)





だろう?


言っていること分かるだろう~


分かるよなー~


音がちゃんと別々にきこえないと、おもろい経験にならねーだろう


だって、曲の中に話しているのは人間だけじゃねー。












 





~Yukigami

Monday, February 3, 2014

Teaching

Teaching


I've been teaching Go for at least five years now, and over that span of time my teaching has continually improved. These days I get a lot of very positive and flattering feedback (thank you~).

I believe it is important to focus on concepts and real understanding rather than case-by-case tactical explanations. It is just the same for academic studies, and really life itself - and speaking of which, let me just throw it in here that Go not only provides deep mental and personal cultivation, but also is really analogous  to life!

I believe that more so than just a having deep understanding of Go, teaching it requires the ability to put oneself in the student's shoes. Furthermore, with a little creativity, a Go teacher can complement explanations through use of various fun and relatable analogies and metaphors - it is very important to comprehend and discern the situational as well as the long-term needs of the student.

As for English, I've taught a few people in the past, but for the most part have just started tutoring in early 2013. For both Go and English (I can also tutor Japanese for very low-level beginners), I have some typical formats in which I teach, but can teach in any other format as well - I am open to mostly anything.



RATES...

...are open to discussion!

But in general, for real-time lessons, I charge about $20/hour. Travel time/expenses not included.


If you have any questions, please, feel free to contact me!
You can email me, contact me via my other social media, or even easier -  fill out the "Talk to Yuki" form on the right sidebar (it can be found on the right, close to the top if you scroll up a bit)



This page is still under construction, and will eventually include more details and links to other related information and sources of credibility such as past lessons, feedback and more!


~Yukigami

Upcoming Posts

Herein lies a list of not-even-all the blog posts I've thought up that I need to get around to writing up soon. This list will not prove chronological. Furthermore, I will post whatever I want regardless of what is contained in this list; this here merely serves as a spoiler for a large number of posts that I have prioritized and am sure to follow through on.



Here's the rough list:

Please talk to me, tell me what you'd like me to post about! This goes for all Nevermeltice topics, especially Go!



  • Joseki Explained: "Cattle Wall" Joseki (to complement and complete a basic introduction to the Joseki, "Separated in the Subway")
  • Yukigami's teaching information (for now, just basic information for those interested)
  • Popular poetry
  • Joseki Explained:"Sharing Six" and "Sharing Seven" Joseki
  • Commentary: My Tygem Games, Part I
  • Fuseki Explained: Building Moyo
  • Reducing Moyo
  • Invading Part I
  • Invading Part II
  • Invading Part III
  • Opening Explained Series, Part I
  •  Yukigami's "Projects" page
  • My Go Career
  • Concept Art: Yukigami is looking for artists!
  • Yukigami in a Nutshell
  • Fuseki Explained: (unknown name)
  • Fuseki Explained: Kobayashi Part I
  • Yukigami on the Web
  • Go videos by Yukigami (look forward to it~)
  • Reading ahead: Stones?? Er, uh...
  • Gallery (I will fill it up with a bunch of internet art I like, divided into linked sections)
  • Yukigami's MyAnimeList (Saber0)
  • About my story writing
  • More on Yukigami: A huge, unnecessary summary!
  • Many posts to make: My Tygem games, commented
  • Examples of my Go teaching (game records, explanations, lectures etc.)
  • Go and Personality; Go psychology
  • Opening Explained: A Classic Territorial Opening
  • Why Play Go?
  • Visualization for Go
  • Ways to think in Go
  • How best to solve Tsumego
  • Joseki Explained: All About the 3-5
  • Hataraku Maou-sama Episode 1
  • Amagami SS
  • Amagami SS+
  • Yukigami's Favourite Anime Characters Explained
  • Fate Zero: Very Essay-worthy (My school essay)
  • Fate Zero (super hardcore expanded essay)
  • Yukigami and Japanese
  • Lang-8
  • Huge super article themed around: education, life choices, philosophy, worldview, logic, guidance, dreams, job market etc.
  • Custom-real Magic
  • Custom MTG!
  • Custom EDH
  • Some MTG customs by Yukigami
  • My MTG Decks and preferences
  • Magic the Gathering and The Five Colours: MTG and Personality!
  • Myers-Briggs, Jung Tests
  • Pathfinder, my introduction to it
  • Favourite Magic cards
  • Pokemon Cards: Blastoise Forever!
  • Yu-Gi-Oh: My short-lived experience, lost God-card?
  •  Planning more banners
  • Help with code?
  • Yukigami and CompSci
  • Pathfinder adventures written as a story
  •  Fate/End Blue (name in progress) Fate AU fanfic story
  • Hunter x Hunter: Old vs. New
  • Go Style
  • Dressing well?
  • All Nevermeltice search labels/tags
  • All my story characters!
  • Post about every Pathfinder/role-play experience, including story, characters, etc.
  • Fate/End Blue (my fanfic)
  • Yukigami Opening ("The Box"), and development/theory
  • Magic: Blue cards are bleautiful!
  • Suiting up!
  • Yukigami: teaching style
  • Favourite Anime Explained
  • Gundam SEED
  • Why "Yukigami"?
  • Japanese music, and songs I love
  • Magic: Custom land art!
  • Yukigami: My common Joseki choices
  • Yukigami's "7-Dan Survey"
  • Yukigami's Colours Survey
  • Yukigami's Go Style Survey; Go and Personality (Again)
  • Some really nice art from the internet, posted for viewing pleasure
  • Joseki Explained: Many, many more! I will be writing up these explanations for tens or hundreds or Joseki!
  • Go Explained Series: want visual effects? diagram addition or alteration?
  • Love Lilycove: Chapter I
  • Jackie!: Chapter I
  • Love Lilycove: Chapter 2
  • Yukigami no Go (Hikaru no Go post)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yuki's Friends

