[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

61P-42P-64Z-62H-32H-43@-64Z-41

Posted By: Marty Storer
Date: Wednesday, 30 March 2011, at 6:04 p.m.

In Response To: 61P-42P-64Z-62H-32H-43@-64Z-41 (Nack Ballard)

Yes, there are nuances to every position, and a simple rule won't always take every effect into account.

If White's anchor were on the 22, there would be more contact (three of my points in front of his anchor), and his threat to convert to a race would thus be seriously less, and then I would make the 20. I would think the static long-term value of that point would count for more in a position where it's harder for him to race. I would think the greater control of his outfield would be worth more than it is in the original position.

Also, I'd make the 20 if the only modification to the position was to move one of White's checkers from the 6 or 7 back to the 8 to become an active builder--because then his flexibility would be much greater and I'd have to worry much more about his making his 5 point for a four-prime.

In the original position it looks like we have good outfield control already, and 24/20 just decreases our control of White's board in a position that's stacked and inflexible for him. Since we'll want to attack a blot he leaves behind if he breaks his anchor, 13/8 is useful for that purpose as well as for general flexibility.

I'm not sure where the exact break-even point would be where I'd be indifferent between 13/8 and 24/20 21/20. I definitely like 13/8 here, but I doubt 24/20 21/20 is too much worse.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.