[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement?
From: |
Ian Shaw |
Subject: |
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:59:14 +0100 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Shaw
> Sent: 09 June 2003 09:48
>
>
> > Joseph Heled wrote:
> > It would be nice to start with a clear definition of a
> holding game.
> > Then we can see if we can anything about it.
> >
>
> To kick off the brainstorming I'll offer a definition:
>
> At least 1 side has Anchor[3,4,5,6?,7] AND NOT 2ndAnchor[1-7]
>
> This would include holding games & mutual holding games but
> exclude backgames and low anchor games. Kit Woolsey's' new
> encyclopaedia has ace & two point games in a different
> chapter, so I guess he classes them as a different beast.
Correction: Kit classes ace-, two- and three point games as low anchor games.
So my initial definition should have read: At least 1 side has
Anchor[4,5,6?,7] AND NOT 2ndAnchor[1-7]
--Ian
<<winmail.dat>>