This page is under construction.
It will contain links to friendly and partner blogs, descriptions etc.

Stay tuned!!


~Yukigami

Projects

This page is under construction.
It will contain all my current projects, such as my ongoing story Love Lilycove, my upcoming Youtube channel etc.

Stay tuned!!


~Yukigami

Yukigami on the Web

This page is under construction.
It will contain all my internet identities and involvement.

Stay tuned!!


~Yukigami

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Joseki Explained: Intro, Star Opening: Part I - "Separated in the Subway"

::To be updated soon with final edits::


Joseki Explained





Introduction





This will be the first of probably hundreds of Joseki of which I will be providing deep microanalyses, fully explaining every tactical, strategic, and conceptual choice behind individual moves in each pattern, in addition to the selection of each pattern as a whole. Every single play within these Joseki will be made understandable, and through use of them in our games, these two combined theoretical and practical sources of Joseki intel may then bring to fruition a deeper understanding and sense of comfort in applying these variations. The idea is to develop as much as possible a more innate understanding, allowing us to both apply and remember these moves better, and to assimilate the patterns into our play in terms of move functions rather than regurgitating them from memory. Joseki are useful only for the tactics, concepts and assessing ability we can derive from them. By having us learn in this way, I hope these analyses will prove helpful to the following ends:

  • Help us feel confident in our games and provide for us some essential Joseki to add to our arsenal for all future games. (while as stated above I do not advocate blind regurgitation of patterns, memorizing is sometimes the precursor to the derivation of Go skills.
  • Provide for us a relatively novel resource from which to gain a deeper understanding of all the moves involved in a given pattern.
  • Provide for players/teachers a resource with which to teach Joseki to others, or to which those others could be referred.
  • Coin new names for certain moves and patterns, providing us some assistance with visualizing and remembering them by categorizing them in less of a head-spinningly numerical manner and more of a memorable, nominally visual one.
  • Explain every detail of Joseki, allowing us to assimilate everything involved, such as:
    • Whole-board strategy
    •  Tewari analysis 
    • Situational assessment ability
    • Tesuji (for living, capturing, fixing, cutting, movement etc.)
    • Effective shapes
    • Efficiency of stones
    • Tactical/comparative advantage (eg. comparing a pattern with a similar or obsolete one)
    • The meanings of certain exchanges (eg. a move we normally aren't supposed to play but has some benefit specifically in said case - or otherwise, a move that seems random until knowing how it affects a local situation), and more.
  •  Thus, a resource with which players can study Joseki in a fruitful, comprehensive, and exhaustive manner leading to something far removed from a mere increase on our Joseki repertoire. In studying Joseki this way, we may increase our entire understanding of Go and thereby increase our Go winning power!

I am taking it upon myself to coin names for every Joseki I write about. This could allow us all to avoid those times when we're talking about Go with our friends and finding ourselves inconveniently having to spend a minute or more awkwardly trying to explain to them using references to shapes and coordinate.

Let's fill the holes of the English-speaking Go world!!

Please enjoy this continuous resource - there will be a lot more where this came from. Please assist me in spreading these documents around the internet and the Go community. I offer full permission to post these entries anywhere - just credit me somewhere (as Ben Mantle and/or as Yukigami) or make reference to my blog, Nevermeltice (http://ygami.blogspot.ca).



