PK Moa, mimetypeapplication/epub+zipPK M META-INF/PK M? META-INF/container.xml
White: Hashimoto Utaro 9-dan
Black: Fujisawa Shuko 9-dan
Komi: 5½ points
Date: 1976–12–02,03
Place: Played at the Fukudaya Inn in Tokyo.
Event: 1st Kisei Title
Round: Game 1
Commentary: Translated by John Power
Hashimoto approached at 4 instead of playing in the empty corner in order to prevent Fujisawa from following his favorite “Chinese-style” fuseki pattern by playing at A or B.
The sequence to 14 is a joseki which has been in popular use since the time of the 4th Honinbo, Dosaku (1645–1702). The unexpected move at 15, however, is labeled as a ‘fake’ in most joseki dictionaries, where pushing up from 9 is given as the ‘only move’. 15 is regarded as being light but lacking in forcefulness.
Shuko’s comment: I’m sure that Honinbo Jowa (1787–1838) played 15. Kato Masao has also played it.
If I play the usual move at 1 in Dia. 1, White’s two-step hane of 2 and 4 is very severe.
Also, I was worried that White might ignore 1 and take the good point of 2 in Dia. 2.
The usual move is the extension to A, but Hashimoto did not want Black to get sanren-sei by playing on the middle star-point at the top.
This threatens A and B.
Go Seigen, who commented on the game for the Yomiuri reporter, was astonished by this move. He felt that the ordinary move at 1 in Dia. 3 was good enough.
The sequence here leads to a leisurely game.
White 18 is perhaps an expression of the intense fighting spirit being directed into this game. Hashimoto is giving tit for tat for Shuko’s unusual move of 15.
Go Seigen was again surprised by Black 19. ‘This is how I would play’, he said, indicating the sequence in Dia. 4.
Black 5 here is a good extension and Black can still aim at the cutting point at A.
Black 19 was Shuko’s counter to Hashimoto’s aggressiveness, but in his own commentary on the game in ‘Kido’, he agreed that he should have peacefully followed the sequence in Dia. 4.
After 19, the sequence to 25 is forced.
Go Seigen criticized Black 27 as a vulgar move unworthy of Fujisawa. He advocated the sequence in Dia. 5, which would have made things tougher for White.
Shuko: ‘My first impulse was to play 1 and 3 etc. in Dia. 5, but I became infatuated with the thickness Black gains by taking a firm grip on the white stone with 29 in the game.’
‘I also felt that the all-out checking extension at A was very powerful.’
Thanks to Shuko’s play here, Hashimoto was able to get in the good extension to 30. He can look forward to attacking at A later on.
Since White has a narrow two-space extension, attaching at 31, letting White solidify himself with 32, is permissible.
White 34: A dubious move. Hashimoto expected Fujisawa to answer but the most pressing problem at the moment is erasing Black’s thickness at the bottom.
Go Seigen and Sakata agreed that White A was the only move. Black agreed also, as he needed no second invitation to play 35. This move works very effectively with his thickness on the right.
White 38 shows fighting spirit. A steady player might extend to A but this would be out of keeping with Hashimoto’s rebellious nature.
However, Black also obstinately ignored 38.
White cannot ignore Black 39, as Black has a painful follow-up blow at A or B.
Black 43: The conventional move is to push up at 1 in Dia. 6.
If 2, Black pushes once more at 3, expanding his lower side moyo, then extends to 5. However, Fujisawa did not like this sequence.
White 44 depresses Black’s position but this way his territory is more secure. On the other hand, the sequence in Dia. 6 weakens Black’s left side group and the possibility of a white invasion is worrying.
Black 47: Getting life with 1 in Dia. 7 is easier.
White may invade at 2 but Black can make a two-step hane with 7 and capture two stones.
White 48. A good move. If at 51, Black will jump to 48. The sequence to 55 is forced. If Black answers 54 at 56, he is captured in the sequence shown in Dia. 8.
White 58: If at 1 in Dia. 9, Black answers at 2 and the sequence to 10 is a possibility.
White captures two stones but they are not worth as much as Black’s capture with 10.
