Connection and Separation
A fundamental Go strategy involves keeping stones connected. Connecting a group with one eye to another one-eyed group makes them live together. Connecting individual stones into a single group results in an increase of liberties; for instance, a single stone played in the center of the board has four liberties, while two adjacent stones in the center of the board form a unit with six; to capture the unit, an opponent would have to play stones on all of its liberties. Thus connected stones are stronger because they share their liberties. (While two separate stones have a total of up to eight liberties, they can be captured separately from one another.)
Since connecting stones keeps them secure, an important offensive tactic is to prevent the opponent from connecting his stones, while at the same time keeping one's own stones connected. This act of dividing the opponent's stones into separate groups is called cutting.
While one should generally try to keep one's own stones connected, situations exist where doing so would be a wasted move. Stones are considered tactically connected if no move by the opposing player could prevent them from being connected.
In a handicap game, Black starts with two or more handicap stones played before White's first move. If played in the traditional places on the "star points", these stones will be useful for the purpose of connection and separation of stones played closer to the edge ("lower"), as well as in many other ways. The White player's stones are threatened immediately with separation, while Black has many potential connections to begin with.
An example of inefficiency or poor coordination of stones in the context of connection is the empty triangle, where the stones are arranged so that they share fewer liberties than if they were deployed in a straight line.
Read more about this topic: Go Strategy And Tactics
Famous quotes containing the words connection and/or separation:
“Much is made of the accelerating brutality of young peoples crimes, but rarely does our concern for dangerous children translate into concern for children in danger. We fail to make the connection between the use of force on children themselves, and violent antisocial behavior, or the connection between watching father batter mother and the child deducing a link between violence and masculinity.”
—Letty Cottin Pogrebin (20th century)
“I was the one who was working to destroy the one thing to which I was committed, that is, my relationship with Gilberte; I was doing so by creating, little by little and through the prolonged separation from my friend, not her indifference, but my own. It was toward a long and cruel suicide of the self within myself which loved Gilberte that I continuously set myself ...”
—Marcel Proust (18711922)