7

It's entirely a question of efficiency: It simply takes fewer stones to secure more territory if you play in the corner. Taking, for example, the eleven stones White plays in your sample game, if Black had played the same number of stones in the corner instead: $$Bc $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - $$ -...


5

It is a question of efficiency. In this diagram, white has indeed made a live group, taking 11 moves to surround 4 points of territory. The black stones 3 and 5 make a loose but significant claim to 30 points or more. If black had been making similar moves with the other nine plays while what was building its little fortress, it would have a much more ...


1

The answers by goldPseudo and David Siegel say most of it. I should just like to add these positions, namely three groups which can be expected to live unless White gets in a lot of moves very close around them before Black answers: $$Bc $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ - a a . . . . . . . . b b . . . . . . . - $$ - a a . . . . . . . . b b . . ...


1

Found a nice answer in a Reddit thread by byu/DiscreteMelody Many of these leading conventions are borrowed from Bridge, and for great reason - they work. Even though half of the cards are known in Bridge, we can still convey a great deal of information to partner on our leads. The following leading conventions are commonly used when the aim is to maximize ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible