BGonline.org Forums

MCG vs. SM Cube #3

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Monday, 17 August 2009, at 4:52 p.m.

In Response To: MCG vs. SM Cube #3 (Matt Cohn-Geier)

I think everything hits but 6-1 and 6-6 (and even Stick shouldn't whine about the latter). White has done nothing positive (unless you count moving the primordial anchor up one position as positive). The only glimmer of hope for White is the fact that Blue's homeside builders are so few and/or poorly placed. If the spare on the 8-point were on the 6-point I'd pass for sure.

I have/had an old axiom which worked pretty well over the years -- "don't take a cube with only one anchor when your most likely scenario is playing some kind of backgame." Another axiom: "things can be a lot worse than they appear if you're already on the bar." Of course Ray can pull out a few of his axioms which counter mine. (E.g. "Takers are hard to beat.")

D+P. Learn me sumthun'.

Messages In This Thread

• MCG vs. SM Cube #3
  Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 8:16 a.m.
  • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
    misja -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 3:30 p.m.
  • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
    Chuck Bower -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 4:52 p.m.
  • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
    Keene -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 5:58 p.m.
    • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
      neilkaz -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 6:14 p.m.
      • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
        Stick -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 6:28 p.m.
        • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
          neilkaz -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 6:31 p.m.
          • MCG vs. SM Cube #3
            Keene -- Monday, 17 August 2009, at 7:49 p.m.
  • MCG vs. SM Cube #3 ROLLOUT
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Tuesday, 18 August 2009, at 7:19 a.m.
    • MCG vs. SM Cube #3 ROLLOUT
      Stick -- Tuesday, 18 August 2009, at 10:57 p.m.