Re: [Bug-gnubg] Holding game improvement?

[Neil Kazaross]

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

..neilkaz..
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Shaw" <address@hidden>
To: "Joseph Heled" <address@hidden>; "Øystein Johansen"
<address@hidden>
Cc: "GnuBg Bug (E-mail)" <address@hidden>; "Neil Kaz"
<address@hidden>
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]
--Ian