BGonline.org Forums

Riles v. Stick - 42

Posted By: MandM1951
Date: Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 11:38 a.m.

In Response To: Riles v. Stick - 42 (Havard Raddum)

The alternative I see is the bold play of splitting the back checkers: 13/11 24/20.

Using Bold v Safe criteria:

We don't have an advanced anchor. (Safe)

Board strength -- we both have made our 4 point, but we have a blot in our board and White doesn't. (Safe)

We both have two checkers back, but White's are more advanced. (slightly Bold, but I'm not sure?)

So, I ended up making the same play as you, the safe 13/9 11/9.

Messages In This Thread

• Riles v. Stick - 42
  Stick -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 10:27 a.m.
  • Riles v. Stick - 42
    Havard Raddum -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 10:46 a.m.
    • Riles v. Stick - 42
      MandM1951 -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 11:38 a.m.
      • Riles v. Stick - 42
        Havard Raddum -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 1:03 p.m.
  • Riles v. Stick - 42
    neilkaz -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 12:46 p.m.
    • Riles v. Stick - 42
      mikeg -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 1:38 p.m.
  • Riles v. Stick - 42
    Coolrey -- Thursday, 30 April 2009, at 4:57 p.m.
  • Rollout
    Stick -- Friday, 1 May 2009, at 5:14 a.m.