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

BGonline.org Forums

Rollout and variants

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Wednesday, 30 March 2011, at 6:42 p.m.

In Response To: Rollout and variants (Timothy Chow)

140


1O ' '2O '5X4X2X ' ' '4O

' ' '2O2X4O '2O ' ' '2X

61P-42P-64Z-62H-32H-43@-64Z-41166


Nack and Neil seem to be arguing that it's *thematic to move the back checker forwards.

I can't speak for Neil, but I would say that it is natural to anchor, not thematic. Perhaps the best (though not big enough) counter-reason not to anchor is that 13/8 improves the forward distribution.

I'm still inclined to the theory that 24/20 21/20 wins out not because it advances the back checker, but *in spite of advancing the back checker...

It is not clear-cut whether the loose back checker is better off on the 24pt or further advanced; there is a tradeoff. Sure, Blue would like to hit a third checker, but he is not desperate to do so -- he doesn't need it to win. If he runs his loose checker into the outfield, it can be used effectively there as well. For example, after Blue plays @ (24/20 21/20), consider the sequence: White 53A (7/2 6/3), Blue 52S (20/15 13/11!). That is, Blue can force the issue sometimes; he doesn't necessarily have to roll a perfecto to make a new blocking point.

Mike Corbett was of the opinion that Snowie would run the back checker in this sort of situation more eagerly than it should.

Most definitely.

Nack

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.