BGonline.org Forums

Opening 32 XGR+ RO/43XGR+RO compared with prime field theory.

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Monday, 7 February 2011, at 7:16 p.m.

In Response To: Opening 32 XGR+ RO/43XGR+RO compared with prime field theory. (higonefive)

That's a good explanation for 43D dominance versus 32D non-dominance, higonefive. The 10pt builder is common to both positions, but the 9pt builder aims directly at the 4pt and 3pt, whereas the 11pt builder does not.

Supplementally (as you say), the 9pt might itself be covered. For example, 43D-63H-42P (i.e., Bar/23 13/9) emerges with a primier offense than 32D-63H-42P (i.e., Bar/21 13/11). For another example, 43D-42P-21B (i.e., 24/22 10/9) emerges with a stronger position than either 32D-42P-21B (e.g., 24/22 13/10) or 32D-42P-21P (i.e., 11/9 10/9), by virtue of the fact that the stronger 9pt was already started.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• Opening 32 XGR+ RO
  neilkaz -- Sunday, 6 February 2011, at 1:43 a.m.
  • Opening 32 XGR+ RO
    Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 6 February 2011, at 3:18 a.m.
    • Opening 32 XGR+ RO
      neilkaz -- Sunday, 6 February 2011, at 6:26 a.m.
      • Opening 32 XGR+ RO
        Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 6 February 2011, at 11:09 a.m.
    • Opening 32 XGR+ RO
      David Rockwell -- Monday, 7 February 2011, at 4:21 a.m.
      • Opening 32 XGR+ RO
        Nack Ballard -- Monday, 7 February 2011, at 6:21 a.m.
  • Opening 32 XGR+ RO/43XGR+RO compared with prime field theory.
    higonefive -- Monday, 7 February 2011, at 11:17 a.m.
    • Opening 32 XGR+ RO/43XGR+RO compared with prime field theory.
      Nack Ballard -- Monday, 7 February 2011, at 7:16 p.m.
  • Inefficiency of 10pt builder
    Nack Ballard -- Monday, 7 February 2011, at 7:02 p.m.