Thanks!




Joseki Explained




STAR OPENING






PART I
"Separated in the Subway"









The Joseki featured above is one variation resulting from white's approach move at (2). White (2), the "Knight's Move" ("keima" in Japanese), is the most common method of approaching the Star Opening corner at black (1). We very rarely approach in another fashion. The pattern we see above comes up extremely often in real games, including high-dan and pro games. It is important for beginners to learn this Joseki early on (probably before 10-kyu), even though there are more than 10 moves involved.





After black has started off with the star point corner move at (1), white's approach at (2) is basically the only method of approaching the corner, unless of course local or whole-board circumstances cause a more locally unorthodox play to become more advantageous.

Black (3) is a "pincer", causing white (1) to be under pressure from both sides by (1) and (3). Because of this, it becomes unfavourable for white to try to make a base (space for points/eye space) on the top edge, due to its relative futility. Below, we see white's range of normal responses:




The list of white responses from (A) to (E) are fairly exhaustive as far as "normal" moves go. Furthermore, (E) is a lot less common and typically more common in games in which white tries to overcome the disadvantages of a handicap game, and (B) is not uncommon, but allows black to stake out some territory on both the top and the right sides. C and D, some "double approach" moves for this situation, are common. However, they're more advanced in that they lead to a fair amount of complication, so we will get to them at some later point in this "Joseki Explained" series.
We will look at the most common continuation, which succeeds (A).




 In this situation, white has invaded at (4) on the 3-3 intersection of the corner, the typical invasion point which I refer to as "the heart of the corner". Black (B) chops (4) off from (2), and it becomes impossible to connect (4) back to (2) after that as long as black has anything to say about it - but we will see more about that soon.

If white tried to move in a more connected manner, such as white (A) or (B) rather than (4), black would respond with black (4) and white will have only helped black to secure the corner with (4) and will still be lacking sufficient eye space. Thus, white (4), allowing black a chance to cut white off with (B), is the best way to continue among those three choices, and as we will see, white by the end of the sequence will have found sufficient territory without any disadvantage from a local standpoint.

 Rather than cut with (B), black may choose (C) in order to begin making a wall that faces and emphasizes territorial development on the left side of the full board (just south of this local situation). The choice of black (C) leads to several variations all leading to white gaining the whole corner and black gaining a large wall facing south. A popular example variation is displayed below:



 Slightly off topic: for the above shape I coin "Cattle Wall".
 Maybe it should be called "Herding Sheep"?
Black gets an obvious wall, the formation is black and white of course, and if we flip the perspective...


The three black stones making up the double knight's move triangle form the part we can call a cow's head (perhaps including the nearest white stone). The vertical white stones represent the front legs, and the horizontal black stones and white stones represent some of the rest of the body, the three horizontal black stones being the cow's back.
Can you see it??


Continuing from where we left off,



Compared to the aforementioned alternative Joseki, in which black chooses to block the bottom side with (A) instead of cutting with (1), the variation we see here emphasizes the top edge of the board, building a black wall that faces and thus emphasizes the area to the left (west) of it. Black (1) is the best way to cut white's corner stone off from its ally. This is because:
  1. It is connected to the Star Corner stone, and by sharing liberties with it, prevents a liberty shortage for black, and;
  2. At the same time, it decreases the liberties of the white corner stone by touching it, and also limits the white corner group's ability to expand eye space.

    Because of these various effects of (1), White's fastest escape/expansion moves toward the most open area, (D) and (E), do not work well. If White (D), Black pushes in at (A) and when white blocks with (F), Black rips white apart with the atari at (G).



    As for E, it is low to the ground(near the edge) and thus surrounds little territory. Furthermore, there are a plethora of options here for black to take advantage of the corner stone's liberty shortage; even just black (C) is might be enough.
    White (B) and (C) are on the second line and seek eye space toward the top edge rather than the more open area down south along the right edge of the board. When compared with the real Joseki variation(as we'll see), these options are inferior.

    White (F) is the right idea, but is needlessly close to the edge in this case. On the other hand, White (A) is the simplest and best move. It increases the corner stone's and thus also its own liberties, it expands eye space as much as safely possible and avoids moving down needlessly to the second line, and it affects the black stones outside of it by decreasing their total remaining liberties from five to four as well. The shortening of liberties carries effects that sometimes take place later on, with increasing consequences as liberty counts are reduces to small numbers like 3, 2, 1, and of course zero.




