| |
BGonline.org Forums
Hitting is bad
Posted By: higonefive In Response To: Hitting is bad (Nack Ballard)
Date: Monday, 31 January 2011, at 9:07 a.m.
Mr. Ballard, i’m working through Book A. As I’ve said I regard this as an example how to think in the early game. From Bill Robertie, I got the concept of the middling play. In this position, there are at foresight, two ways to go: “modern”, securing the advanced anchor and “heyday”, attacking on our 5 point. Making the 9 is in between, “middling”. Having a builder on 9, looking on p. 13 is good in contrast to having it on 10. The main reason, you explained, is diversification vs. duplication. In contrast to your positions you give as an additional example, here is something different. We can use only half a move. White has an additional attacker, slotted on a useful point. So I think, if we list, we gain with the middling play:
- only one blot dangling around
- a useful outfield point within the prime field
- an anchor
- “splitting” in the rear
- hemming white in the front
Making the advanced anchor, this is achieved. But nothing else Our useful builder on 9 becomes a liability. If we are hit, we are committed to defense.
Attacking slots the most valuable inner board point. But we are stripped on 8. Only covering from the heavy 6 point is a true gain.
Both clearcut attempts are trying for me too much with too little. Making the 9 balances the position with the most possibilities for the future. I know, that despite of the merits of a thourough analysis, often only a RO decides, what is right. But, especially in the shed of Book A, I would recommened making the 9.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.