On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:01:59 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=---CBbBAA---------bbFcbbb-:1:1:1:44:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O X O O O O |
| O | | O X O O O O |
| | | X O |
| | | X |
| | | 6 |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X | +---+
| | | X O X X | | 2 |
| X X | | X O X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 164 O: 90 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X to play 44
Surely, the "pretty" theme can (and should) be extended here:
"A pretty easy problem of playing a pretty good roll in a pretty bad position." It's trivial as a quiz but missable OTB, I suppose.
Very obviously, we have to protect both our blots. This forces 7/3 so we only have 3 fours to play.
Actually, no, the problem is not easy. I take that back.
However, I want to preserve my thought processes, so I'm not going to erase my first impression.
There's a real debate (from my point of view -- it might be obvious to Stick) about whether we
make the 8 point or play 8/4.
When I (erroneously) thought the problem was trivial, I thought we could play 20/16 after playing 20/8 but
no, that's too many fours.
There seem to be two candidates 8/4 7/3 20/16(2) and 7/3 20/8.
The QF play is 20/8 because the quizzer (not a point about Tim but someone setting these problems in general)
is quite likely to want to punish the impulsive (and weak) player who immediately plays 8/4 without thinking of
the protection play.
However, I'm more impressed by the outfield point than the 8 point.
8/4 20/16(2) for me with about 60% confidence only.
I still think this isn't the QF play but Tim has sometimes claimed to be anti-QF, and this self-assessment sounds
right to me.
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)