BGonline.org Forums

Interesting 32　RO

Posted By: Colin Owen
Date: Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 7:34 p.m.

In Response To: Interesting 32　RO (Casper van der Tak)

Like you, QF did not make me consider this play.

When I have played triple anchor back games (even briefly, four anchors) though they of course nearly always yielded early shots I failed to contain the chequer(s) due to lack of a front position. This is no doubt partially a function of my own ineptness, but it seems to me that triple anchor back games very often transpose to a traditional two anchor one.

I wonder therefore to what degree, in this position, it is not so much stopping white getting a third anchor as stopping him from getting the three anchor? The 1-4 game is of course much weaker than a 1-3 or 3-4, which one suspects the game may well transpose to.

Messages In This Thread

• Interesting 32
  mochy -- Saturday, 18 February 2012, at 6:22 p.m.
  • Interesting 32
    Casper van der Tak -- Saturday, 18 February 2012, at 6:54 p.m.
    • Interesting 32
      David Wells -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 10:14 p.m.
  • Interesting 32
    Mr Majestyk -- Saturday, 18 February 2012, at 7:15 p.m.
  • Mochy is Right, Very Interesting 32
    Paul Weaver -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 5:03 a.m.
  • Interesting 32
    christian munk-christensen -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 9:15 a.m.
    • Interesting 32
      Casper van der Tak -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 9:21 a.m.
      • Interesting 32
        christian munk-christensen -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 9:49 a.m.
        • Interesting 32
          Casper van der Tak -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 9:57 a.m.
  • Interesting 32
    Taper_Mike -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 11:19 a.m.
  • Interesting 32　RO
    mochy -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 5:56 p.m.
    • Interesting 32　RO
      Casper van der Tak -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 6:34 p.m.
      • Interesting 32　RO
        Colin Owen -- Sunday, 19 February 2012, at 7:34 p.m.