Cut and Fight!

When Black has stones around on the outside and White approaches at 1, Black should play 2, securing the corner and not allowing White to settle easily. I've learned in the past from Guo Juan that when White attaches at 3, Black should make a good empty triangle with 4 and then cut at 6. Since Black has stones on the outside to help, the ensuing fight should be good for Black.


In one of my games in the London Open, my opponent played 3 here, instead of attaching. In the game, I played 4 at 7, but Black should still cut. The idea is the same: don't allow White to settle, and use your outside stones to gain the advantage in the fight. If White plays 7, Black simply extends to 8.


If White plays 7 here, Black makes a different empty triangle.


Even if White plays 3 as far away as N4, Black should still cut.

Joseki

I always panic when I see Black respond at 2 to White's pincer at 1. I know a bunch of variations (some quite complicated) to Black's response at A, but 2 always throws me for a loop.


I don't think it's worth getting so worked up about though. After exchanging 3 for 4, White can play at A or B.


Guo Juan said this is an "old joseki".


She said this one is "less old".

How does he get away with this stuff?

Buried in a "Christian Science Monitor" article are two paragraphs that are typical regarding the Bush administration. How is it that people don't pay attention to and become outraged at such things?

The first:

"The US can sustain this escalation indefinitely, provided that there is an increase in end strength, longer and more frequent deployments, greater reliance on the guard and reserve, more money for recruitment and retention, and further lowering of standards for recruits," says John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org. "All of this will cost time and money."

Um, and, is totally unacceptable?

The second (under the subtitle "Iran a factor in the plan?"):

One retired senior military officer looks at more forces going to the region, including Patriot missile batteries and equipment to counter antiship mines (neither of which would be useful against Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias in Iraq) and concludes that the Bush administration may have a broader agenda.

"equipment to counter antiship mines"? huh?

In case you thought PhDComics was far-fetched...

Here's a story about my advisor and two of his students. Both are Indian and they started the program at the same time, but they don't look alike, their personalities are totally different and they weren't working on the same projects.

For two or three years, they had been meeting with my advisor on a weekly basis, back-to-back. Every week, Baskar would go in and meet with Fred and then Aftab would go in whenever Baskar finished. They only had an hour slotted for each of them and Baskar started consistently using more than his allotted time. Aftab didn't want to interrupt, so he suggested that they switch, and he go first instead. So the following week, Aftab met with Fred first. When Baskar came in and was erasing what Aftab had written on the blackboard, he said, just conversationally, "Aftab and I switched places this week". Fred looked up, clearly confused. He paused, and then said, "That was Aftab?"

Fortunately, Fred has a good sense of humour, so the following week when Aftab came in and started his meeting by declaring pointedly, "I'm Aftab", Fred just laughed.

Of course, I wasn't there--perhaps the final frame shows Prof. Smith, leaning back in his armchair, chuckling to himself.