BGonline.org Forums

42P-53P-32S-52S-64

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Sunday, 26 June 2011, at 11:56 a.m.

In Response To: Why runing is almost a blunder in this position? (bayblitz)

Yes, unless the sequence was longer, it seemed to be either 42P-53P-32S-52S-64 (as in the game) or 42P-52S-32S-53P-64. I think the latter sequence entails a smaller error (32S).

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• Why runing is almost a blunder in this position?
  bayblitz -- Friday, 24 June 2011, at 7:08 p.m.
  • Why runing is almost a blunder in this position?
    Marty Storer -- Friday, 24 June 2011, at 7:56 p.m.
  • Why runing is almost a blunder in this position?
    Udo Moerschbach -- Friday, 24 June 2011, at 8:39 p.m.
  • Why runing is almost a blunder in this position?
    Nack Ballard -- Saturday, 25 June 2011, at 5:59 p.m.
    • Why runing is almost a blunder in this position?
      bayblitz -- Saturday, 25 June 2011, at 9:10 p.m.
      • 42P-53P-32S-52S-64
        Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 26 June 2011, at 11:56 a.m.