[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results
From: |
bump |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:38:56 -0700 |
> Of cause ....
> Hope I got it right in this second version.
>
> Teun
>
> loadsgf test084.sgf 135
> 1 gg_genmove black
> #? 1 [H8|H9]*
>
> loadsgf test084.sgf 171
> # W J13 is a double threat against which B must defend
> 2 gg_genmove black
> #? 2 [J13]*
Maybe!
My first thought was that at move 171 the best local move
is H10, which handles the problem with sente. After W
connects (or fights ko for six stones) B has sente, at
least in this area.
There is another big problem on the board at move 171.
W is threatening C14 which is very hard to deal with.
Your move has the benefit of making two eyes in the
center, so B can allow the cut at D15.
Dan
- [gnugo-devel] 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, Evan Berggren Daniel, 2002/08/21
- Re: [gnugo-devel] 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, bump, 2002/08/21
- Re: [gnugo-devel] 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, Evan Berggren Daniel, 2002/08/21
- Re: [gnugo-devel] 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, bump, 2002/08/21
- [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, Teun Burgers, 2002/08/21
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, bump, 2002/08/21
- [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, Teun Burgers, 2002/08/21
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, bump, 2002/08/21
- [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, Teun Burgers, 2002/08/21
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results,
bump <=
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Re: 3.3.6 vs 3.2 results, Gunnar Farneback, 2002/08/21