BGonline.org Forums

Re: Re: Re: Re: What could be easier?

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Tuesday, 24 April 2007, at 9:23 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Re: Re: What could be easier? (neilkaz)

I make Chuck's play too, 5/4(4).

I'd note that 5/4(4) rates to be faster than 6/5(4), not "just as fast" -- look how 2s play after either of those moves. So, safer and faster! Second choice would be 6/4 5/4 3/2.

Messages In This Thread

• What could be easier?
  Stick -- Sunday, 22 April 2007, at 10:17 p.m.
  • Re: What could be easier?
    neilkaz -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 3:35 a.m.
  • Re: What could be easier?
    Frank Berger -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 5:01 a.m.
    • Re: Re: What could be easier?
      Mislav Radica -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 10:00 a.m.
  • Re: What could be easier?
    Misja -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 12:54 p.m.
  • Re: What could be easier?
    DC-Ohio -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 5:54 p.m.
  • Re: What could be easier?
    Chuck Bower -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 6:17 p.m.
    • Re: Re: What could be easier?
      DC-Ohio -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 7:42 p.m.
      • Good point. *NM*
        Mislav Radica -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 8:58 p.m.
      • Re: Re: Re: What could be easier?
        neilkaz -- Monday, 23 April 2007, at 10:33 p.m.
        • Re: Re: Re: Re: What could be easier?
          Daniel Murphy -- Tuesday, 24 April 2007, at 9:23 a.m.
  • Welcome to blunderville -- here's your RO
    Stick -- Tuesday, 24 April 2007, at 6:38 p.m.