Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 20:01:31 GMT
On 3 Mar 2006 19:51:31 -0800, "Mef" <mwillerth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I find this description of the situation bizarre. B's grou0p is not
weak. W's stones on the outside are weak. B has one strong group
splitting two weak W groups.
Ah, then I see we've found the root of our problem, as you get stronger
and your positional analysis improves, so will your understanding of
why the correct answer is correct.
Let's ask any pros who might be reading this if they'd rather play
against a strong amateur with four corners that look like this:
.. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
.. . . X . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
or like this:
.. . . X . . . .
.. O O X O . . .
.. O X X O . . .
X X X X . . . .
.. O O . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
If W can't enclose B -- and he can't -- how is the latter better for W
than the former?
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: Mef
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- References:
- McGuigan Series # ??
- From: Bruce Wayne
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: Mef
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: Bruce Wayne
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: royls
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: Mef
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: royls
- Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- From: Mef
- McGuigan Series # ??
- Prev by Date: Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- Next by Date: Download glGo1.4 now!
- Previous by thread: Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- Next by thread: Re: McGuigan Series # ??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|