RE: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement?

[Ian Shaw]

> -----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>>