[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

65R-64P-61P-63 and 65R-53P-61P-63

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Tuesday, 26 July 2011, at 6:32 p.m.

In Response To: 65R-64P-61P-63 and 65R-53P-61P-63 (Nack Ballard)

Still no rollout posted here; anyway, I'll give it a shot now.

By the way, I see that Nack uses Z rather than S for 24/21 13/7 here...interesting.

In both diagrams, Blue has more checkers back, a slightly stronger board, and a slight race deficit. That, together with Blue's deep home-board point, suggests a bold attacking play over running—i.e., Z rather than R. (I'd even consider D here, but 24/21 looks more constructive than 13/10.) I'd play Z in both diagrams.

Now let's try to account for QF. Though R could be considered "surprising" because it seemingly violates Magriel's safe/bold criteria, I think it's more likely that Paul would use the word for the bold Z than the pedestrian R. Thus I suspect that Paul's computer is telling him it likes 65R-64P-61P-63Z.

If Nack is right that R is correct for exactly one of these positions, then presumably it's 65R-53P-61P-63R. Making the 2pt commits one to attacking more than making the 3pt does; on the other hand, 53P is two fewer pips than 64P, which would tend to swing me away from running. I'd wash these factors and, as I said above, play Z in both positions.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.