    The correct move for black is to match face by extending to (3), keeping ahead of white as well as increasing black's own liberties.




    Normally, black wants to Hane here at (1). This is because a Hane - in this case usually continuing with white (D) and then black (E) - pushes white's territory down a line closer to the edge while increasing the size of the area around black's wall - thus increasing black's potential territory.

    While exchanging territory for wall is usually close to even (fair) when the territory is on the third line, 2nd-line territory is not worth trading a wall for at all, as it gains just one point at a time. Crawling on the second line is played often but for special reasons only, such as to reduce a finished territory,  obtain necessary extra eye space, prevent a forcing move (Sente) available to the opponent, etc.

    For example:



    Here is an unfinished sequence resulting from white invading black's Star Corner at the 3-3 intersection with (2). If white plays elsewhere after black (9), black can look for the right timing and play a forcing move at (A). Note that (C) directly is also sente. If black blocks at (B) to defend his eye space, (C) is now sente for black - black can capture the entire corner if white ignores again. For this reason, white expands the corner with the sequence of (A)(D)(B)(E) even though it gives black a very powerful outside shape, because it avoids a lot of painful sente moves available to black that fully block off both the top and the left sides of the board in sente. After white (6), the unhappy crawl at (8) is necessary in order to prevent black from playing a sente move at (8).


    Going back to the main discussion,


    in this situation black (1) is wrong. There is a cut at (C) for white that black must worry about this time, and the best way for white to exploit it is to first exchange white (A) - threatening to connect under to the original corner approach stone - for black (B), which blocks it off. White then cuts at (C).







    So white exchanges (2) for (3), then cuts at (4). As you will see, the cut at (4) is fairly devastating. Note that even if black ignores (2) to come back to connect at (4), white will connect up to his outside stone with white (3). We see this in the diagram below, on the left:




    LEFT:     White (4), preparing to cut at (5), is correct. Black may minimize losses by connecting at (5), allowing white passage to unite with (6), and this is generally the best way for black to salvage the situation after the mistake of black (3). But the result remains better for white.

    RIGHT:     The diagram on the right will be used for comparison; as we compare the two shapes, we see that white's total territory is greater in the diagram on the left.
    Black plays (1) in the diagram on the left in order to emphasize the left side of the board (below this corner), and only if black already has a stone one or around the left side star point (see below):




    As we can see in this diagram, black (7) works well with the wall black gets from the Joseki. The right side becomes well-constructed potential territory. If we imagine the other shape, however...



    ...We can see that black's total potential area on the right side is less this way. Furthermore, white's corner has yet to be sealed off. Lastly, the original pincer play by black, located just left of white's corner there, is no longer working efficiently. Black would have to add another move in order to properly block white off, and even then, this black stone is not in a very good place for developing the now-important right side.


    Thus, the result is unfavourable for black.


    Let's continue with the explanations! We are almost through all of the variations following the mistaken Hane.




    After white cuts at (4), black may try (5) or similar to save the group at (1), but white (6), by reducing the liberties of the other black group, captures it. Despite the disconnected and liberty-short appearance of the outside white stones such as (4) and (6), the capture of black (3) is clean:



    The diagram above shows us that black (1) does not begin a ladder; After black (3) and white (4), black's stone at (1) has been put into atari, so the ladder has failed.



    If black tries to connect back with (7), white easily foils this attempt with (8),  a basic Tesuji that takes advantage of the black group's liberty shortage; black cannot cut off white (8) from white (6), as this would put black's own stones into atari and get them captured by white.




    LEFT:     How about if black plays atari at (13), causing white (14), and then another atari at (15), taking advantage of the fact that the first atari at (13) reduced white (12)'s liberties?

    RIGHT:     Well, white connects at (16) and black can try to connect back with (17), but...
    Even though white can't wedge in between with (19) this time, white can just atari with (18), then capture everything cleanly with (2) - black has collapsed.




    Lastly, we have this variation.

    Black might instead attempt to save the larger cluster by playing (1), for example, but after white (2), black's original Hane stone is captured up to (4) and black suffers a large disadvantage in this variation as well.


    To conclude the analysis of the mistaken Hane then:





    Black should not play the Hane at (1), as it leads to major consequences.




    If we have already played the mistaken Hane, we should most definitely salvage the situation in the way shown in the above diagram.



    Let us return to the main discussion then.





    To refresh what was stated earlier, let's be reminded that (3) is the correct move for black because the Hane is mistaken and leaves behind a lethal cutting point.

