Difference between revisions of "Talk:Switchback"
(responded) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
For the situation depicted with the C4 switchback, wouldn't this be the stronger move, connecting directly? | For the situation depicted with the C4 switchback, wouldn't this be the stronger move, connecting directly? | ||
<hexboard size="6x9" | <hexboard size="6x9" | ||
| − | coords=" | + | coords="show" |
edges="bottom right" | edges="bottom right" | ||
contents="R g3 e1 d2 B b4 c4 e2 R 1:d3 B 2:d4 R 3:f2" | contents="R g3 e1 d2 B b4 c4 e2 R 1:d3 B 2:d4 R 3:f2" | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Yes, so I removed that section. The formerly-shown sequence is fairly-often useful, but along the lines of [[Cornering#C4_corner_move|C4 as shown here]] rather than to get a switchback. | Yes, so I removed that section. The formerly-shown sequence is fairly-often useful, but along the lines of [[Cornering#C4_corner_move|C4 as shown here]] rather than to get a switchback. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Selinger:''' OK, fair point. I still think it is sometimes better to get g1 than f2 (in the above diagram), and it is a "kind of" switchback, although a very short one. But the problem is that this is really only relevant if the ladder starts from e3. Any further than that and either g3 escapes it outright, or if e2 is occupied, the switchback is extremely short. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe the following is a more relevant situation? | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- C4 acts as a [[ladder escape]] for 2nd and 3rd row ladders, as well as for 4th row ladders given enough space on the 5th row. Also, in the presence of a [[Foldback#Foldback_threat|foldback threat]], c4 can acts as a 4th-to-6th row switchback for the same reason as a4. But in cases where there isn't enough space to do any of the above, c4 may still give a a 4th-to-6th row switchback, like this: --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <hexboard size="7x9" | ||
| + | coords="show" | ||
| + | edges="bottom right" | ||
| + | contents="R g4 c2 c3 d3 B b5 c5 e3 R 1:d4 B 2:d5 R 3:e4 B 4:e5 R 5:h3 B 6:f4 R 7:g2" | ||
| + | /> | ||
| + | Note that Red is connected to the edge by [[Fifth_row_edge_templates#V-2-a|template V2a]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Demer:''' | ||
| + | That is a good example. | ||
| + | I would slightly prefer giving Blue b4 instead of b5: | ||
| + | Although it makes c3 more odd, c3 is somewhat-odd anyway, | ||
| + | and b4-rather-than-b5 makes c5 very natural. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Selinger:''' Great, I've re-added that example, with your modification, to the page. | ||
Latest revision as of 00:04, 7 July 2021
For the situation depicted with the C4 switchback, wouldn't this be the stronger move, connecting directly?
Yes, so I removed that section. The formerly-shown sequence is fairly-often useful, but along the lines of C4 as shown here rather than to get a switchback.
Selinger: OK, fair point. I still think it is sometimes better to get g1 than f2 (in the above diagram), and it is a "kind of" switchback, although a very short one. But the problem is that this is really only relevant if the ladder starts from e3. Any further than that and either g3 escapes it outright, or if e2 is occupied, the switchback is extremely short.
Maybe the following is a more relevant situation?
Note that Red is connected to the edge by template V2a.
Demer:
That is a good example.
I would slightly prefer giving Blue b4 instead of b5:
Although it makes c3 more odd, c3 is somewhat-odd anyway,
and b4-rather-than-b5 makes c5 very natural.
Selinger: Great, I've re-added that example, with your modification, to the page.
