Somehow that stupid move felt clever at the time! I was worried about black running along the edge. But he wouldn't have had the liberty to do that.Chew Terr wrote:if white played 28 one space to the right, it adds to his liberties while giving black less holes to push through.
Very welcomeSinK wrote:Thank you topaz and Chew Terr for the analysis. Much appreciated.
Noted and fixed.topazg wrote:FWIW: First score in noodley vs keithlard was actually 19 - 18.5
noodley has another win though btw!
Actually, I find it can have both effects. The goal is not to play for the smallest loss, it's to play for the biggest winkeithlard wrote:If we can make changes for next month's tourney, I'd vote for using tie-break matches instead of score ratio. Playing for the smallest loss strongly discourages speculative invasions and puts a dampener on fighting spirit in general. If you're behind, it's important to learn how to invade and reduce frameworks. If you're ahead, you need to know how to defend against this. Neither will happen when both players are worrying about the scoreline.
If you are losing, winning is still far more valuable than the tiebreak anyway, and if you are winning, it can encourage even more sharp / aggressive play. However, I agree it does strongly affect play style, and I think this is important to consider when choosing tiebreakers - it's a decision that needs to be made deliberately.Certainly at least 13x13 makes a lot of sense, as none of you are playing like absolute beginnerskeithlard wrote:I would also prefer a 19x19 tournament. While 9x9 is great for absolute beginners, I would always encourage people to start playing on the bigger boards as soon as possible. After all, the name of the forum isn't "Life in 9x9"