Go Seigen’s opinion was that Hashimoto regained some of his lost ground in the exchange in the top left corner. White 60 and 62 next were good forcing moves, but White 64 was in his opinion a dubious move. Hashimoto should have invaded at A in the top right corner.
If Black 2 in Dia. 10, Go Seigen hypothesized the sequence to 13. This strips Black of all his area at the top.
White 68 answered Black’s forcing move with one of his own. If he answers 67 at A, Black descends at B and the game becomes very favorable for him.
Black 69: Hashimoto was taken aback by this move as he had expected Black to connect, whereupon he planned to attack at 69 himself. Actually, in this position 68 and 69 are more or less miai points.
Black 71 is a big point which puts Black into the lead.
White 74 was the sealed move at the end of the first day. White has no choice but to block at 74.
If he jumps at 1 in Dia. 11, Black turns at 2, then wedges in at 4. The sequence to 18 in Dia. 12 then follows.
Black captures two stones on the side, while White is not yet completely alive in the corner because of Black A, White B, Black C.
Black 77: A well-timed move which kills two birds with one stone, strengthening Black’s group while eating away at White’s eye-base.
White 80: If at A, Black seals him in with 82 and White has to add a move in the corner. If he does not, Black kills him with the sequence in Dia. 13.
Black makes ‘gomoku-nakade’ or a lump of five stones inside the white group, depriving it of eye-shape. White therefore has to jump out at 80.
Black 83, guaranteeing life for this group, is the kind of safety-first move one makes when one is confident that one is ahead. At this stage Black seems likely to get about 50 points while White only has around 25.
White 84 is a strong move.
If Black answers at 1 in Dia. 14, White lives in the corner with the sequence to 8.
To stay in the game Hashimoto has to get a lot of points at the top. 84 was the first step towards achieving this — the second was 86. If White plays 86 at 87, Black plays 86 himself and it becomes very difficult for White to get many points at the top.
Black secured his group with 87 and 89, while solidifying his territorial lead, but White got sente at the expense of a stone.
White resumed operations at the top with 92. Instead of 93, Black 1 in Dia. 15 was also possible.
The result is a ko but Black seems to have more ko threats. Fujisawa decided not to take any chances.
White swallowed up the two black stones at the top, arousing speculation that he had staged an upset, but Fujisawa was ready with the decisive blow.
When White played 110, most of the professionals following the game anticipated Black A next.
The surprising move at 111 struck most people at first as an overplay but actually the ensuing sequence decisively settled the game in Black’s favor. Go Seigen commented that the exquisite play here showed Fujisawa at his best.
White 114: If White cuts at 1 in Dia. 16, the continuation is very difficult.
If 3, Black, makes the forcing move at 4, then cuts at 6. White has to reinforce at 9, so 10 to 14 follow and Black should win (14 at A is also possible).
Again, if White plays 3 on the other side, as in Dia. 17, the sequence to 18 follows. Black discards his six stones at the top but picks up the white group on the left.
Black 17 is the vital point for reinforcing Black in the center and for attacking the white group.
Black next switched to the bottom, threatening the white group here also.
Black 31 threatens to kill the white group by playing at A. If White reinforces here, however, Black encloses at B and White is hopelessly behind in area.
White decided to fight to the last and resolutely invaded at 32.
Black 33: Answering at A was good enough to secure a win in the opinion of the professionals following the game, but Ishida Yoshio made an interesting comment. ‘The first game in a seven-game series is important. If you crush the opponent without compromising at all, the later games are easier. Throwing a real scare into him is quite a help.’
Black 35 seems to be threatening a three-way attack but White valiantly persists. With 40 he threatens to pull out his single stone, creating the possibility of attacking the whole black group at A later on. However, Black goes ahead and takes away White’s eyes with 41.
Black 49: If Black omits this move, White lives with the sequence in Dia. 18.
Black 53: Black 1 in Dia. 19 is no good.
White cuts at 2, then squeezes with 4 and 6. The continuation is long but pretty well all forced. Black wins the capturing race with 17 and 19, but White makes the big move at 20, followed by 22 and 24, all in sente, and so is able to get in the large move at A. The consensus of opinion was that this result makes the game favorable for White.