    Continuing,




    White (4) is generally not correct, as this allows black to Hane at 5. Unlike the previous mistaken Hane we thoroughly analyzed, the addition of black (3) before playing Hane does not suffer the same immediate problem as did the black Hane at (4). With (5), white is pushed down to the second line at (6) and the local result starts to look favourable for black. This would seem especially the case if we compare the shape in this above diagram to the one from the completed, correct Joseki we are currently analyzing. Here is the comparison:




    RIGHT:     As we can see, the white on the right in the correct Joseki seems to surround more space and gets is out in the open with (5).
    LEFT:     On the left we can observe that white has been squished down to (6) by black (5) and (7), and yet once (4) has been placed down, white (6) is often a necessary play in order to prevent a black forcing move at (6), which would threaten white's eye space.

    In fact, After white (6) and black (7), a black "turn" to the right of (7), blocking off the side, reduces white (6) to three liberties and threatens to capture it (by then playing above [6]). Due to this, white will usually grovel on the second line once more to the right of (7) in order to prevent black from gaining a lot of points from that Sente play. In other words, white's best local continuation is at the same time a poor one, trading an increase on black's wall for 2nd-line one-at-a-time territory.

    Not only is white better and freer in the diagram on the right, but black's wall is also smaller.
    This, we can conclude that the variation in the left diagram is unfavourable for white.




    The previously discussed variation is precisely why in Go, we always want to stay "ahead" of our opponent. If we don't, we may get squished down by Hane plays or 90-degree turns, as we just saw.
    White does need to move out with the triangled stones, but how?

    The Knight's Move of white (E) instead of (1) is low (close to the edge, and thus lacking in territory and global impact/influence), and furthermore, black can respond to it with black (D) which, depending on how the sequence continues, either reverts to the right diagram from the just previously discussed two-diagram comparison, or leads to other consequences for white.

    Using the same logic to refute other considerations, we should naturally consider white (1) in the above diagram, as it gets ahead of black and is not dissatisfyingly close to the right edge of the board. Analyzing the shape we see that after black pushes at (2) and white naturally blocks at (3), white (1), (3), and the triangled stones each have only 3 liberties (as they are not connected by their liberties, and thus count as 3 separate "groups"). There are cutting points at (A) and (B), which black should immediately exploit.


    Offense is very often the greatest defense - this is especially true in Go!



    LEFT:     Continuing from the previous diagram, if black cuts at (5), white should atari at (6) if white wants to save the corner white stones. But because black (5) - now a sacrificial play - has reduced the white stone located above (7) to just two liberties, black (7) becomes an effective counter-atari; after white captures with (8), Black captures the outside white stone in a ladder with (9) and the result is superior for black. Whether or not there are problems with the ladder, black may also opt to simply extend at (A) in place of (9), which still yields a far superior result.

    RIGHT:     White can avoid the result in the right diagram by connecting at (1) in response to the cut of black (A), but black (2) completely captures the corner white stones, as we see in the continuation up to black (6). Moreover, the white group of (1) is not even strong yet.

    LEFT:     Black could also play (5) at (7), starting there instead. White should capture it with (A). After black plays the counter-atari at (5) - this time sacrificing black (7) -  white captures (7) by playing to the right of it, and black captures the corner stones with (6), which works as we see in the right diagram.

    However, this result allows white to become strong on the outside by capturing black (7), and this is more than black needed to offer to white even if the result is still acceptable or favourable.





    The correct way for both sides is shown in the diagram on the left, and the result is superior for black.




    Thus, white (1) in this diagram is incorrect. The idea to get out and ahead of black is correct, but white's stones lack the liberties to do so in this best of ways.




    So...
    How can white move out properly? It seems like we've already tried everything.

     .
    .
    .
    .



      

    Not exactly.






    This diagram shows the correct continuation for both sides, from start to finish. 

    As discussed in earlier variations, black should not allow white to connect to the friendly stone at (2). Thus, when white plays (8) and black plays (9), white can connect and expect black to also connect. White has gained liberties through these exchanges, and after black's connection at (11), white is able to jump over and get out with (12) because the push-and-cut for black no longer works. If black tries to push and cut this time, white just prioritizes the stone at (12) and black's inside stone(s) will not have enough liberties to win a capturing race against the white corner [(4),(6),(8),10)].





    I hope these explanations prove exhaustive and thorough, and thoroughly useful!
    We will continue with many more Joseki to come! 

    ...But it's not only limited to Joseki~

    "Cattle Wall" Joseki coming soon!


    Stay tuned! 


    ~Yukigami