BGonline.org Forums

An immortal rule of thumb revisited.

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2012, at 2:53 p.m.

In Response To: An immortal rule of thumb revisited. (higonefive)

I'd say yes, really, reading the safe/bold criteria as suggesting tendencies, helpful sometimes but not always, and not always directing an either/or safe/bold choice. "An advanced anchor enables you to play boldly." That doesn't mean that without an anchor you must play safe. "The stronger your opponent’s inner board, the more conservatively you must play. If you have more inner board points closed than your opponent, tend to play boldly; with less points closed, more conservatively. If your opponent has blots in his inner board, you can afford to take more chances." That doesn't mean you must.

Criteria	This Position	Column A	or	Column B	?
(a) opponent's home board strength	2 points	Bold		Bold
(b) presence of an anchor in opponent's home board	No anchor	Safe		Neutral
(c) your home board strength	3 points	Bold		Bold
(d) blots in opponent's home board	none	Safe		Neutral
(e) number of checkers you have back	2	?		Neutral
(f) number of checkers opponent has back	2	?		Neutral

Messages In This Thread

• An immortal rule of thumb revisited.
  higonefive -- Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 5:52 a.m.
  • An immortal rule of thumb revisited.
    Stick -- Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 6:10 a.m.
    • An immortal rule of thumb revisited.
      higonefive -- Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 7:24 a.m.
      • Centered CUBE NMS, sorry. *NM*
        higonefive -- Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 7:28 a.m.
        • Footnotes
          6stones -- Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 12:52 p.m.
  • An immortal rule of thumb revisited.
    Timothy Chow -- Tuesday, 19 June 2012, at 10:53 p.m.
  • An immortal rule of thumb revisited.
    Daniel Murphy -- Wednesday, 20 June 2012, at 2:53 p.m.