There was some anxiety among the Fujisawa supporters but he had completely read out the variations here.
If White answers with 1 in Dia. 20, Black wins the capturing race with 2 to 6.
Alternatively, if White 1 and 3 in Dia. 21, the sequence to 14 follows. White and Black both have six liberties, but when White plays A, Black cuts at B and can also cut at C. This actually puts him two moves ahead in the capturing race. Moreover, White cannot get a squeeze in the center.
On seeing Black 53, Hashimoto thought for two minutes then resigned.
Go Seigen’s summing up: ‘This game was short but both players put everything they had into it. The fighting in the top and bottom right and the top left corners was full of subtlety, making this an impressive game. The way Fujisawa wound up the game, in particular from 111 on, showed the true worth of “Fujisawa the artist”. This was a convincing win for Black.’
Time taken:
White: 6 hours 38 minutes
Black: 6 hours 30 minutes
153 moves. Fujisawa Shuko wins by resignation.
© 2011 by John Power
John Power
Buy the full book at gobooks.com
Fujisawa Shuko was one of Japan’s top players from the 1960s. Among his contemporaries, he ranks with Go Seigen and Sakata Eio for his creativity and the depth of his understanding of go. His two greatest achievements were becoming the first tournament Meijin in 1962 and winning the first six terms of the Kisei title from 1977 to 1982. Shuko won this title against Hashimoto Utaro at 52, an age at which most pros are washed up as title contenders. He went on to defend this title against challenges from most of the young stars of the day (Kato Masao, Ishida Yoshio, Rin Kaiho, and Otake Hideo) who were dominating all the other titles.
The Games of Fujisawa Shuko presents all 40 games that Fujisawa played in the Kisei title matches, including the seven in which he was dethroned by Cho Chikun. Most of these games were first published in Go World, but two against Hashimoto never appeared there and one had only an extremely brief commentary. John Power has provided new commentaries for these games to make this volume complete.
Shuko was a player of great originality, with an unmatched intuitive grasp of the essence of go. He was the player other professionals consulted when a fuseki or middle-game problem was to difficult for them. He was a great exponent of thickness and had a knack for astonishing other professionals with the boldness of his ideas, especially in the transition from the fuseki to the middle game.
Studying and playing through these games will give you an appreciation of the profundity of go as well as an appreciation of the genius of Fujisawa Shuko.
This ePub reader does not support full scripting, so diagrams may not be interactive.
PK M OPS/css/PK MYq q OPS/css/style.css/* CSS for Go Books – https://gobooks.com */ /* Copyright © 2018 Smart Go, Inc. All rights reserved. */ html { text-rendering: optimizeLegibility !important; } h1, h2, h3 { -webkit-hyphens: none !important; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5 { page-break-after: avoid !important; } h1, h2, h3 { page-break-before: always; } .break { page-break-before: always; } .nobreak { page-break-before: avoid; } h1 { font-size: 1.65em; font-weight: bold; margin: 0 0 1.2em 0; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase; } h2 { font-size: 1.3em; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0 0.8em 0; text-align: center; } h3 { font-size: 1.05em; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.6em 0 0.4em 0; } h4 { font-size: 1em; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.6em 0 0.4em 0; } h5 { font-size: 1em; margin: 1.2em 0 0.4em 0; } .s1 { font-size: 1.3em; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; margin: 1.4em 0 1.6em 0; } .s2 { font-size: 1.22em; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; margin: 1.2em 0 1.2em 0; } p { line-height: 1.3em !important; margin: 0.8em 0 0.8em 0; } div, figure, svg, figcaption { padding: 0; margin: 0; } ul, ol { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; } video { text-align: center; } section.chapter { page-break-after: always; } a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active { color: #000a80 !important; text-decoration: none; -webkit-text-fill-color: #000a80; } hr { text-align: center; border: none; margin-top: 1.3em; } hr::after { content: "\2767"; color: #dedede; font-size: 1.5em; } div.cover { text-align: center; } img.cover { max-width: 100%; } img { width: auto; height: auto; } figure.svg { width: 100%; height: auto; } figure { page-break-inside: avoid; max-width: 100%; max-height: 75%; margin: 0; padding: 0; } figcaption { text-align: