[GabrielBen]

The 3-3 joseki is not considered even. It is supposed to be played in circumstances where thickness is inefficient, or an invasion/normal approach is attractive.

Conventional theory is to play the approach move from the right hand, extending the top right formation.

Note; something Michael Redmond mentioned in the commentary which is false is that joseki is even. Its not correct: josekis are not even, but are the best recognized patterns given a specific purpose.

In a way, straying from joseki means that you failed to apply the best possible sequence for the pattern you wanted to play. There is some subtlety around this topic.

[kyyni]

Whether a joseki is even or not depends on the context. However, when a joseki is played, it is considered to produce an even result by both players in that specific situation; otherwise, trivially, they would not play that way. The latter was precisely Redmond's point.

[conanbatt]

> Whether a joseki is even or not depends on the context

The whole point of joseki is its locality. Josekis do not depend on context to be joseki: it could be a bad joseki choice, but what they are, they are locally.

When you deviate from joseki you are; a) creating a new joseki b) recognizing that joseki is not applicable in the context, and its better to take a local loss to get a global gain.

Josekis are filled with non-even results, but that given a tactical goal, they are the best choice possible.

[nandemo]

Thanks for explanation.

I haven't studied AlphaGo games against Lee Sedol. I wonder if Ke Jie played that way because he saw AlphaGo playing a good counter to the more usual moves (an approach on the right side).