[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]


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]