center; font-style: italic; font-size: 0.89em; color: #666666; line-height: 1em; text-indent: 0; } .disabledLink { color: #666666; } .underline { text-decoration: underline; } .center { text-align: center; } .left { text-align: left; } .right { text-align: right; } .firstindent { text-indent: 1em; } .tail { margin-right: 10em; } .block { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; } .indent { margin-left: 2em; } .bullet { padding-left: 4em; text-indent: -4em; } .bulletempty { padding-left: 4em; } .text { margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.2em; text-indent: 1em; } .first { margin-bottom: 0.2em; } .error { color: red; } .dia90 { width: 90%; max-height: 100%; } .dia75 { width: 75%; max-height: 100%; } .dia66 { width: 65%; max-height: 100%; } .dia50 { width: 46%; max-height: 100%; } .dia33 { width: 30.6%; max-height: 100%; } .img75 { max-width: 75%; height: auto; } .img50 { max-width: 50%; height: auto; } .img33 { max-width: 33%; height: auto; } .img30 { max-width: 30%; height: auto; } .border { border: thin solid #333; } .shadow { box-shadow: 3px 3px 3px 0px #bbb; } figure.center { display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 0.5em; } figure.middle { display: inline-block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 0.5em; } figure.left { float: left; display: inline-block; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 4%; padding-bottom: 0.5em; } figure.right { float: right; display: inline-block; margin-right: 0; margin-left: 4%; padding-bottom: 0.5em; } div.center { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; } div.left { float: left; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 4%; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; } div.right { float: right; margin-right: 0; margin-left: 4%; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; } .col1 { float: left; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 4%; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; } .col2 { float: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; } .col3 { float: right; margin-right: 0; margin-left: 4%; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; } .fig { page-break-inside: avoid; } .replay { position: relative; float: left; width: 100%; height: 0px; top: -1em; visibility: hidden; overflow: visible; } .slider { margin-left: 3%; width: 30%; display: inline-block; visibility: hidden; overflow: visible; } .prev { float: right; margin-right: 3%; display: inline-block; visibility: hidden; overflow: visible;} .next { float: right; margin-right: 3%; display: inline-block; visibility: hidden; overflow: visible;} .group { page-break-inside: avoid; } .group::after { content: ""; clear: both; display: table; } button { margin: 0; } #epub-check { background-color: #DDDDDD; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid black; margin-top: 2em; } .box { background-color: #E6E6E8; border: 2px solid #4C4F4F; padding: 16pt; page-break-inside: avoid; } .hint svg { float: left; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 0.5em; padding: 0 0 0.5em 0; width: 32px; } .hint p { visibility: hidden; } .t5b2 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.2em; } .t8b2 { margin-top: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 0.2em; } PK Mr>d` ` OPS/ch2.xhtmlFujisawa Shuko (1925–2009, affectionately referred to as Shuko) was one of Japan’s top players from the 1960s. Among his contemporaries, he ranks with Go Seigen and Sakata Eio for his creativity and the depth of his understanding of go. His two greatest achievements were becoming the first tournament Meijin in 1962 and winning the first six terms of the Kisei title from 1977 to 1982. Shuko won this title against Hashimoto Utaro at 52, an age at which most pros are washed up as title contenders. He went on to defend this title against challenges from most of the young stars of the day (Kato Masao, Ishida Yoshio, Rin Kaiho, and Otake Hideo) who were dominating all the other titles.
Shuko was perhaps most famous for the flamboyance of his lifestyle, being addicted to drinking and gambling and running up enormous debts. He was a legendary drinker, but he summoned up extraordinary willpower, going on the wagon a month before each of his Kisei title defences.
The Games of Fujisawa Shuko presents all 40 games that Fujisawa played in the Kisei title matches, including the seven in which he was dethroned by Cho Chikun. Most of these games were first published in Go World, but two against Hashimoto never appeared there and one had only an extremely brief commentary. John Power has provided new commentaries for these games to make this volume complete.
