[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement?

From: Neil Kazaross
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:02:05 -0500

I'd still recommend putting 3 point games into this category for GNU

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Shaw" <address@hidden>
To: "Joseph Heled" <address@hidden>; "Øystein Johansen"
Cc: "GnuBg Bug (E-mail)" <address@hidden>; "Neil Kaz"
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement?

> -----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]