The most memorable of Shuko’s Kisei defences was the 2nd Kisei title match in 1978. Shuko started badly and fell behind 1–3 against the challenger Kato Masao. He then began the most courageous fightback of his career, playing with extraordinary determination and fighting spirit. Normally a fast, intuitive player, Shuko played with great deliberation and controlled aggression. He made bad shape (an empty triangle) in an effort to kill an invading group, then devoted just under three hours to reading out the decisive move. Kato’s group died, and the tide of the match turned in Shuko’s favor.
Shuko became celebrated as the player who stayed on top by winning just four games a year. After each successful defence, he seemed to spend the rest of the year in an alcoholic haze. Not surprising, his results in other tournaments were abysmal. However, at the end of each year he would go on the wagon in time to “dry out” for the title match starting early in the new year, and then he would produce more of the majestic go that made him the undisputed number one.
It began to seem as if Shuko’s reign might continue forever, but his undoing came in the 7th title match at the hands of Cho Chikun. Shuko had taken a 3–0 lead in the title match, but then Cho staged the most miraculous upset in go history, winning the next four games.
Shuko was a player of great originality, with an unmatched intuitive grasp of the essence of go. He was the player other professionals consulted when a fuseki or middle-game problem was to difficult for them. He was a great exponent of thickness and had a knack for astonishing other professionals with the boldness of his ideas, especially in the transition from the fuseki to the middle game.
Studying and playing through the games in the iPad format in which this book is presented, while referring to the commentaries that accompany them, will give you an appreciation of the profundity of go as well as an appreciation of the genius of Fujisawa Shuko.
Richard Bozulich
September 2011
Buy the full book at gobooks.com
© 2011 by John Power
PK M OPS/js/PK ML OPS/js/gobooks.js// Replay diagrams in Go books – https://gobooks.com // Copyright © 2018 Smart Go, Inc. All rights reserved. var runEPubScripts = function() { var ePubCheck = document.getElementById('epub-check'); if (!ePubCheck) { return; } var ePubInfo = "This ePub reader supports JavaScript, but not the full ePub reading system. Interactive diagrams may work."; ePubCheck.innerHTML = ePubInfo; var rso = navigator.epubReadingSystem; if (!rso) { return; } ePubInfo = ""; var name = rso.name; if (name) { ePubInfo += name; } var version = rso.version; if (version) { ePubInfo += " " + version; } var hasDomManipulation = rso.hasFeature("dom-manipulation"); var hasMouseEvents = rso.hasFeature("mouse-events"); if (!hasDomManipulation || !hasMouseEvents) { if (!hasDomManipulation) { ePubInfo += "The first game of the new Kisei title was eagerly awaited by the Japanese Go public. Great things were expected because of the Go style of the pair matched in the playoff. Neither Shuko nor Hashimoto are percentage players, that is, the type which avoids anything unusual or risky but which clings on tenaciously even in unfavorable positions in the hope of being able to edge the opponent out in the endgame. Both are known for their highly individual styles — Shuko for his strong emphasis on thickness in the fuseki and early middle game and for his intuitive flair in open, ‘unreadable’ positions; Hashimoto for his rapid development, his all-or-nothing fighting spirit, and his ability to stagger his opponent with bold and unpredictable attacking moves. As the reader will see, these two artists of the Go board produced a difficult and fascinating game.
PK Mʎs OPS/ch1.xhtmlPublished by
Kiseido Publishing Company
CPO Box 1140
Tokyo, Japan
Copyright © August 2011 by John Power
All rights reserved according to international law. This book and parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.
Much of this material is based on articles in Go World.
Conversion to SmartGo Books by John Mifsud
Cover design by John Mifsud
PK M OPS/img/PK Mg"u "u ! OPS/img/sg0010_ki_shuko_cover.jpg JFIF tExif MM * > F( i N H 8Photoshop 3.0 8BIM 8BIM% ُ B~ ICC_PROFILE appl mntrRGB XYZ acspAPPL APPL -appl desc P bdscm cprt #wtpt rXYZ gXYZ bXYZ rTRC aarg vcgt 4 0ndin d >chad ,mmod (bTRC gTRC aabg aagg desc Display mluc &